We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!

Catholic view of Purgatory ... Is it real?

michael_legna's picture

Read my responses before simply repeating your questions

Michael's original quote
Statement from infallible scripture.
Mat 5:25-26 25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Your 2nd interpretation of this passage.

This verse is telling us that we must make restitution and be reconciled to those whom we offend as part of a true repentance, because if we do not we will find ourselves having to suffer a loss as this lack of restitution is purged from us in a place of judgment until we are in a state of true repentance.

Your 1st interpretation of this passage

These verses allude to a temporary state of purgation called a "prison." There is no exit until we are perfect, and the last penny is paid.

end quote
-------------------------------

Dan Fugett said -
The approach of supplying one scripture and an interpretation of that scripture is a method you have adopted and insist on in most discussions. At least be consistent then when requests are made for you to prove your assertions in the agreed method: proof of scripture. That isnt my personal criteria - read the top of the thread again.

My interpretations are consistent and my last response showed that they were. If you cannot see how they are consistent at least point out what you think the inconsistency is and not just claim it with no supporting examples.

Dan Fugett said -
Matt 5:25-26 was the partial passage supplied, and then assertions were made that are not supported by the full passage in verses 23-26.

They were indeed supported by my response to your first rebuttal. If you do not think they are supported then at least address my response by trying to rebut it - your just claiming something is so does not make it so.

Dan Fugett said -
Again:

In what scripture (apart from tradition or council which cannot be used as a proof) is there proof that the participants in this passage are more than an earthly judge, officer or opponenent; or that the prison is anything more than a debtor's prison???

I have already answered that question - either respond to the answer or show that it does not address the question in someway so that I can know what it is you are looking for.

Dan Fugett said -
What direct support is offered that the interpretation of this passage concludes resitution to people has to occur before God considers repentance to be real????

Again I answered this question as well and said that is not the interpretation I used for the verse.

That restitution is necessary for true repentance is a related fact that all Christians should know (and since you did not seem to know it I defended it in a separate development in my response).

Again the verse does not teach that true repentance requires restitution, the verse teaches that God will act as a judge to get this form of true repentance out of us through a purification process if we do not reconcile with those we have offended in this life. You have my argument in backwards form - The fact that true restitution requires restitution and reconciliation is used as supporting evidence for my interpretation, it is not the interpretation itself. It's a pretty straight forward argument I am sorry you don't seem to be able to follow it.

Dan Fugett said -
The scripture and language dont support it, and you have yet to present scripture that stands on its own to support this assertion as a requirement in God's eyes apart from Roman Cathoic tradition.

I agree but then that is not my interpretation of this section of verse, so perhaps you should find the verse I do support that idea with in the rest of the related scriptures and argue against the idea there. Or better yet you can simply address my logical argument with which I defended the idea in my last post. Then you could restrict your arguments about this section of verse to my actual interpretation, if you still feel the need to interpret scripture in isolation instead of addressing the continuity of my whole presentation.

Dan Fugett said -
What direct support is offered that the interpretation of this passage concludes reconciliation to people has to occur before God considers repentance to be real????

I have answered this as well - either do me the service of addressing my actual statements and arguments; showing specifically how and where they do not meet with your criteria, or do not participate in the discussion; because your simply repeating your position without considering my responses adds nothing to the discussion.

Dan Fugett said -
Please dont twist my words, sir, I am not saying reconcilatino and restitution are unimportant. Asserting that I am childish or my theology is deficient just demonstrates being trapped in a corner theologically.

What words did I twist? Stop making claims and not offering examples or proof of what you accuse me of doing or not doing. The fact that you could not follow the interpretation of the scripture that I was using and so inserted your own. And to top it off you choose one to insert which any Christian would never even ask to have proven, since it is so fundamental. This last part showed me you were not interested in a sincere investigation into the discussion and its merits.

Dan Fugett said -
I am saying this passage does not mean what is being asserted. Prooving an assertion with scripture is the acceptable way to demonstrate its validity.

Then show me where my offered arguments and supporting evidence fail to prove this, don't just claim it.

Dan Fugett said -
However, to take one complaint seriously: that this verse cannot be taken in isolation to provide a fully developed doctrine. I agree whole-heartedly.

Dan Fugett said -
Which point of the RCC interpretation is supported in this passage? Please show me in this passage:

I have already done that in my last post but I will explain it again assuming you are really interested and just merely having troubling following the reasoning.

Dan Fugett said -
* Where here is the judge at a debtor's court demonstrated to be more than that?
* Where here is the officer in an actual prison demonstrated to be more than that? or

The inference is in the fact that God recommends that we view our reconciling with our brother (and the avoidance of punishment from the judge) as more important than worshiping Him. That is pretty strong evidence that this judge officer and punishment are no normal judge, officer or punishment - thus the judge is more than just a civil judge at a debtor's court and the officer is more than a representation of simple human law enforcement. Identifying the judicial system with the judgment of the Father makes this a spiritual issue.

To accept them as such human authorities would be to put the cares of this world above our relationship with God, so your literal interpretation cannot be accurate.

Dan Fugett said -
* Where here is the opponent owed a debt demonstrated to be more than that?

He is not, he does not need to be; because we are talking about real people we must love and not offend - because scripture teaches us we cannot love God whom we have not seen if we do not first love men we can see.

Dan Fugett said -
* Where here is the debtor's prison demonstrated to be more than that?

Simple, if God is indeed represented by the metaphor of judge and officer then this is a spiritual issue and the being incarcerated until we make complete restitution or reconcile with those we have offended is also spiritual.

Dan Fugett said -
* Where here does resitution with our fellow man is required for repentace to be deemed by God as genuine?
* Where here does reconcilation with our fellow man is required for repentace to be deemed by God as genuine?

It does not teach that - as I have already told you and supported and defended this fundamental point is widely known through other sources and proofs and you should never have needed support for. But I did provide a logical argument for its support so you have something to respond to if you truly want to argue this point (though it has nothing to do with this verses except as supporting evidence).

Dan Fugett said -
* Where is proof of the allusion to a temporal state of purgation in this verse????

The metaphor of being thrown into prison (since it is a spiritual issue as shown above) is representative of this temporal state of spiritual purgation.

But I have told you all of this before and you did not address it.

Also keep in mind that I am merely showing you the interpretation and how it fits this verse. Showing it fits does not prove it is the correct interpretation of the verse - that requires that it is consistent with other verses. I have many other verses which show this consistency to support this as the correct interpretation and thus support this as indeed the right interpretation. If you wish to prove it is not the right interpretation, now that we see it can be made to fit, you need to show that the rest of the harmony of the scriptures have some contradiction with this interpretation.

Dan Fugett said -
In conclusion, there are plenty of examples of scripture that support, for example, the Trinity even though the word isnt in the Bible, That idea is not applicable to the doctrine of Purgatory or temporal purgation as demonstrated from scripture alone, which is the rule of proof. The case has not been proven.

Again you make conclusions and claim lack of proof before you ever address even a single point I have made - in most cases having been unable to even see them or follow the arguments I present. Really these repeated claims add nothing to the discussion - why not wait until you have address the sum total of my presentation before trying to judge anything.

ML said -
The word perfect is in reference to the state we must be in to enter heaven - it is based on one of the other verses we need to consider along with this one to see the doctrine fully developed as you ask. That verse is of course:

Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
End quote

Dan Fugett said -
Ok we have your interpretation then infallible scripture. Again, I dont see the implication flowing from the scripture. Where in Rev 21:27 is the word "perfect" standing in oppoisition to written in the Lamb's book of Life?

You don't see the implication that we must be sanctified, holy and perfect to enter into heaven from a verse that says nothing that defiles can enter into the kingdom of heaven? Perhaps you also forgot the goal of our Christian faith and sanctification - to be Perfect and our Father in heaven is perfect.

Dan Fugett said -
As an alternative, only those written in the Lamb's book of life can enter heaven. Where am I getting that? From the actual scripture being asserted to support the necessity of purgation.

That is a necessary condition, but the verse does not indicate it is a sufficient condition. That is the problem with building doctrines on one verse in isolation as you do here. There are many places in scripture where it tells us many things we have to do to be saved and enter heaven. Each one is necessary and so none of them alone are sufficient.

Dan Fugett said -
It has not been demonstrated that we need any more than being written in the Book of Life to be accepted into heaven.

But you need to ask yourself then when does that happen. Is it at the moment someone makes a simple mental assent by responding to an altar call? or does it occur at the judgment when it is finally determined if we have persevered and held onto our faith, keeping it alive and perfecting it with works and all the other things scripture tells us are necessary to be saved. Those who do these things do appear before Christ having built upon the

If we are written in the book of life the first time we accept Jesus and that was all it took then we would not need to go through the judgment itself. See when you ask these questions as forms of accusations you already know are not legitimate and will not stand up your do not appear to be sincere in your study of this topic so it is very difficult to take your repeated claims seriously.

Dan Fugett said -
In fact, on the basis of this scripture those whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life dont live a life of being disengenuous/false, or a life that is an abomination, or that would defile heaven. Rather, they are acceptable precisely because the Lamb put their names there.

You will have to prove that since it is your contention and it is not accurate representation of the sum total of scripture.

Dan Fugett said -
This passage is clearly a salvation related passage in that we are either in or not in the Book of Life. Even you have said that people end up in Heaven or Hell, and that this supposed Purgatory is only temporary. So what in this passage supports the existence of a purgation process???

The fact that we cannot enter into heaven if we have anything short of perfection about us, since that imperfection would be that which defiles. We know it is possible that we may not die perfect, because we continue to sin throughout our life and may not get a chance to fully repent of those sins. Therefore to keep from entering into heaven with them we must be purified. This interpretation fits the verse.

Keep in mind that I am merely showing you the interpretation and how it fits this verse. Showing it fits does not prove it is the correct interpretation of the verse - that requires that it is consistent with other verses. I have many other verses which show this consistency to support this as the correct interpretation and thus support this as indeed the right interpretation. If you wish to prove it is not the right interpretation, now that we see it can be made to fit, you need to show that the rest of the harmony of the scriptures have some contradiction with this interpretation.

Dan Fugett said -
Finally, this passage fails to help build the case in that the interptetation consistent with Roman Catholicism does not stand up to scrutiny to support either Purgatory or a purgation process. Those whose names are missing from the Book of Life will not enter into Heaven, and those whose names are in the Book of Life will enter Heaven. Those are the only two options presented here in this passage: enter or dont enter Heaven.

Those whose names are missing from the Book of Life will not enter heaven, but the verse does not say that is the only determiner of this entry and it does not say when the final determination of who is in and not in the book of Life is made. Your complaint does not hold unless you can prove it is the only criteria and that this criteria is established permanently some time prior to our death and the judgment seat. But in doing so you will be negating the importance or even the need for the judgment. That is how we know your alternative interpretation is incorrect.




Advertisements