Purgatory?

[Josh]

As to the subject of purgatory in general, I think it's best to establish common ground with Catholics first, and this might be a bit of a shocker, but hear me out---

All Christians believe in purgatory, as it is clearly taught in Scripture:

1 Cor. 3:11-15
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

That we will all undergo a "fiery" refinement seems assured. The real contention isn't so much that there will be a purging fire, but what it will be like: when it will occur, how long will it last (especially), and also- what is the purpose of the fire?

As to how long the fire will last, I sometimes think this is a moot point, as we don't really have any way of gauging time outside of our physical existence. Time seems like it would be completely relative.

As to what is the purpose of this 'fire', I think it must be stated clearly that this is not a 'second chance' of salvation (my understanding is that although many less-imformed catholics might see it this way, in official catholic teaching purgatory is only for Christians). Neither should it be seen as an alternative payment for sins (as if Christ's blood wasn't enough).

I think we should see this purgatorial fire spoken of in Corinthians, as just the necessary prep-work for heaven- Christ's final work of sanctification in our lives.

[Josh]

Numbers 14:34
For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.'

I was just reading in my Ancient Christian Commentary on Scriptue and came across a comment by Caesarius of Arles (4-5th century) which seems to take this verse as symbolic of the developing doctrine of purgatory:

"In the fact that for forty days of sin those people were afflicted in the desert for forty years and not permitted to enter the holy land, a kind of similarity to the future judgment seems to be evident. At that time the number of sins will have to be calculate, unless perchance there is the balance of good works or of evils which a man has suffered in his life... However, it is within the power of no one to know these things perfectly, except him to whom "the Father has given all judgment".

Seems a bit of a stretch to me, especially considering the New Covenant in which are sins are no longer counted against us in such a calculated way. It's obvious that by this time, the modern Catholic understanding of purgatory was taking root. I do very much appreciate Caesarius' final statement that reminds us that this is conjecture at best.

As the Roman Catholic Church grew, it took a lot of the wonderful speculation of the early Fathers and quickly solidified imany of its elements into official Church teaching in the middle ages. From my perspective, that's questionable, though it shows that ideas like purgatory didn't just spring up from out of nowhere.

[marc p]

admin said:

As to the subject of purgatory in general, I think it's best to establish common ground with Catholics first...

Josh, this is such an important thing to remember. Many Catholics are, in fact, true followers of Christ and are our brothers and sisters. There are many who are sheep in wolves clothing, or those whom "[Jesus] never knew" (see Matthew 35:31-46), in all denominations of Christianity. But it is not our job to judge who is truly saved and who is not. We are called to live in unity and peace with one another (see Romans 12, and many of Paul's other writings).

Elise and I, prior to partnering with our current pastor to plant a new church, considered joining a Catholic church. The liturgy and tradition really appealed to us. We had grown tired of the ambiguity of this post-modern era and all of the modern pomp that at least our particular mega-church had begun to subscribe to. We wanted something that felt familiar and mysterious all at once. I think that Catholic mass is really beautiful, and I wish that more churches incorporated liturgy in their worship. If you look at worship in the OT, it was very organized (and dare I say, "produced"), but I guarantee it was not "canned." Everyone knows their place and their part (Nehemiah 12:22-44). These people were really worshiping the Living God. Anyway, enough of that aside...

I think you have assessed purgatory really well, and I agree that time is probably a moot point. I think it's important to realize that we will all go through this fire. I know in the past, I have found myself arrogantly thinking, "I will avoid the fire, while others will barely escape through it." Not so. I think you said it well, "the necessary prep-work for heaven- Christ's final work of sanctification in our lives."

[Josh]

Yes... doesn't it just make you cringe when you hear someone say something like, "Is she Catholic or Christian?"

Christians from the Protestant vein need to check their presumption and arrogance at the door when communicating with Christians of the other major branches-- of course the same thing is true of Catholics and Orthodox, of course.

In my opinion, the majority of the 'beef' that many Protestants have with Catholics is really based on misunderstandings or superficial understandings of Catholic doctrine or Christian history.

That's not to say I don't find myself disagreeing with some elements of Catholic teaching, but, honestly I can't really think of any Protestant branch that I feel totally at home with either.

That's just the point- it's important to recognize differences and it's great to debate theological points with zest, as long as we can put those pursuits in proper perspective-- and not erect artificial barriers between those who truly believe in the Lordship of Christ.

I often feel like a 'defender' of Catholicism in conversations I have with Protestants. But I feel the winds of change mind eventually soften those old, hardened lines of demarcation.

Oh, and I love the liturgy too. Actually, I really dig the Anglican Church and it's liturgy- standing somewhere between Catholicism and the Protestant world.

At Aletheia from time to time we've read from the book of common prayer to at least incorporate some of what liturgy has to offer.

Also, we celebrated Lent this year, which I found to be an amazing way to tap back into some ancient Christian roots.

Yes, there is a lot to learn from our cousins in Christ.

[Douglas]

Being in Central America right now the whole catholic - protestant issue is very potent. I have been very blessed with several Catholic friends both here and in the states that are devout believers.

I recently learned a bit of interesting history about this issue as well. Josh you can correct me if i am wrong. But from the protestant reformation, 1600 or so, up to the start of the 20th century the protestant church was for the most part uninvolved in missions at any level. For three hundred years the main focus was inward. Yet The catholic church on the other hand has been working faithfully through this whole time all over the globe ministering to the poor and preaching the good news.

This was for me a real check. I stand in the line of a great many faithful catholics who have gone before and given their lives for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I should never be so arrogant as to brush aside so many faithful witnesses. (intentionally referencing Hebrews)

I was looking at this in light of the Apostle Paul's sacrificing in the temple at the end of Acts. 21:18-26
Paul at this point understood that the work of Christ had nullified the old sacrificial system but here he was in the temple sacrificing. I can not think that he did it out of fear. This is a man that has had rocks thrown at him until the people thought he was dead. Twice i think he says. Flogged, beaten etc.

I think rather that he so valued unity within the new church that he was willing to set aside the revelation of Jesus Christ himself and embrace for a while the old way a way that he considered empty and even dead. This speaks volumes to me about how i ought to relate to my catholic brothers and sisters. It is more important sometimes to embrace unity than to fight for truth. I cant believe i just wrote that but i cannot figure out this passage any other way.

Douglas

[Josh]

I hadn't ever thought of that point (missionary activities). Provocative.

As to Acts 21, I digress, but, interestingly, I just read a very helpful perspective on the relationship between Paul and James, the brother of Jesus (head of the Jerusalem Church and author of the NT book by that name). It's one of the sections in a book entitled "What Have They Done by Jesus?" by Ben Witherington III (a great read, btw!)

Anyway, he addresses the supposed tensions between these two (as well as Peter's involvement)- from the early days of the Church, to the scene in Galatians 2, through the Church council of Acts 15, on down to the passage you referenced in Acts (Acts 21).

Somewhere along the way I acquired a somewhat negative view of James, but Witherington's investigation cleared things up for me considerably, with the end result being that I think James is one of the coolest of the apostles.

Anyway, none of this nullifies anything you said, Douglas (I think that at least from Paul's perspective, it's probably pretty accurate), but it's just interesting to me that you brought that passage up.

One of Witherington's points is that early Jewish Christianity was different yet complimentary to early Gentile Christianity. James was an excellent mediator between the two, but nonetheless both groups had some differences in what the exact role of the Mosaic law in the lives of Christians was to be. Both agreed that Gentiles need not become Jewish to follow Yeshua, but apparently disagreed (and agreed to disagree) on what was the most authentic way for a Jew to live as a Christian in continuity with their heritage.

Another thing he highlights (which we don't normally think about when reading Acts 21) is how tense Jerusalem was when Paul decided to visit. The Chrisitans there were under extreme duress- living in extreme danger. James' instructions to Paul, though fateful, were actually quite wise, in my opinion, and don't reflect faulty theology, but rather tact and support for what James was trying to accomplish in Jerusalem as head of the 1st Church.

Again, kind of a digression, but it's trippy to me that you mentioned that text when I've just been ruminating on it myself.

Yes, I do think that passage has a powerful message of putting up with each other for the sake of unity, and readily lends itself to the subject at hand.

[Douglas]

I haven't figured out how to quote from another article yet but i loved what you (josh) said,

"Both agreed that Gentiles need not become Jewish to follow Yeshua, but apparently disagreed (and agreed to disagree) on what was the most authentic way for a Jew to live as a Christian in continuity with their heritage."

This is a profound truth and an example to us today as a the church in terms of its practical application to our lives. It also challenges, at least for me, how i understand God. There are areas in which God has given his church great freedom. If we can accept this, the challenge of true unity within the church become much more plausible.

Douglas

[christopher]

Hey Josh,

you wrote:

All Christians believe in purgatory, as it is clearly taught in Scripture:

1 Cor. 3:11-15
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

That we will all undergo a "fiery" refinement seems assured. The real contention isn't so much that there will be a purging fire, but what it will be like: how long will it last, especially, and also- what is the purpose of the fire?

I know this is an old post, but I was wondering if you still held this view on this passage.

The reason I ask, is that, looking at the whole context of chapters 1-4, I've come to see Paul referring to himself, Apollos, and Cephas here (and by implication, other teachers and preachers) rather than all Christians in general.

He seems to be saying, "Don't get divisive over your favorite teachers (sectarianism), God will eventually judge between them who is right or wrong. And the work that has been good will stand up, and the work that is faulty will fail."

What do you think?



Douglas wrote:

It is more important sometimes to embrace unity than to fight for truth.

I think you hit on something more profoundly true that most of us know. I’m beginning to see the balance between truth and unity like a triangle, with truth being the apex (very narrow by nature) and unity being the bottom (very wide by nature). Both are an important part of the whole, but one must not undermine the other. That's the tricky part. We must find away to reject both pluralistic relativism as well as fundamentalist exclusivism. It's a balancing act that can only be accomplished by the guidance of the Holy Spirit IMO.

[Josh]

12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

While I don't disagree with you on the immediate context, I think this passage does refer to all Christians and is an echo of Christ's parables about the talents. The idea is simply that we will be judged according to how we utilize the resources and opportunities God brings our way to expand the kingdom.

In addition to the parallels between this and Jesus' kingdom parables, I think Paul's use of the word "If any man" lends in favor of a general applicability as well as his reference to "the Day approaching"-- which seems pretty clearly a reference to the final judgment rather than some personal [lower-case] judgment.

Also, the fire metaphors have a nice final judgment association as well.

Paul is constantly checking his life against his eschatology. For him the final judgment isn't something off in the remote distance, it is always held before his view as a catalyst for his actions in the here and now (1 Cor. 9:25, 2 Timothy 2:5, 4:8, to name a few) And I'm not implying that his motivation was merely fear based. The judgment for Paul is something to {soberly} look forward to.

We even see this reference to that "final eschatological day" of judgment right off the bat in 1 Corinthians 1:8:

He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That all the saints at the final judgment will be stripped of everything ungodly that clings to us, and that for some this will be more painful than others, seems assured (at least to me) from passages like this (and Jesus' kingdom/ judgment parables)- whether we envision this as a nearly instantaneous event or one of longer duration.

[christopher]

Hi Josh,

You might be right. However, there is nothing in the passage itself that compels me to see Paul applying this to anyone but preachers and teachers. I think it goes along with what He said elsewhere of the church being built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (Eph 2:20). Also, it would seem to agree with what James said about teachers receiving a ‘stricter judgment’ (James 3:1).

My ever-developing eschatology is leading me towards the belief that most of Jesus’ statements that deal with the judgment (including Matt 25), are not about the final judgment at all, but are about the nation of Israels’ judgment in 70AD (blah, blah, blah ). But that’s another discussion altogether.

I didn’t want to delve too deep into this at this point. I just wanted to say that I don’t think I agree that scripture “clearly” teaches purgatory at all…at least not from the scripture you provided there.

I've usually heard many people use this passage as a proof text for the OSAS doctrine, which I also disagree with. I don't see it there at all. But I don't think I've ever heard it used to support the doctrine of purgatory. But, then again, I don't hear too many Catholic sermons either.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

Lord bless.

[Josh]

Wow, Matthew 25 would be a good thread to discuss regarding eschatology. I have fluctuated back and forth on many of those "judgment" passages (whether they are related to AD 70 or the final judgment) as well. Currently I lean more toward the latter.

I'll look into setting up some discussion of that tonight, if you're game (I've never been able to discuss it at length with a real person)

I somehow had a feeling that if I mentioned Jesus' judgment parables, it would go here

[Josh]

Just reading in NT Wright's* latest book, Surprised by Hope, and I came across this, which is quite interesting. Apparently Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) has been shaking things up on the doctrine of purgatory:

"more remarkable still is the view of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Building on 1 Corinthians 3, he argued that the Lord himself is the fire of judgment, which transforms us as he conforms us to his glorious, resurrected body. This happens not during a long, drawn-out process but in the moment of final judgment itself. By thus linking purgatory to Jesus Christ himself as the eschatological fire, Ratzinger detached the doctrine of purgatory from the concept of an intermediate state [for the dead, between death and resurrection] and broke the link that in the Middle Ages gave rise to the idea of indulgences and so provided a soft target for Protestant polemic. Whatever we think of that, it is clear that the two** most central, important, and conservative Roman theologians of the last generation offered a quite radical climb-down from Aquinas, Dante, Newman, and all that went in between"

-- see Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, vol. 9 of dogmatic theology

How 'bout them apples?




*Wright, himself, for those of you who don't know is an Anglican bishop and renowned Jesus scholar- and one of favorite authors

**earlier he mentioned Karl Rahner along the same lines

[christopher]

What part of this would you like me to comment on?...Benedicts' theology, or his bucking Catholic tradition?

[Josh]

his bucking Catholic tradition

The Pope bucking tradition, of course, though I was surprised and a bit pleased to find out me and Ratz were thinking along the same lines simultaneously as it were.

[christopher]

Well, of course I'm always pleased when someone steps out and thinks for himself.

I'm not sure that I would necessarily make a correlation with reforms in the RCC though. But I think you know my thoughts on that already. I believe God is working outside the church institutions to create unity and reveal truth and beauty. Many in the RCC (and others) will find themselves merely following Jesus despite their traditions.

That's God made unity right there.

[Josh]

I guess my point/ question/ pondering is basically,
what happens when a Pope postulates against tradition?
Does it matter whether he does so before or after becoming Pope? Will this set any precedent for larger changes in thinking?

We need a Catholic around here...

besides Mo.

[krhagan19]

THe POPE in ONLY INfallible when he specifically speaks as the vicar of Christ and only on Doctrine. If that helps. This is according to a very conservative Catholic friend of mine in San Antonio who only attends Latin masses.