While I don’t know if I would go as far as to argue for an actual Purgatory (though working on my dissertation this summer definitely felt like it), I have now come to see that the biblical understanding of the afterlife is more complex than the Sunday school version you often get of the Protestant view of salvation. The typical story is that when you die, if you are a Christian you go to the good place and if you are a not a Christian you go to the bad place, end of story. This version of the story is essentially true. Christians will end up in a good place and those who reject God will end up in a bad place eventually, but the biblical understanding of the afterlife seems to be more complex. You die and there will be a final resurrection and a final judgement some day, but description of what happens in the meantime is extremely vague. Who knows, maybe some people will be technologically “resurrected” after being cryonically preserved before the final judgement. To go another direction, maybe some people will remain as ghosts and vampires until the final resurrection and judgement. I am not saying I believe any of those scenarios to be true, but as long as you accept that said “resurrected” humans, ghosts or vampires will still face the final judgement, you can’t rule it out biblically.
Sorry, but the origin of the concept of Purgatory had nothing to do with that. You really need to get an adequate education about church history! The idea can be traced back to Plato and is found in some of the church Fathers. It was refined in the tenth through twelfth centuries as a way to reconcile seemingly conflicting teachings in the Bible, specifically that Christians still sin but nothing impurity is allowed in Heaven.
“After the cross”? That’s pretty sorry theology: Christ was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek at conception! The entire Incarnation and especially the years of ministry was a priestly operation.
You just described Purgatory as Polkinghorne seems to be setting it forth: even after death we get to keep becoming more like Jesus.
Seeing how far short I fall of being like Christ, I hope there is a “post-life purgatory”!
Plus as several of the early Fathers said, it is hard to imagine that Christ has completely defeated the Enemy if any at all are lost.
That matches what the current Catechism of the Catholic Church says.
Even before that there were theologians who spoke of “sideways time”, an axis of time perpendicular to the ordinary one such that someone could spend all the duration necessary to be “made ready to meet God” without any duration happening in the ordinary course of time.
Amen!
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Purgatory is about that “good work in you”, in Polkinghorne’s concept.
I frequently look it as human sin resulting in some sort of rips in the underlying fabric of reality and Redemption as repairing those rips, but in a way that still leaves rips in us individually that need their own repairs so that we can attain the stature of Christ and be true images of God.
An image I find helpful is that being in Christ is like being in a boat: you may be in the boat but that doesn’t make you a sailor; being a sailor requires learning and effort.
Which fits well with translating “πίστις” (PISS-tiss) as “allegiance”; allegiance to the captain of a ship requires more than just being on board, it requires participation.
A Catholic mystic I read took the “life is in the blood” concept and that Christ could not be subject to death as leading to renewal of the whole world due to Christ’s blood having “undying life” in it and thus spreading life to the world beginning when the first drop of His blood was shed by the first of those thirty-nine lashes. This contrasts with the blood of animals that when shed as sacrifice just dies the same way the body does and so can have no enduring effect, just a momentary one.
It’s worth noting that the Incarnation from conception up to the Cross is referred to by theologians as Christ’s humiliation, and the Cross (especially in the ancient church) is the beginning of His exaltation, being His enthronement (followed by the triumphal parade of the Resurrection).
That was the whole point – the hard part was keeping to a path that didn’t (1) avoid it or (2) bring it about early. In order to break Death the Undying One had to meet it and let it grab Him – only to find its claws breaking as it tried to hang on.
Well yes, but the sacrificial system was only there in the first place to point to Christ (and not just the blood sacrifices but all of them).
Yes – and that argument show up very, very early, well before Christians were spending any money on buildings.
I forget where this analogy came from, but it has been compared this way: salvation is like being a chipped and fractured statue that is picked up and set on a stand, but there is also the matter of repairing the fractures and filling in the chips to make the image whole again.
Personally . . . Isaiah primarily.
No – it tells us that the Old Testament writings must conform to the Gospel. The old covenants are all founded on Christ, not the other way around.
How the cleansing of believers happens is a matter of interpretation because we have little information about what happens after death.
I do not see a need for purgatory. I believe that when God forgives us, we are forgiven. When He cleanses us, we are cleansed.
The difference between the life in the current body and the life in the ‘spiritual body’ Paul was telling about is likely to be great. My guess is that much of our tendency to lust and rebel and weakness in temptations disappears with our current life and body. It is replaced by something better that makes us want matters that are not sin.
I am open to different interpretations about what happens immediately after death and what is the ‘heaven’ believers and churches are talking about. It is possible that many of the mental pictures we have about ‘heaven’ and believers going to ‘heaven’ are not true.
My current understanding is that Jesus will return on Earth and the resurrected believers (‘first resurrection’) will be with him on Earth for a period that has been described as ‘a thousand years’, although that does not necessarily mean literal 1000 years.
I know there are many who support a different interpretation and do not believe that resurrected believers live and rule with Jesus on Earth for an extended period.
Anyhow, what happens after the possible Kingdom on Earth period is obscure. The biblical scriptures do not tell much about that and what they tell is metaphorical.
So, what is the ‘heaven’ where believers are going and at what stage of our post-death life are we going there?
again…you are playing games. Hellentistic tendencies regarding hell and hades is a far cry from the Catholic model that developed over centuries…to the point where it was used for exactly the purposes which i stated.
The Late Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses, such as the unrestricted sale of indulgences by professional “pardoners”[13] sent to collect contributions to projects such as the rebuilding of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. These abuses were one of the factors that led to the Protestant Reformation, with most Protestant groups today rejecting [citation needed] the idea of purgatory as it conflicted with the doctrine of “Salvation by grace alone”
I must ask, do you align more with Catholocism or Protestantism? Im Prostestant and for good reason as illustrated above.
No games, just correcting a false statement. Now you just added to it: “the Catholic model that developed over centuries” did not originate as you said. And moving your own goalposts from how it originated to what it was used for only makes it worse.
No. And I would never align myself with what you present as “Protestantism”, though I would with the original (as found in the Augsburg Confession).
How does one define heresy…is it not via its fruits (doesnt the bible say “by their fruits ye shall know them”).
This is why a number of protestant movements consider catholicism pagan…its intent was always to be a wolf in sheeps clothing. The ultimate goal is the original intent, to corrupt. Whilst you may continue to further the position that Judo-Christianity obtained many of its ideas from other cultures, i do not agree with that view. My view only considers that all biblical knowledge was given directly to the Jews by God in the manner exactly as illustrated in the bible.
Christ spent his entire ministry i think highlighting the corruption within the Jewish faith…so much so that the apostles took the gospel to the Gentiles via Christianity rather than Judaism. The Catholic church fell under the same spell as the Jewish leadership by the time of Christ…hence the fruit being the use of purgatory and the penance system as a means of pillaging money from the people…whats worse is that when people started to question it, the church then decided to obscure biblical knowledge by insisting that the bible be only written in latin (even killing individuals who publicised other languages) that was all clearly for one single purpose, to corrupt the gospel and to attain absolute power. Protestantism believes that this is the fulfilment of the prophecies in the book of Revelation (as I’m sure you are already familiar with).
So it is my position that the Catholic church is not the same entity that the apostle Peter setup…it was a corruption of that entity. I do not believe that the Catholic church has or presents the gospel rather, i see an organisation that has managed to convince its followers that salvation is a ritual that can be attained through money and works and has leader who, it seems to me, claims to be able to make intercession on our behalf to God…all the more powerfully when money is also paid to the church. What i see as rather ironic is that the Pope himself appears to be largely penniless…whilst at the same time living surrounded by incredible luxury and wealth (if one wishes to talk contradictions…there’s that)
Agree, God in His great mercy will not even remember our sins once forgiven.
Hebr 8:12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
Hebr 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
Hebr 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”
Hebr 10:17 then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
Hebr 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
The Hebrew author is quoting from the OT, Jer 31:34
Ok, so now we are travelling into an area i find interesting. I much prefer this to tit for tat jossling…so i really appreciate your direction here…
Generally i also agree with the Lutheran model although i do have some areas where i do not. These are:
IX Baptism is necessary - i do not believe that all must be baptised in phsycal water to be saved. We know that John the Baptist used water, however, Christ is not recorded as having baptised anyone himself (although he was baptised). I have always found this interesting because it was Christ who sent His comforter to the apostles in the upper room (a baptism of the Holy Spirit if you like).
Having said the above about baptism, i do agree that we should choose to be baptised in water by immersion but not because i literally believe we are reborn as new physical humans but because it represents a giving up of our old ways and a rebirth into a new life (so i guess I’m saying i believe in the importance of the physical ritual)
X The Lords Supper - I do not believe that its literally Christs body and blood…again this is a symbolic ritual. Necessary and important, but a ritual nevertheless.
XIV Of Ecclesiastical Order Only those who are “properly called” may publicly preach or administer the Sacraments. - I don’t even know what this means. Salvation is between God and the individual, so making some kind of human judgment on who is called and who is not???
XVII Of Christ’s Return to Judgment Christ will return to raise the dead and judge the world; the godly will be given everlasting joy, and the ungodly will be “tormented without end”. This article rejects notions of a millennial kingdom before the resurrection of the dead. - agree with the first bit, disagree with eternal torment. SDA’s view this as the second death after which there is no more memory, no more consciousness…the dead know nothing. If they know nothing, they cannot be in hell being tormented!
XXVI Of the Distinction of Meats Human traditions that hold fasting and special observances with dietary restrictions as a means of gaining the favor of God are contrary to the gospel. While fasting and other practices are useful spiritual practices, they do not justify man nor offer salvation. - I do not agree that eating unclean foods is acceptable. I believe that knowingly eating unclean foods against ones conscience could result in being rejected and not saved. Having said that, we make far bigger mistakes than eating pork or crab or frog, however since my conscience tells me it is wrong to do that, i do not eat such things. Also, I’m vegetarian…so there’s that 
!
False.
False.
I don’t know where you get your ideas about church history, but they resemble propaganda rather than fact. How Rome fell into various errors is far more complex than your shallow accusations suggest. Right up into the sixth century the church struggled with numerous issues while trying to spread the faith. Rome did not set out to be “a wolf in sheeps clothing”, and the corruption that made that name at all fitting didn’t really set in until the eighth century when the bishops of Rome started to regard themselves as rulers of the church rather than servants and began to insist that all Christians were supposed to obey them.
As for the penance system, that has its own complex origins that had nothing to do with money. It began with the church growing faster than priests could be properly educated: after Confession, priests were supposed to give advice on how to amend one’s life, but poorly educated priests (many could not even read the Gospels!) were woefully inadequate to the task, so wiser heads set down some guidelines for giving such advice in various circumstances. Unfortunately this led to priests relying on these little books of guidance plus drifting towards the simplest responses, so assigning a certain number of “Hail Marys” and/or “Our Fathers” ended up as the common denominator. This led ordinary believers to the impression that saying these prayers was paying for their sins rather than being meant to guide them into a better spiritual life, and as new priests were ordained they had the same understanding, and so it came to dominate the church – despite the fact that various bishops and even cardinals knew better and tried to correct things.
Also false. A minority may hold that belief, but they are definitely a minority. It was popular at the time of the Reformation, but that has to be viewed in light for the fact that since as early as the sixth century people have understood Revelation as being fulfilled in their time and referred to various religious leaders as antichrist – indeed the book of Revelation only made it into the canon because Christians of the second century read it and saw in it the things that were happening around them.
Haven’t actually checked out any Catholic churches thoroughly, have you? Out of scores of visits to both Catholic and ‘non-denominational’ churches, I would have to say that which group does a better job of proclaiming the Gospel is a toss-up.
Odd, since the fact that salvation is through the Blood of Christ is proclaimed as part of every celebration of the Eucharist. Odd also in that the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear that salvation rests on the merits of Christ. But they tend to take this verse seriously:
For [God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life…
Well of course he does – every believer can “make intercession on our behalf to God”, in fact we are admonished to do so! And IIRC John Paul I commented that his prayers are no more potent than those of any devout believer (including non-Catholics who hold to the Creed).
True but it is not related to Purgatory as per the opening post, which said:
. . . not the traditional place of torment for sins to burn them out, but a place of hope where ‘souls’ can strive to gain more and more of the Light.
As I understand Polkinghorne’s concept it begins with the point that sins are forgiven, so forgiveness of sins is not related to Purgatory – as I noted, his is not the traditional view. It has far more to do with attaining “the whole measure of the fulness of Christ”, with becoming more Christlike. What his version is making up for is not sin(s) but the flaws or lacks in us due to not having become fully mature in Christ. The point is that our sins being gone makes us like Christ only in one aspect; it does not fully conform us to His Image.
That’s contrary to what Paul says in Romans 6 and for that matter contrary to what Peter said in his Pentecost message; both portray Baptism as something that has an actual effect, with no trace of the (frankly humanistic) idea that it is us doing anything at all.
Why don’t you think that Jesus meant what His words say? If when God commanded light to exist light did so, why when He declares of the bread “This is My Body” and of the wine "This is My Blood"are those things also not so?
That just adheres to how the New Testament shows things. Paul didn’t decide on his own to go be a missionary, he was sent by the church in Antioch; Timothy didn’t just choose to be a missionary and bishop, he was appointed by Paul. The apostle clearly says that no one chooses the office of the ministry himself, he must be called by someone with proper authority the same way that Aaron was called by Moses. It isn’t about salvation at all, it’s about doing things in an orderly fashion and about ensuring that pastors/teachers are sound.
Just BTW the apostles in the New Testament were following the rabbinical system as it was in the first century, where laying on of hands by a group of rabbis who affirmed the person’s competence and call was how official leaders were ordained.
Then you disagree with the Gospel writer who told us that Christ declared all foods clean – there is no longer any such thing as “unclean food”.
This one always struck me as just being thrown in without much thought.
Interesting view.
adamjedgar is clearly picking and choosing what he wants to take literally and what he wants to say is just symbolic. This is, of course, the same with everyone. But it is a problem when he uses it to judge people as “heretical” just because they choose differently. We read the OT just as much as He does, and make our own decisions about what is symbolic just as he does. It is clear to me we should be listening to EVERYTHING God is telling us including all He sends to us from the earth and sky. This and the words of Jesus, are the most reasonable lens through which the OT should be read and tell us which choices to make regarding what is symbolic. Regardless, judging others heretical on this basis of agreement with his own choices looks very much like building ones house on sand because of what Jesus said in Matthew 7.
Would that be the same scriptures Jesus was talking about when He said: “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;”
Life is not to be found in the scriptures but in Jesus.
That is ignoring the statement that the Berean Jews listened to the apostle Paul’s teachings, and rather than taking him at his word, they opened the scriptures to check for themselves.
We read the OT for ourselves and we see that it does not say what you claim. But you demand that we accept what you say it means rather than reading it for ourselves.
I agree with the church Fathers who maintained that any doctrine not resting on this principle is either useless or false. By that measure YEC is at best useless.
(emphasis mine) Well said.
And I presume they did their checking in the original language!
Something from the OT comes to mind: Joshua didn’t say, “Choose this day whether to accept interpretation X”, he said, “Choose this day whom you will serve”.
Reading the opening of Genesis as history, there’s not a whole lot about Jesus, or even very much about God, but reading it as the ancient literature it is it shouts about Jesus and God. That tells me that the second option is to be preferred because it makes the first Creation account a matter of “who” and not of “what”, thus pointing to where to find life. Indeed from that perspective the opening Creation account could be summarized as “You can’t find life in Egypt” because in statement after statement it refers to major Egyptian gods and in essence declares, “Not him; Yahweh!”
- If this is turning into yet another YEC thread, then I’m going to post this latest project that I completed: Lists of Bible verses in the NASB that contain the words “sun” and “moon”
Yes and no.
Something definitely changes. We go from the laws of nature which doesn’t care what we want or believe to something else (and frankly I think we are somewhat stuck with what we have made of ourselves). I suspect we come to an end of this situation where reality forces our attention on things outside ourselves, and where God has a way of intruding on our barging ahead with our own desires. Without those laws of nature how can we change our mind? How can we forge new relationships? It’s like we have a connection to God in the laws of nature He has made and if we don’t make our own relationship with God a part of ourselves then the greater part of any hope we have is gone. … so that is a yes in answer to your question.
On the other hand, I don’t see any good reason to make this about whether you are Christian or not. I don’t think that amounts to much more than our beliefs and opinions. And the message of Christianity is that we cannot expect salvation just because we know something other people do not. That is Gnosticism not Christianity. Of course it is about having a relationship with God. But whatever we may say about this is likely little more than empty hot air and self-delusion. Only God knows whether we really have a relationship with Him.
I think the sin getting in the way is enormous, where we are likely only aware of the outermost superficial layer. I say this because in my experience, overcoming the sins we know with the help of God just reveals more sins underneath them. To be sure, I think even the smallest crack is enough for God to get into our lives and make some changes. But this doesn’t mean we are and have what we have convinced ourselves to think.
And this is why I think the answer to your question is also, No.
- IMO there ought to be a reward for anyone who can find “evidence”, in the Bible itself, of (a) a global earth, (b) the planet Earth’s revolution around the Sun, and (c) the planet Earth’s rotation; no?
Yes and no… (and perhaps this is just to add some clarification in what you are trying to say)…
Yes because because it is a work of God rather than ours. We simply have to put ourselves in His hands – even just a crack lets God begin His work on us. Which is not to say enabling us to make that choice is not a work of God also.
But it is also no because we are not such simple creatures. We can only say yes to giving ourselves over to God in so far as we understand ourselves, which is very lacking. Having let go of the sins we know about, doesn’t always mean we are letting go of other sins we haven’t realized yet. And thus it is only too likely we will experience more than one such surrender event.
And this expectation of repetition is how forgiveness becomes indulgence.
This is one of the two great flaws of Christianity in practice. An exaggerated emphasis on forgiveness becomes indulgence and an exaggerated emphasis on sanctification becomes entitlement.
So we must remember forgiveness and sanctification are intertwined. Forgiveness is pointless without change (sanctification) and sanctification is a process of peeling the onion to discover more sin in need of forgiveness.
Salvation is not forgiveness. Equating these becomes indulgence. And saved (i.e. being Christian) is not sanctification. This equation transforms sanctification into entitlement. And both of these have often twisted Christianity into a force of evil in the world.
Salvation is becoming Christ-like. The sum of (good) human possibilities are comprehended as culminating in Christ; humanity progresses (its destiny) into persons who are like Christ. We may progress from our present state (symbolized by the first Adam) into that revealed by the actions and teachings of Christ
The Gospel urges repentance, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. It unambiguously states that all who repent and seek forgiveness, by the grace of God, will become citizens of the Kingdom. The central question to humanity is that of sin and redemption, the forgiveness of our sins through the blood of Christ and the growth of repentant souls into the children of God.
Christ is the resurrection and the life, and no-one could come to the Father accept through the Son. Christians are totally dependent on Christ for forgiveness and cleansing of their sins. This dependence shows the relationship between those called by God to faith in Christ and this is shown by the practices adopted by the Church. This relationship calls for the one-ness within Christian life, Christian thought, and Christian belief in the One-True-God.
The life of Christ discussed in the Gospels includes healing those who sought Him through faith; Christ taught His disciples, fed the hungry, healed the sick, forgave sins, and engaged with the religious leaders to show them where they had erred. These accounts testify to the mercy and love from Christ to all, including sinners and non-Jews, and illustrates the various responses from people. Christ emphasized the importance of faith while showing to His disciples that the Holy Spirit conferred understanding.