Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618 matt16182@yahoo.com
Also a Response on 2nd Maccabees, 1 John 1:9, and Supposed Proof Texts Against Purgatory ...by Matt1618
I had responded to a Protestant apologist who wrote a detailed paper on his view of justification by faith alone. I responded in detail here: Defense of the Catholic View of Justification, Infusion, Sanctification, Judgment, Romans 11:6: Does Scripture Teach Faith Alone?. He emailed me, indicating that he responded to me by giving an attempted refutation of my paper. You will find in his attempted refutation of me, he references the book, Not By Faith Alone, (NFBA) is written by Mr. Robert Sungenis, who wrote a marvelously thorough Catholic book on justification. I am giving here unedited, the very first part of his attempt to refute me. In this response to his arguments, this paper will spend a lot of time on 1 Cor. 3:15, since he spent a lot of time on it. I will take a larger look at the passage, focusing on 1 Cor. 3:10-17. I will argue that not only does this passage eviscerate the concept of justification by faith alone, but it is a clear reference to purgatory. If you are interested in my footnotes, you can click on the number to see the citation, and hit back to get right back where you are at. His writing is in green and my response follows:
So I read your "epistle", and while you do indeed have zeal, I am convinced it is "zeal, but not according to knowledge" (Rms 10:2). I concluded it was so full of holes I was reminded of a slice of swiss cheese. No doubt it is a stupendous monument to the great divide between us which is truly the difference between heaven and hell (and I intend no exaggeration). For I say it's impossible to believe that on Judgment Day I will hear the words, "Because you had the nerve to trust in the merits of your Savior alone - and refused to attach a salvific efficacy to any of the good works I prompted you to do with my grace, I now must issue you a passport to hell".
On the other hand, it is very possible that Catholics are the ones who are ripe for judgment, preferring to split their confidence for heaven on the axiom of
"Christ AND ...this that and the other thing".
I believed I exposed many of the fallacies in your theology, I believe there are more holes in your theology than Swiss cheese. Now, I understand you believe that Catholics are bound for hell, because we really think as Paul said we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, Phil 2:12-16. We believe that Jesus meant it when He said 'if you want to enter like, keep the commandments', Mt. 19:17. We believe He is the source of everything that we do, John 15:5, not downplaying His work. You think that is adding to Christ's work on the cross and denigrates what he did, and believe Catholics are hell-bound. Catholics believe that the foundational basis of your view of justification is fraudulent and unbiblical. Catholics do not think that Jesus taught or believed that a forensic imputation of his righteousness, as a one-time event, is the basis for our justification. I do know that Jesus said not only we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, believed by Ignatius of Antioch, the disciple of and taught by the apostle John, who heard Jesus speak the very words of Jesus in John 6, to be 'the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins.'[1] We do not believe He was using a figure of speech to mean only believe. Also, that He gave a sacrament to forgive sins, John 20:23, that we must confess in order to get sins forgiven, 1 John 1:9. The initiation into his covenant is by water, John 3:5. I believe that Jesus said all that, and Paul taught likewise that, and that is what Jesus came to do, free us from its bondage, even if we if we must fight against the desires of the flesh, Rom. 8:13. Paul says continuing in doctrine is the way of salvation, 1 Tim. 4:16. I believe based on what Apostolic Christianity taught, that Jesus gave the means of salvation, as belief, plus obedience. Jesus, Paul and James for example, teach that we must do stuff via His grace to obtain salvation, Mt. 25:31-46, James 2:14-26, and Paul, Romans 2:4-13. BTW, salvation, not vindication. I will examine those passages in a separate paper that discusses the explain away those passages by 'ooh, that is vindication', in no way explains those passages. In addition, obedience is one of the means of salvation, not mere evidence of it, John 3:36, Romans 6:16, Hebrews 5:9.
The idea that I get sent to hell based on me believing what He taught, and you ignoring/downplaying these passages, I do not see as happening. I do not think that Catholics get sent to hell based on believing and trusting what Jesus said, including the responsibility to act on what He says. I have a hard time believing I get sent to hell based on me believing that He gave me the power to obey Him to his satisfaction, and that His death was sufficient to actually cleanse me from Sin, not just cover me with an imputed righteousness. You have the freedom to believe what you do, and reject the Sacraments that He himself established for salvation, and just like I will, you will have to give an account of yourself before God. Your view is a tradition of men, that I do not buy. It is more that you actually devalued and downgraded what Jesus and the apostles actually taught, and undervalued what Jesus did on behalf of the people who He died for, and took part in a lie, is more of the issue that you will run into. Your idea, with all your ranting against the Catholic faith, in your original essay, and in your follow up rebuttal to me, has provided no biblical foundation that Jesus, or Paul, or any Scriptural writer taught that one gets His perfect righteousness imputed to a believers account, and that is the sole basis of one's justification before God. It is a presumption that is foisted on all of your critique against the Catholic faith. That is indeed a lie that you will have to give an account before God. Jesus, who on the one hand you rightly noted is sinless. He is the Unblemished Lamb who comes to 'take away the sins of the world'. There you are right but then you label Him as accounted as a sinner, I do not. The perfect sacrifice, yes He was punished for our sins, expiation for our sins, but that as a perfect sacrificial offering, not reckoned as a sinner. Our sins were not transferred to Him, and thus make him a blemished Lamb. A blemished Lamb can not take away any sins. You will have to explain that blasphemy, I will not.
Even if your theology was theoretically correct, I would be okay anyway. I believed in your theory of faith alone. Led by a Baptist, though admittedly not 'reformed' Baptist, I did a salvation prayer, invited Him into my heart, and truly believed in Jesus, and faith was the only instrument in my salvation, works/obedience are only a byproduct of the salvation that I had. I believed I could not lose my salvation, and you can't tell me I did not really believe that. When I read more of the Scriptures, I ultimately came to believe that this theology I was taught, was actually wrong. However, once saved always saved, if that was true, I would be set, even becoming Catholic. Actually, as long as one really believes, even if you become an atheist, one would be saved. Yes, I get, that your theory is that one who is truly in the faith, they will truly persevere in the faith only belief, and all the people only had a fake faith who became Catholics, like me or Scott Hahn, or Marcus Grodi, Tim Staples, or atheists, were never saved in the first place. That is some hubris playing God, be able to read minds. But you aren't and can't. But the once saved always saved theology is a bankrupt and demonic theory because it is false. It diminishes the evilness of sin because one thinks one can not lose one's salvation in committing and dying in unrepented for mortal sin, which Scripture does spell out. In reality no one can know how one is going to finish the race, and to think otherwise is mere bluster. Paul himself warned of the possibility, in 1 Cor. 9:24-27, as documented in my prior response. That is one of a multitude of Scriptures which shows the absolute falsity of your OSAS theory. Now, at least you are not like Charles Stanley, who says no matter what you do you will stay saved, but you, just saying you trust in Jesus with your whole heart, and that is enough for your salvation (and every work you do is merely vindication or evidence), is the same as the Reformed people who become atheists, you do not really know how you will end up. But I can vouch that I truly believed in faith alone, and if your theory was right, I should be set for life. But you can't say that because I ended up Catholic and will not leave that faith for one of the many faiths manufactured in the 16th century, and many offshoots, and you brand me hell-bound. OSAS was not around for 15 centuries because the false theory is exactly that: You end up saying I never really believed, in the first place, which I can tell you, is absolutely false. To not recognize the falsity of that, means you are in effect wedded to a nonsensical theology.
Here in this paper, in your introduction to your piece, you point to 1 Cor. 3:12-15, as pointing to faith alone. Since you noted I did not respond to that part of your piece, since you brought the passage up again, I will bring up your original comments on your Faith alone paper, and respond.
Ideally, none of us wants to show up at the Judgment Seat empty-handed, but the point is clear: good works do not carry any salvific efficacy whatsoever, for if they did, this person would be lost. Yes, James says "faith without works is dead", but whether faith has works or not, it still may be a genuine faith, by definition, just as a car without fuel is still a car. James didn't say, "faith without works is not faith." That being so, although many (if not all) of the man's works in 1 Cor 3 were fit for the city dump, God did judge him to have a genuine faith. Thus, even though his Christian activism left much to be desired, and would render him no reward, the point is that the Catholic is 100% wrong to say, "A person's eternal destiny is dependent on God's final evaluation of the person's deeds" (NBFA, p. 484).
NO. Contrary to Mr. "Not By Faith Alone", the person referred to in this passage was saved by faith alone, period, case closed. He had nothing to offer in just the same way as the poor, the lame and the blind had nothing to offer him who invited them to a banquet
(Luke 14).
In 1 Cor 3:12-15, we see how our works will be evaluated. If done with an eye to the glory of God, they will receive a reward. If not, they will be "burned up" and count for nothing. In this chapter, we find a man who had done many good works, but apparently not for the right reasons (e.g., self-aggrandizement, pride, etc.) and thus, these deeds were rejected. Despite that, we read that this man was still saved!
Without a doubt then, this shows that God is much more merciful than Catholics give him credit for, and in this case, mercy extended to even the most immature Christian whose good deeds could not stand the test. The only thing he could offer then was his confidence in divine mercy...and it was enough.
The analysis above does not fit the 1 Corinthians 3 text. I will get to your errors in your attempting to refute me in my paper on purgatory which looked at 1 Cor. 3:10-17, but you stated I did not respond to your comments on 1 Cor. 3:13-15. I will respond here, and I will show how 1 Cor. 3:15 does show purgatory further down below, but for now in this part I will respond to your assessment that you say that this passage points to faith alone, and Christians supposedly do not get judged for sins.
First, I must take issue with bringing in your take on James 2. Your idea that in 1 Cor. 3:15, Paul is somehow talking about genuine faith without works. Then you interpret whether faith has works or not, it may be a genuine faith. But the whole point of James is without works faith is not salvific, and the same actually according to Paul right here in 1 Cor. 3:10-17. Of course, James does not say "faith without works is not faith." He says without works you are not justified, James 2:24, and you are justified by works, James 2:21, 25. Works determine whether one is justified, not whether one is vindicated. Nothing about the faulty premise in your earlier paper, well, you will have good works if you have true faith. A little further down in this paper I will look at James 2. Here you say in 1 Cor. 3, you can have faith without works and you can get justified. Which argument do you have? Stake to a position. In either case, neither one of them works. You say 'As long as you have faith alone you can have a genuine faith', that is good enough according to you, but not James or Paul here in 1 Cor. 3:10-17. But James explicitly said that faith without works will not save you. I must drive home the point that James specifically says one is justified by works, not by faith alone, James 2:24, no matter your downplaying and trying to relegate that to 'vindication'. Works are a cause of one's justification, according to James. Paul is not saying anything different at all in 1 Corinthians 3. In fact, this passage here Paul specifically shows works are indeed a determining factor in salvation. Why do I say that? It is best to look at the passage itself, in 1 Corinthians 3:10-17, not you conveniently cutting it off at v. 15:
10: According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. 11: For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12: Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- 13: each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14: 1) If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15: 2) If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. 16: Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 17: 3) If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are.
Without works you do not get saved. You said you read my take on 1 Corinthians 3:15, and disagreed with it, but in your analysis, you do not interact at all with what I wrote. But I'll get to that on your comments further down below. I will show that it does speak to purgatory. You are saying he is saying well, he is talking about people are saved without works but by faith alone! Huhhh?? It says that the man, who is given grace by God, so he is talking about Christians, how he builds on the foundation, which is Jesus Christ. He says all men build on this with either gold, silver, precious stones and/or wood, hay and straw. So, all Christians will have some of these works. Paul does not write gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, & none. None is missing from 1 Cor. 3:12, or 3:15. Not your idea of no works. But for now, he here is not just talking about good works, verses something with faith who has no work. In v. 12 he says Christians will have 6 types of works. And there are consequences. Every single man has a work, nothing about those who have no works but still had a precious faith, get in, your interpretation. Absolutely everybody gets judged based on the types of works he produced. In v. 14 he is talking about how one has works representing gold, and silver and precious stones, and they get their reward, which is heaven. That is good works. They pass the examination, with no defect, and get to heaven immediately. Paul is also talking people who also have bad works, or venial sins, v. 15, but also mortal sins in v. 17. Despite your utterances, Paul specifically gives 3 different judgements to 3 different types of people, based on the works that they had done, not just the two of verse 14 and 15. But for now, let us focus on verse 15, and whether it shows faith alone. You say suffer loss means absolutely no punishment at all, just deprived of rewards that the guy of v. 14 got, and immediately goes to heaven. In fact, every person has works. And it is explicit here, either gold, silver, and precious stones is one kind of work, those of v. 14. Wood, hay and straw, (not none) is another type of work, where one suffers loss. You say no punishment but one still gets in. By the way, even if the correct interpretation that theoretically he was saying he has no works, that still does not help you, this is talking about sin, goes along with James 4:17 where James writes:
Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.
Even not doing something is a sin, and is a work. It is a work that corresponds with wood, hay & straw. Then somehow you get, well, the difference between the person in verse 14, where the works are gold and silver, and verse 15, where the works include wood, hay and stray, is that well, this means he has true faith, but no works, so faith and no works are good enough for salvation. And then this idea you pour in, well, bad motivation is not a sin and he doesn't get rewards as the guy of v. 14. So, by inference faith without works, contrary to James 2:24, Romans 2:6-13, John 5:28-29, Matthew 25:31-46, (I will get to your downplaying those passages to 'vindication only' diversion to hold on to your false theory of justification separately) you are set for heaven, and this is proof!! All it is, only according to you and other sola fideists, is that one suffers loss means no punishment at all, and he still gets heaven, and for sure, faith alone. What on earth?
Now, I know Calvinists Sola Fideists you have bought hook line and sinker, and you are basing your outlook on Chemnitz, Spurgeon, etc. but on what planet can you read this and say faith alone? Works are the determiners of where you go, and you say works have nothing to where one goes, because as long as you have faith, you are set? To the contrary, there are three different results, based on three different types of works. I notice you focus just on 1 Cor. 3:13-15, that is cutting off the larger passage, which of course, destroys your interpretation. In order to assess it, you need to go a few verses beyond it. Verses 16 & 17. This shows something that your heretical theology does not accept: That if you commit mortal sins, you get separated from Christ. Just as Paul writes in 2 Cor. 5:10, you get judged for all works, whether good or bad. And bad works are sins. But we'll get to verses 16-17 a bit further.
Notice that, #1, the first person in v. 14 is one who just has good works, the person whose only works are gold, silver, precious stones, not mixed in with the defects of wood, hay and straw. In v. 14, the man who only has gold, silver, precious stones, he goes to heaven directly. He does not get punished. He does not intermix with the sins of wood, hay and straw. Further down below, I will look at the meaning of 'suffer loss', but for now, it shows that there is a penalty that one has, by mixing in sins of the person in v. 15. This is absolutely nothing about the people in v. 15 not offering nothing. All works are judged, and eternal destinies are specifically decided by the works that the person had done. You apparently say that works give the first set of people more rewards in verse 14, and in verse 15 people who just had no works, they just suffer loss, which apparently means to you only that there is no reward. What is the reward for the person in v. 14? The reward is heaven. What is the reward for the person in v. 15 where his works also have wood, hay, & straw. Again, It does not say no works. It is works of those who had gold silver and precious stones, also had mixed in that those that are bad, i.e. sins, but still in grace with God. Notice, he still gets heaven. So according to this passage, according to your interpretation of Paul, he absolutely loses nothing. He does not suffer the loss of heaven, he gets heaven, the same thing as the guy in v. 14. He goes to heaven right away. But Paul does make a difference. Now, a relevant passage that talks about reward is Colossians 3:24-26 which destroys your faith alone heresy, Colossians 3:23-25:
23 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.
Paul shows that good works via grace you get heaven. In God's grace of course. Absolutely nothing about 'vindication', which seems to be your favorite escape hatch when shown that works are justifying. That will be gone over separately in detail in a separate paper. If you work heartily you get the inheritance as your reward, heaven. If you do wrongdoing instead, you get hell instead. Judgment for sin. Those who work heartily as Paul refers to in Colossians 3:23-24, match those in 1 Cor. 3:14. In v. 15 you say he suffers loss, only suffering loss means he only loses reward. But that is not what this passage in 1 Cor. 3:15 says. Remember, in this very book, Paul writes those that will not inherit the kingdom of heaven are those who commit unrepented for mortal sins, (1 Cor. 6:9, also Galatians 5:19-21), means that those who put on the good things do inherit the kingdom of heaven see also, Gal. 5:22-24. But here Paul says in v. 15 after he 'suffers loss', he gets heaven. Paul specifically says in v. 14 the person gets to heaven without suffering loss, he gets the reward, which is heaven. That is what he gets. But that is exactly what the person in v. 15 person gets. He doesn't write, well, the person in v. 14 'gets more rewards' in heaven. Paul just mentions he gets a reward, which is heaven. In v. 15 the 'suffer loss' guy gets to heaven, he doesn't lose the reward of the guy in v. 14, because he gets to heaven just like the guy in v. 14. Therefore, with your interpretation of v. 15 with what Paul actually said 'saved as through fire', doesn't actually mean a thing. The reward is heaven for both people. Your reading makes no distinction while Paul makes a distinction. Hence, there is actually no suffering loss of anything, if punishment is not involved.
But let's go further than v. 14 and v. 15, because you cut your examination of this passage at v. 15. Bad works, the wrongdoer, gets hell for his bad works, which we will see in v. 17, that you disregard, as cited in my paper, because it doesn't suit your purpose. So, this idea that there are no works is not shown at all in the 1 Corinthians 3 passage. The works are indeed what determines the final destiny. Now in response to your assertion against purgatory, further down, I will look more at the exact meaning of suffer loss in v. 15 (it points to purgatory) but for now let us look at v. 17, which you did not look at. It shows again, as I showed consistently throughout my work, which showed many passages that shows one can lose salvation, and remained unrebutted in your long response to me, eternal punishment for sins, i.e., judgment for sins. But since you stated this passage teaches faith alone, and you do not get judged for sins, look at what verse 17 says. Not only does it not show faith alone but it shows your fraudulent once saved always saved theory was made up in the 16th century. Not by Jesus, Paul, Peter or anybody inspired. It was made up by Calvin, prior to that, absolutely nobody held to the OSAS theory, just as extensively shown in my prior rebuttal of you, is exactly that: fraudulent.
1 Cor. 3:16-17:
16: Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 17: If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are.
Paul is speaking to the exact same people who he warned about the difference of v. 14 and v. 15, and we'll examine much more on v. 15 on the meaning of 'suffer loss', and 'saved as through fire' further down, but in v. 17 he says if anyone destroys God's temple God will destroy him. Now, for Christians, one's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 6:19. After warning that one who commits unrepented for sexual sins, will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Paul gives an example of what he is speaking of in v. 11. He writes that if one commits sin with a prostitute that is in effect sin against the temple of the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 6:16-19. The term 'destroy' that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 3:17, is used in reference to people outside the grace of God and on the path to hell. The same term destroy for example is used right here in Jude:10: But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.
So, Paul is proving that people who destroyed God's temple, are on the path to hell, in the context of writing about works. So bad works, which is mortal sin against the temple of God, sends one on the path to hell. So, we now see that there are 3 works with 3 eternal consequences. First one, v. 14, one goes to heaven, with works of gold, silver, and precious metals, they go to heaven immediately. Based on unblemished, sins totally accounted for in this life, for good works. Verse 15, there is something that you can't define, just some vague loss of reward, when they get to heaven, with wood, hay & straw, you don't think means punishment. But this person in v. 15 will get to heaven, so he doesn't lose the reward. We will look at the exact meaning of the terms in v. 15 further down below. But undoubtedly, regardless of what you think of in v. 15, which I will respond to your comments down below, v. 17 shows that the Christian will get eternally punished as he destroys God's temple, God will destroy. So, the imputation theory does not work at all, because supposedly you are not judged for your sins. These are Christians that he is writing to. So, man's works bring 3 different results, one goes to heaven directly, v. 14. one 'suffers loss' in v. 15, which I will examine next, and one will go to hell, v. 17. So, this exactly proves one goes to heaven or hell based on what types of works one has. Nothing about well, the guy in v. 15 had no works and he still got heaven with the only consequence of less rewards. V. 17 has God destroying those who are going to hell. Good, v. 14, bad, v. 17, or mixed, v. 15. So, on the contrary this passage directly speaks against faith alone, and is yet another passage which exposes the OSAS fraudulent theory, and shows that works are indeed the determiner of one's eternal destiny. But most fatal to the faith alone theory of imputation, the context shows that there is judgment for sin, in v. 17, because the judgment for sin brings damnation because of those sins. Since there is judgment for sins in v. 17, that means there is judgment for sins in v. 15.
Now I will respond to your comments on my take on 1 Cor. 3:
No way. So, I guess I'll have to deal with the Catholic torture chamber for a little while.
ANSWER: You may deny it all you want, but I say there is an exquisite example of someone being justified by faith alone in 1 Cor 3:13-15. I mentioned it in my essay but you didn't deal with it (although you do in "Is there a scriptural basis for purgatory?", which, in my opinion, fails). Since you state there that 1 Cor 3 "strikes at the heart of the Sola Fide/ faith concept", I must deal with the issue.
And I just showed a look at the passage and your comments fail. It shows the exact opposite of faith alone.
You attempt to dispatch this verse into the category of purgatory, but that will not do. It is breathtaking to me that Catholics refuse the very simple explanation of the passage, which speaks of the judgment of our works, not a fiery cleansing to scrub our sin-sick souls! The catechism says, "we must believe" in a cleansing fire due to 1 Cor 3 (CCC 1031) but I can only laugh. In other words, because the catholic god likes to speak with marbles in his mouth, he decides not to mention purgatory by name, but wishes us to sniff it out between the lines like a bloodhound.
Your simple explanation is a tortured explanation (pun intended), that makes absolutely no sense. You put words into Paul's mouth, 'no works' is nowhere mentioned. You actually end up making suffer loss, which is the only difference between the man of v. 14 and v. 15, mean absolutely nothing because both men get the reward of heaven. Which we saw in Colossians 3 is the reward of good works. Also, the reward in v. 14 exactly reflects the good work as shown in Romans 2:6-7, glory honor and immortality to those who did good. And it is obvious good works meant all sins were repented for. The people in v. 14 exactly match Jesus said 'Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect', Mt. 5:48. They are those who did something you contend a Christian can't do, which Paul himself writes to these same Corinthians:
2 Cor. 7:1
1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.
Paul had written put to death the deeds of the flesh, Romans 8:13, as salvific. Here Paul writes since we have God's promises we can cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit and make holiness perfect in the fear of God. That is the people of v. 14. You do not think we can do that. Jesus and Paul think we can do it. Sins are totally accounted for, confessed, and do not have attachment to sin, at the time of their death. Those are the people pointed to in v. 14. Their reward is heaven after death, no need for cleansing.
He also brings in another dimension by asserting that only some of their works may be burned (p. 515), but the Text does not say that. Sungenis has every right to speculate "some", while I have every right to speculate "ALL". I am asserting this passage has to do with personal rewards and losses, and ALL of this man's works were burned up.
1) Now 1 Cor 3:13-15 is probably the best example of a Christian life not very well lived, but a life that is, shall we say, "salvageable". It's there for a reason; more than likely, to show that even the smallest amount of faith will not be overlooked, even with no works to show for it. While Catholics still hold to the idea of a "cleansing fire" taking place due to residual sin, they admit that a person's works are also being dealt with (NBFA, p. 513-515). And this is where the rubber meets the road. While the man did indeed hang his hat on the merits of his Redeemer, the intent behind his altruism was shady; i.e., not for the glory of God and perhaps being done with an eye to be seen of men. Instead of seeing the man's sins covered by the blood of Christ by faith alone, and this passage focusing on rewards or losses, Catholics create a place of purgation to deal with both the sinful intent of the man - as well as the bad works that resulted from that sinful intent. Catholics typically teach that everyone appointed to the doldrums of purgatory is eventually released, but your good friend and mine, Mr. Robert Sungenis says that because we read the man will be saved, that this brings in a new dimension; namely, the matter of salvation: "we must know whether the individual will be given a temporary sentence and eventually be set free or be sentenced to eternal imprisonment" (Not By Faith Alone, p. 514).
Nothing about 'Catholics creating a place of purgation.' Catholics admitting works are getting judged? That is exactly the whole point, with one major caveat, it is the person who gets judged for the works, not the works getting judged for the works. Again, there is absolutely nothing about 'no works' and they get in with no works. Paul specifically writes that there are works of gold, silver & precious stones, and also wood hay, and straw. Yes, there is no problem in saying all works will be judged, yes all works are to be judged, good, bad, or mixed. No option of 'no works' and they immediately go straight to heaven. Those only got the reward of heaven right away when they build only with gold, silver & precious stones, and all sins accounted for. Again, this claim that 'faith alone' is all that is needed, which renders invalid what Jesus teaches in John 5:28-29, and Matthew 25:31-46, what James said in James 2:14-26, and what Paul said in Rom. 2:4-13, is absolutely destroyed in this passage, and does point to purgatory. You again argue, make an artificial and unbiblical distinction between the man's motives, which reflects pride, as though that is not sinful. Again, you say he gets in with no works. In fact, Paul says everybody has some works, gold, silver, precious stones, and also wood, hay & stubble. There is absolutely nothing about he gets in because he hangs his heart on the redeemer and no works. We have seen in v. 17 he gets judged for sins, also the person of v. 15 gets judged for sins as well, though those sins do not bring in eternal death/separation from God.
Now, I want to look at v. 15 specifically to show how it does show purgatory and it is not merely Catholic wishing. Let us look at the exact wording again:
15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Notice the key phrases, suffer loss, and as through fire. These phrases are important in analyzing this passage. In reference to the words suffer loss, you did not like me citing Sungenis as much of your critique of me seems to be against Sungenis, so I will go elsewhere. The Bible Dictionary of Ancient Greek on zemioo online:
According to BDAG, (zemioo) means:
to experience the loss of something, with implication of undergoing hardship or suffering, suffer damage/loss, forfeit, sustain injury, eg, Matt 16:26, Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25, 2 Cor 7:9, Phil 3:8 to be punished, eg, 1 Cor 3:15[2]
Gingrich Greek New Testament Lexicon:
Inflict injury or punishment. Pass suffer damage or loss. Forfeit with account of account with respect or specification Mt. 16:26, Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25, 2 Cor 7:9, Phil 3:8 without acc 2 Cor. 7:9. Be punished, 1 Cor. 3:15.[3]
Now the notations specifically say undergoing hardship or suffering, sustaining injury. Then says to be punished, both citing 1 Cor 3:15. This is not Sungenis. So even with the translation of 'suffer loss' it easily can mean punishment.
So let us look at a few of the other passages in the New Testament that use this word zemioo.
Matthew 16:26 For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?
Often translated as lose his soul. What is the consequence? Eternal punishment. Losing soul brings eternal punishment.
Mark 8:36:
For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?
Suffer loss is eternal separation from God. Again RSV says forfeit life, most translations of this verse says lose/forfeit his soul. So, there is a negative consequence here too.
2 of the 3 gospel passages, the suffer loss goes to the consequence of eternal punishment. The 2nd Corinthian 7 passage talks about not suffering loss. Notice again the word in use in 1 Cor. 3:15 points to hardship, suffering, sustaining injury. Then the BDAG, Biblical Dictionary of Ancient Greek, uses 1 Cor. 3:15 as an example of to be punished.
The use of the word Zemioo goes back to the Old Testament. That involves payment/punishment.
Karlo Broussard makes an observation on how Zemioo is used in the Old Testament and some citations that gives us insight to its use in 1 Cor. 3:15:
It's interesting to note that in the Septuagint, zemioo (corresponding to Hebrew anash) is used in several places as a monetary fine (Exodus 21:22, Deut. 22:19; Prov. 17:26) and punishment for an evil deed (Prov. 19:9, 21:11, 22:3).[4]
Let me take a look at a couple of the example of anash, the equivalent of zemioo in the Old Testament examples: Exodus 21:22:
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
So here a person who causes a miscarriage after a struggle has to pay a monetary fine. What settles it is a monetary fine. So a penalty is paid.
Proverbs 19:9:
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who utters lies will perish.
A false witness will get punished. So negative consequences happen for being a false witness.
Proverbs 22:3
A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but the simple go on, and suffer for it.
The imprudent man suffers for his lackadaisicalness.
So, the suffer loss thing shows that the word Zemio, its equivalent in the Old Testament, points to punishment, that exactly fits the notion of purgatory. And as already demonstrated, the only suffer loss thing means less reward doesn't work because the man in v. 15 gets the same reward, heaven, as the man of v. 14. There is an obvious detour of punishment shown only for the person of v.15. Your theory of less rewards does not hold up as already examined.
Let us look at the second half of the exact use of Paul's words in 1 Cor. 3:15:
If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Now there is a way for this to teach faith alone. Notice Paul specifically writes how the people with the not so great works, (not no works), is saved 'as through fire'. Whatever it means it is the means of salvation. If it was faith alone, the exact words would have been saved 'as through faith alone'. Especially since this is a judgment scene. You need it to say it since all other judgment scenes show works are determiners of the eternal destiny, Mt. 25:31-46, etc. Or it would help even if he said, 'through faith.' But Paul doesn't say that. He says saved 'as through fire.' So, whatever through fire means, that is the means of getting the same salvation reward that the man with the gold and silver & precious stones of v. 14 received. According to this word in this passage, that points to some kind of punishment necessary in order to attain that.
Saved as through fire, the people in v. 14, their works are tested, but they passed, and didn't need further refining. The refining was done on earth. But those in v. 15, are those who had besides works of gold, silver, and stone, good works, also had works of wood, hay, and straw (again, not 'none'). The background to this passage is earlier in this chapter, the people in 1 Cor. 3:1-4, men of flesh, babes in Christ, who are in jealousy and strife. These are the kind of works that are the wood, hay, and straw, that do not destroy the temple as noted in v. 17, but were imperfect. Those are sins. These are venial sins. They did not build on Christ's foundation well. Regardless, this is obviously sin, that God is judging. This not only does not confirm faith alone, but absolutely destroys the concept of one getting an imputation of Christ's righteousness, as the basis of judgment before God. If righteousness was imputed, there would be no judgment for sins. But as Paul says elsewhere, God judges for both good and bad, 2 Cor. 5:10. Paul shows here how 2 Cor. 5:10, is applied to the passage in 1 Cor. 3:10-17. Now, let us look at 'saved as through fire'. Paul is specifically showing purification right here in this specific language.
How is one saved? He is saved 'as through fire', the means of achieving ultimate salvation, or entry to the Kingdom. The people of v. 14 did not have to go through the fire because they did not die with blemishes. But apparently these people in v. 15 are saved through the fire. This is the fulfillment of the passage that Paul wrote in Romans 6:22 that the 'end of sanctification is eternal life'. Disobedience leads to death, Romans 6:16, eternal hell, obedience leads to salvation heaven, and eternal life. Not imputation. Purgatory leads to the Kingdom. Why do Catholics say this points to purification?
Paul obviously has the Malachi 3 passage in mind, which shows purification. In this passage Paul borrows from Malachi 3:1-4. Even the Bible Gateway points to Malachi 3:1-4 as a cross reference:
1"Behold, I will send My messenger, who will prepare the way before Me. Then the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple-the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight- - see, He is coming," says the LORD of Hosts. 2But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He will be like a refiner's fire, like a launderer's soap.3And He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver. Then they will present offerings to the LORD in righteousness. 4: Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years.[5]
It is obvious that Paul is pulling this passage from Malachi. Many commentators, even the for the most part non-ideological Bible Gateway, sees it as a cross reference from Malachi 3. We know in the gospels, John the Baptist was pointed to as the Messenger who pointed to the coming of the Divine Messenger, the great God and Savior Lord Jesus Christ. Malachi points to a day of the Lord where people are getting judged. They are compared to gold, silver, and purification of not just those metals, but the sons of Levi are purified like that of gold and silver. So, the sons of Levi are to be purified. Paul is obviously pointing to this Malachi passage as a similarity to the time of judgment. Paul is applying to all of those not just the sons of Levi, but to believers in the new covenant, but die with the stains of wood, hay, and straw/stubble, on their soul. Of course, this applies to Christians in the New covenant. Offerings are made to the Lord of Righteousness. Temple/foundation, day, fire, silver, gold, straw, burn quoted in 1 Cor. 3:12-15, are all found in Malachi 3:1-4, 4:1. So where is the purification? It is found right here. After the purification, then comes the offering that is pleasing to the Lord, as Malachi 3:4 notes. Those who need purification, are purified as Malachi speaks to refining, to make it so one can be clean, to fulfill the obligation to enter heaven, as Revelation 21:27 specifically says, must be clean. Just as the silver is purified, so will be the person. None of this fits the Protestant pretend game, where God pretends that you have no sin, and instead looks at Christ's perfect righteousness.
Remember, the whole purpose of His coming is that we can be saved, in Titus 2:14:
who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
His whole purpose is to cleanse us from all sin, John 8:36. This 1 Corinthians 3 passage shows that good works are necessary for salvation, but Paul additionally shows that his purpose is to purify for himself a people of his own. So, the Lord Himself will purify Christians, who have the good works of gold, silver, & precious metals mixed also in with the sinful, but not destructive works, of wood, hay, and straw/stubble: i.e. venial sins. This in the context of the divine judgment.
Now the Malachi 3 passage also points us to Mark 1:2-3, Matthew 11:7-19, Luke 7:24-35 all speak of John the Baptist being the Messenger who taught about Jesus Christ. But of course, the ultimate fulfillment is in Jesus Christ who John the Baptist pointed to. Notice that He will be like a refiner's fire. So, the Man, Jesus Christ will be the refiner. He will purify his sons and refine them like gold and silver. Notice the sons of Levi will be purified like a refiners fire, like gold and silver. It is obvious Paul has this in mind when he writes this. After the purification, the offerings can be made to God in righteousness. So here includes the wood, hay, and stubble will be purified like those who have been purified by fire like that of the gold and silver referred to in Malachi.
Now in the Old Testament and New Testament there are many references to fire, we have the people who are condemned to hell. The New Testament passages include Mt. 3:12, Mt. 5:22, Mt. 7:19, Mt. 13:42, 50, Mt. 18:8-9, Mt. 25:41, Mk 9:43, 48, Lk. 3:9, 17, Lk 17:29, Jn 15:6, Jude 7, 23, Rev. 14:10, 19:20, Rev. 20:10, 14, 20. But also there are passages that speak of fire as cleansing from sin, 1 Peter 1:7, Rev. 3:18, 14:10, Luke 3:16, Mt. 3:11, Acts 2:3.
Fire in Scripture is also positive. God is called a consuming fire, Hebrews 12:29, right after Hebrews 12:23 says that those in heaven are those in heaven who are 'made perfect.' So, a fire could be transformative in a positive way.
Another point that Paul is making when he uses the term dia puro, saved by fire. Through fire, in the context of gold, silver and precious metals, in the Old Testament always point to purification. There are three examples in the Old Testament. William Albrecht pointed to this in his debate on purgatory with Protestant apologist Michael Brown.
Numbers 31:21-23:
21: And Elea'zar the priest said to the men of war who had gone to battle: "This is the statute of the law which the LORD has commanded Moses: 22: only the gold, the silver, the bronze, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
23: everything that can stand the fire, you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean. Nevertheless. it shall also be purified with the water of impurity; and whatever cannot stand the fire, you shall pass through the water.
Passing through fire, there is purification.
Zechariah 13:1, 8-9:
1: "On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness. 8: In the whole land, says the LORD, two thirds shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left alive.
9: And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on my name, and I will answer them. I will say, 'They are my people'; and they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'"[6]
I put v. 1 where it talks from cleaning from sin and uncleanness, to give a context to verses 8-9. That day, a day of judgment. Notice the word where there is a judgment. Fire, in context of silver and gold. That is the way that there is a cleansing from sin and uncleanness. It will be as one who is purified. The whole context is purification. So, this passage shows that it will be like fire, and one gets refined, for the whole purpose of cleansing from sin and uncleanness. Paul thus uses specific language that has a biblical history of showing purification of people. This is not sniffing out something, this language of purification is strong, and in your face, unless you choose to ignore what is so plain.
Psalm 66:10-12:
10: For thou, O God, hast tested us; thou hast tried us as silver is tried. 11: Thou didst bring us into the net; thou didst lay affliction on our loins; 12: thou didst let men ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water; yet thou hast brought us forth to a spacious place.
Tried as silver. Silver is tested. Went through fire, puro. After going through the fire, he goes to a spacious place. So even in this one, gets tried, tested, then goes through fire, and then goes through another place. A spacious place, a better place. Sounds a little like the testing is purifying, and after the testing goes to another place. So translation to another place, rings like going from purgatory to heaven, after the trying, testing, and purifying.
So the three times in the Old Testament that dia puro is used in reference to metal, leads to purification not just of the metal, but of the people themselves. Pass through the fire, and the people will be clean. Next one going from cleansing of sin and uncleanness. The people get refined as gold, it is the people who get refined, and in the third one with the testing, the cleanness leads from going in one place to another, to a place of relaxing after this trying and testing.
Consequently, the man was ushered into heaven, without anything to show for it except his iron-clad trust in his Savior. But even if we were to suppose that it was indeed, only some, my argument would still stand because the gospel is "Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2), not Jesus Christ plus some good works that stood the test, in or outside the confines of purgatory!
There is absolutely nothing in there that says that one is saved by his iron-clad trust in his Savior. Paul writes in the context of six types of works, for those who go to heaven. The determiner is works. Gold silver, precious stones, you go to heaven directly. Having those good mixed in with sins, v. 15, as noted by the context of the chapter where he talks about the sins of the Corinthians earlier in this very chapter, as signified in v. 15, gets into heaven with the purification. It is not Jesus plus something, it is Jesus, who Paul notes specifically to Malachi, which shows Jesus Himself is the one who purifies. You have Jesus playing a lie, I do not. Those whose works sins were mortal, they get destroyed, by God, i.e. sent to hell, v. 17. You are devaluing what Christ actually does. 'Oh I declare you, and even though your works to me are filthy rags, I'll declare it righteous'. God does more than declare. He actually makes one perfect.
So the man's deeds were rejected, or "burnt up", nevertheless, he himself was still saved, "so as by fire". Catholics see the word "fire" and get purgatorial heart palpitations! No way! There is no thought that this is a "cleansing fire" where sins are being purged away (as you state in your paper above); rather, the metaphorical fire in the eyes of Jesus (Rev 19:12) is dealing with the genuineness of the man's service, not his sins, that is all.
Saved through fire, the language that Paul himself used, yea the fire of judgement, yes, a metaphorical fire, but that fire is a punishment that we have seen that purifies. No one says that it has to be a literal fire. That is the language of Paul. Of course, he is dealing with sins. Yes, works are tested, but then it says he is saved by fire. There is no separation of the man from his works. Just as it is the man of v. 14, it is not his good works of gold, silver & precious stone, that gets the reward, but it is the man himself who gets the reward. Just like the man of v. 17 who through sin destroyed the temple of God, it is not those bad works, but the man himself who gets eternally destroyed. The same here, in v. 15, yes, his works are tested, but Scripture says it is the man himself who get saved through the fire. With all this into the equation, this definitively shows purgatory.
He was saved despite the fact his works were consumed in the "fire", and therefore that could only mean he was saved by faith alone, contrary to the conniving chit-chat by Sungenis. He tells us the man was saved, yes, but only with a qualified yes, for the translation is "somewhat inaccurate" due to not taking into consideration the man needs to go through the propitiating, sin-cleansing, salvific fires of purgatory first, yada,yada, yada (NBFA, p. 514). Not allowing the Text to breathe on its own, Catholicism twists it like a dishrag to produce a doctrine nowhere mentioned therein.
What is twisting. I have looked at the text, the background to the text, the borrowing from the Old Testament and it does show the salvific fires of purgatory. Again, the text says absolutely nothing about being saved through faith alone. The actual text says one is saved as through fire, not by faith alone. It doesn't say his works are 'saved as through fire,'. Yes, it is because of his sinful works that are examined, but it is him, just as the one with the perfect works gets that person to heaven without the delay. And because of the bad works, mortal sins, the person, not the works themselves are sent to hell. Protestantism is twisting saved as through fire, to mean saved by faith alone, and I do not get judged for sins. That is totally alien to the text, and its context.
In other words, Mr. Ott says,
"The temporal punishments for sin are atoned for in the purifying fire by the so-called suffering of atonement (satisspassio), that is, by the willing bearing of the expiatory punishments imposed by God" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", p. 485). Did the man of 1 Cor 3 offer to God that "high degree of obedience" that is sooooo very necessary for salvation as Sungenis claims? (NBFA, p. 75). No he did not. Hence, he was saved by faith alone in the midst of his very low degree of obedience.
Of course, obedience is necessary, there are 3 classes of men in the passage. Those who had the high degree of obedience, went to heaven without passing through the fire. Obedience is necessary for salvation, per Romans 6:16, Hebrews 5:9, John 3:36, and to say otherwise is antibiblical (those passages don't say a word about vindication or demonstrating a thing). The people of 1 Cor. 3:15, the obedience can range from a high degree to a lower degree. Obedience, which is necessary for salvation as mentioned by Jesus, also, Matthew 19:17, does range from person to person. Perfect obedience includes those mentioned in v. 14, with no need for a cleansing. The people of v. 15 have a sufficient amount of obedience to not die in the mortal sin identified in v. 17. Now, you leave out the picture of 1 Corinthians 3:1-6, where Paul specifically itemizes sins, they are in the flesh with jealousy and strife, 1 Cor. 3:3. And pride from which group they are, i.e., sin. He lambastes the Corinthians with sin after sin throughout the whole epistle, see especially chapters 4 through 6. He specifically calls the believer co-workers with Christ in 3:9. The people of v. 15 have their good works of gold, silver & precious stones mixed with works of wood, hay, and straw/stubble. To imagine he is not talking about sin, because you are so afraid that God will judge sin, though specifically both Jesus and Paul say that all works will be judged, and the person will be rewarded or punished based on those works, Mt. 25:31-46, Mt. 12:37, and Paul, Romans 2:6-10, 2 Cor. 5:10 say, and John Revelation 20:13, 22:12-16, shows the emptiness of the outlook that imagines you do not get judged for sins. You are so wedded to no judgment for sins, that you are forced, unbiblically, to say he can't possibly be talking about sins. You did say While the man did indeed hang his hat on the merits of his Redeemer, the intent behind his altruism was shady; i.e., not for the glory of God and perhaps being done with an eye to be seen of men. Since when is being shady and an eye to be seen by man, not sinful? Jesus exactly castigates those who attempt to be seen by men, Mt. 6:1-4, and castigated the Pharisees as well, Mt. 23:5-7, as the worst of sins. So even your mention of it points to sin, and Paul shows here judgment of sin. Paul condemns pride, egotism of self in multiple passages, 1 Cor. 5:4, 2 Timothy 3:2-4, 1 Cor. 5:2, 6, 1 Timothy 6:4. Sorry, even you trying to say that is not sin, is wrong. However, those who commit the sins of wood, hay & straw, though judged for them, are not of the disobedience that separates them from God. The people of v. 17 had a pure disobedience which leads to their damnation, and to ignore that passage shows the emptiness of your analysis.
Did the man of 1 Cor 3 offer to God 2) The person referred to in 1-C-3 is a "man" - and we are told not to think of men beyond that which is written (1 Cor 4:6). That said, I must dispute the idea he was suffering in purgatory because it goes way beyond the Text. The whole idea conveys a god who simply cannot just come right out and SAY there's a place called purgatory, just like he mentions a place called heaven and hell or a thousand other places listed from Genesis to Rev! Anyway, the meaning you attach to that place wreaks havoc with the gospel itself.
God, through Paul does say it in 1 Cor. 3:15. I've looked at the exact wording, and it exactly fits purgatory. Jesus lives up to his promise on cleansing believers from all sin, not just look the other way. God is a Father, specifically as spelled out in Hebrews 12. Nothing about, and in your response you could not find one passage from Jesus himself who said if I chose you to believe me, you get my imputed righteousness, and that is the ground of justification before God. Somehow you get the idea if you commit sins, you do not get temporal punishment for sins. As you have seen me speak of Hebrews 12, I will go through that Scripture again. Hebrews 12:5-10:
5 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? --"My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. 6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." 7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
He disciplines us for our good, as a Father, who is a perfect Father. Without discipline one is an illegitimate son. He treats us as sons, but he points to the fact that we are bound to get much more discipline than an earthly father does to a son. What is the purpose? The purpose is that we may share his holiness. So temporal punishment abounds while we are on earth, why would it stop, if we are not fully cleansed in actuality, after death? Paul shows it in 1 Cor. 3:15. Of course, as Paul mentioned the best is if a Christian lives as Jesus asked us to live, Matthew 5:48, or Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 7:1, so there is no need of further purging. However, in Hebrews 12 we even see that those who get in to heaven, are those who have been made perfect.
Hebrews 12:22-24:
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.
Those who are in heaven, by the way it shows that those on earth can come to those in heaven, and get acknowledged by those in heaven, but that is another subject. For the purpose of this response, it says that those in heaven, are those who are just, but who are made perfect. In the context as God as a judge, v. 23. These people in heaven were made perfect. And it is via the blood of Jesus. So, it is in effect a description of purgatory because if the children of God who are disciplined to share in his holiness as mentioned in v. 10, if on earth they had not attained perfect holiness, these just men are made perfect, via the blood of Christ, shows purgatory would be the means. These people are not declared righteous, they are made perfect, which is how Paul describes justification is being made righteous, Rom. 5:19. This is the final stage of being made righteous, called here perfected.
NO. "The chastisement [punishment!] of our sins was upon him" as you darn well know and should let it go at that. We insist all of our "residual evil" (let's say a Christian couldn't break the habit of smoking) is "consumed in the flames" of that person's faith in the unspeakable merits of Christ the Lord. Catholicism insists that the purging of sins is not by the torturous punishments of Christ alone, but by the tortuous suffering of the person whereby their sins are removed!
God is a loving Father who punishes his children for sins, I just referred to Hebrews 12 which demonstrates that. You divorce suffering from justification before God. Paul does not. What does he say in Romans 8:17?:
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Paul specifically says that children, which he specifically says in Romans 8:14, we inherit only if we suffer with him. Why? So that we may be glorified with Him. Yet you denigrate this. Paul specifically says that but your theology must turn away from its implications. You are denigrating not only Catholic, but Pauline theology, besides the theology of Hebrews 12. Jesus taught purgatory, in Matthew 5:21-26, as I have written separately, though that is a separate argument.[7]
The whole purpose of the cross was to cleanse us from all iniquity, not cover us over. He made us coworkers with him, actually specifically cited in 1 Corinthians 3:9, just before the disputed passage. Being coworkers is Scriptural, you call that an afront to Christ's work on the cross. You make God unable to purify his people to his satisfaction, I call that a weak god. He made it possible that Christians can work out salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2:12-16. I looked at that passage in detail in my original response to you.
And true Christians will have none of it. If God could have been satisfied with simply punishing men in this life for their iniquity, then Christ wasted his time. For any salvation plan that defrauds the pristine panorama of Christ's life and death and sneaks in their own sufferings to any degree whatsoever, is to be thrown in the nearest city dump where it belongs; and that includes baptism, where "all sins are forgiven..as well as all punishment for sin" (CCC 1263).
You just don't get Scripture. Or only look at selected Scriptures to avoid the implications that Christians have their own part in salvation. Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 other passages say that baptism forgives sins. Another passage which shows the bankruptcy of your outlook on Scripture in reference to this is Colossians 1:22-25:
22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, 23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,
How does Paul explain one presents to God being holy and blameless? By faith alone you get an imputation to make you holy and blameless? Notice that he reconciled by his death in order to present you holy and blameless only if you continue in the faith, stable & steadfast. Again, another passage which absolutely destroys the faith alone premise. Nothing about well, if you are justified, you automatically will continue in the faith, and you get in because you get an imputed righteousness, and if you are a true believer, you automatically will continue in the faith. It is provided you continue, thus if you do continue, you will make it, if you do not, you will not make it to heaven. The only way to be just before God is if believers continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, i.e. conditional. Then Paul says I rejoice in my suffering for your sake. So, his suffering is efficacious for believers, on their journey. What is lacking in Christ's affliction, Paul rejoices in his flesh, he offers what is lacking in Christ's affliction. So, Paul is doing this on behalf of the body, which means his suffering is on behalf of believers. So, his suffering is redemptive for the body of the Church, which is composed of individual believers. The body is linked in actually justification/sanctification before God.
ANSWER: Logic demands that if God was interested in making this "component" of punishment relevant for the church, he would have made sure that happened. But since he neither mentions P by name, nor alerted those involved in the many translations of this "component", then we trust that the significance of the word's wider meaning was not on his agenda. Catholics are clearly desperate.
3) You quote Sungenis in your "P" document: "The Catholic exegesis of 1 Cor 3:15 is further supported by Paul's use of the Greek word zemiothesetai (translated as "suffer loss" in many translations). Its verbal root zemioo, has a wider meaning than merely suffering loss. It can also refer to punishment. Hence, there is a component of punishment associated with the word that is not brought out in most translations."
I have already documented what Sungenis stated is true, through Protestant Greek Lexicons, and have shown Scripture with Scripture exactly points to punishment. Well, the early church believed that this pointed to purgatory, so it is nothing about desperation. Desperation is seeking to make this Scripture means Christians aren't judged for sins. It is not just Catholics, but Orthodox & Coptic Christian, who offer prayers for the dead to benefit them, even if they do not use the word purgatory. The context, as we have seen, shows that punishment for sins is the only real reason to show the difference between those who have only gold silver & precious stones, and those who have the bad works of wood, hay & straw/stubble mixed in. The Fathers, those closer to the apostolic times than us 20 centuries later, saw that passage as pointing to purgatory. For example, Cyprian, third century Epistle 51, section 20 says the following, he uses Matthew 5:26 in there, as well, as 1 Cor. 3:15:
And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that repentance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace is offered to the penitent. The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigour of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; (Mt. 5:25-26) another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire, 1 Cor. 3:15; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.[8]
So here Cyprian points to two passages, making clear references to purgatory. When cast into prison, and pay the last farthing is an exact quotation of Matthew 5:26, which the Fathers unanimously interpret as referring to purgatory. Tortured by long suffering for sins, purged by fire, a reference to 1 Cor. 3:15. This is at the day of judgment, the judgment of 1 Cor. 3:15, says the suffering purges the sins. So, it was apparent that the Fathers taught purgatory, they did not see it as way out there, easy for them to see, and any honest look at this passage will show that it points to it.
St. John Chrysostom, the Greek Doctor, also writes in reference to 1 Cor. 3:15 relating to the Malachi 3 passage:
A fire which purifies ...
The origin of puros, however, is from the Sanskrit for "pure" or "purify."[1] The word purigare in Old Latin is formed from purus "pure" and the root of agere "to set in motion, drive; to do, perform." The Medieval Latin word purgatorium, "means of cleansing," was then formed from purigare or purgare. Finally, the Latin word purgatorium comes into English as "purgatory."
The word "Purgatory," then, can be found in the Bible through the Greek word puros found at 1 Corinthians 3:15.[10]
ANSWER: "I too will ask you a question", said Jesus in Luke 20, and you know how that went.
We ask, "Why didn't Paul use the specific phrase purgatory"??????
I suggest that retort instantly cancels out the Sungenis complaint. We could go further and ask, "why doesn't the Bible use phrases such as, "Mass", "Transubstantiation", "sacerdotal priesthood", "indulgences", "sinless Mary", "perpetual virgin", "Assumption into heaven", "pope", "papal infallibility", "magisterium", "gracious merit", "eucharistic sacrifice", "seven sacraments", "annulments", "liturgy", "penance", etc.
b) "The fire of purgatory will purge him of any remaining evil" (NBFA, p. 514). 1)Christ will come and come and demand an accounting of the whole human race and of the Jews along with the others. See how both David and Malachi foretold this. Malachi said: "And he came in like a smelting furnace and like the soap of the fuller, and he will refine and purify the silver and gold", and Paul's words were : "For the day will declare it since the day is to be revealed in fire, "And David said: God in full manifestation will come." And by this he was again proclaiming Christ's second coming."[9]
St. John Chrysostom ties, as do Catholics (and even the Biblegateway admits the passage is borrowing from Malachi), the fire of Malachi to 1 Cor. 3:15. Refining, and purification of the soul, is declared, exactly points to purgatory. So, we know that the Fathers did see it point to purgatory. What makes you think you are right, and the Fathers are wrong?
Now, as to the exact wording in the 1 Cor. 3:15 passage, which we have already gone over points to purgatory has a little more info that points to that:
The word puros appears three times in the above passage from 1 Corinthians. Puros means fire. The Greek word puros becomes pyros in Latin. You may recognize the Latin prefix pyr - in words like pyro-technics (fireworks) or even a pyro-maniac. Pyros doesn't get us to Purgatory, however.
4a) On the first page of NBFA, Sungenis asks, "Why didn't Paul use the specific phrase "faith alone"?
I have examined this passage and 1 Cor. 3:15, with all the surrounding context that I have examined, does show purgatory. Besides that, another difference is that in Scripture your made up 16th century meaning of Sola Fide, not the term so much, but the meaning behind the term of Sola Fide, is explicitly denied in Scripture. As James specifically says, one is not justified by faith alone. There is absolutely nothing that says 'Mary sinned'. That would negate the Immaculate Conception. If Scripture said 'Mary did not assume into heaven,' 'there is no penance', You would have a point, but you don't. About the assumption of Mary, one verse that said, 'Here is her body' would work to deny it. There is nothing in Scripture that explicitly denies the propositions you condemn, while Scripture explicitly repudiates faith alone theology.
Now James goes through 13 verses, James 2:14-26, to explicitly deny your whole theology. If you have a 13 verse citation where Mary is quoted in depth as sinning, you'd have a point. BTW, quoting 'All have sinned', Romans 3:23, would say Jesus sinned, or mentally handicapped people have sinned, or babies under the age of reason have sinned, (see Romans 9:11 for the contrary). No one can actually say that, so your proof text says nothing about Mary. If you have a 13 verse citation of 'This is not my Body', that would destroy transubstantiation, to the extent that James does against justification by faith alone, you may have a point. But the fact is, you don't. Paul in Romans 2:6-13, Matthew 25:31-46, show judgment scenes (not vindication scenes) which show works are essential.
James devastates Faith Alone theology as shown when I dissected James 2:20-26:
20 a) Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?
(a) That, (verses 20, and 26), faith apart from works is dead. In other words, faith, in and of itself is insufficient in the goal of attaining salvation. As after all, without works, it accomplishes nothing. What in fact is James showing? As we proceed, we see how one is justified.
(b) We see that James driving home the point twice (in verses 21 and 25, perfectly symmetrical), that Abraham and Rahab are justified by works. If we didn't get the point in verse 21, we see that James getting across to us, that both Abraham and Rahab are justified by works, and these are perfect examples to instruct us on how one is justified. Now, neither v. 21, nor v. 25 even hint at what Dwayne said that James was implying. Instead, James both in verse 21 and 25 shows that works are a cause of justification. If we didn't understand it the first time through Abraham, James drives home the point twice, again in perfect symmetry, with the example of Rahab. Just as Abraham is called justified by works, so is Rahab.
(c), The third point, continuing the symmetry in verses 22 and 24, James further shows that faith alone is insufficient for salvation. If we didn't get it the first time, he teaches it to us the second time. In v. 22, James specifically says that faith is completed by works. Faith alone is insufficient, James teaches. In order to justify, faith must be active along with works. Works is not merely a qualifier of faith. Faith must work in cooperation with works in order to achieve that justification. Faith needs to be completed, in v. 22. The matching verse, v. 24, perfectly symmetrical to v. 22, drives home this very same point in a more forceful manner. James specifically writes that faith alone does not justify, and that we are justified by works, (which he had just shown us symmetrically with Abraham and Rahab). If we didn't get it in v. 22, he drives home the point even more dramatically in v. 24, when he says that we are not justified by faith alone. So here, works are not merely a qualifier of faith. He specifically negates the faith alone idea not only in v. 22, but even more forcefully in v. 24 when he says that we are not justified by faith alone.
(d) Finally, with these verses repeated and surrounding this, in the center of the chiasm, v. 23, James points us back to Genesis 15, where Abraham believed that God would provide a son for Abraham. He says that the offering of Isaac back in James 2:21 (Gen. 22) fulfilled Genesis 15. Thus, the justification of Abraham in Genesis 22 fulfills Genesis 15. We see that in Genesis 15, Abraham is called a friend of God. The basis for justification is not a legal decree. But it is in covenant with God. Thus, any appeal to Genesis 15 shows that justification was not a one-time event, but an ongoing matter. In Abraham's life, he needed to put his faith into action to continue to be justified, and in Genesis 22, he was again justified. That is how his faith was completed. Thus, any appeal to Genesis 15, according to James does not speak to the full matter of how Abraham was justified. Yes, he was justified in Genesis 15 by his belief, but in fact his justification is continuous, and Abraham needed to be justified again in Genesis 22. His offering of Isaac on the altar shows this. After all, as just noted, his faith needed to be completed (James 2:22). Faith alone is not complete. Thus, the act of Genesis 15 did not complete Abraham's justification. In James 2:23, James lets us know that the offering of Isaac completed Abraham's faith that he had in Genesis 15. Works thus are necessary to complete this faith.[11]
James drives home the point that works are not a secondary qualifier of faith, but intimately pointed to as a cause of justification before God. We see repetition of some main points. Let us look at the section of James 2:20-26:
----------- 21 b) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
---------------------- 22 c) You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
----------------------------------------23 d) and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
---------------------- 24 c) You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
----------- 25 b) And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 a) For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
James writes this passage, verses 20 through 26, in a chiasm. That is a form of literature, where the author uses language in order to focus on a specific teaching. His point is to drive whatever the teaching is home. It is symmetrical, and repetitive just so we can grasp this teaching. We see this chiasm here in James 2:20-26. I have this chiasm shown as we see the structure of the chiasm in verses 20-26, highlighted in matching colors, with the structure going, a, b, c, d, c, b, a. We have in order, repetition of some main points of James. James repeats the teaching twice basically to drive home the point of his teaching, just so we can grasp what he is getting across. Unfortunately, in Dwayne's analysis, none of his ideas match or recognize James' chiasms. James' whole purpose is to show:
ANSWER: First of all, true Christians much prefer the cleansing blood of Christ over and against the "cleansing fires" of any so-called purgatory. Second, in light of the fact that the word "purge" is used (i.e, "he himself purged our sins" per Heb 1:3) why wasn't an exception made for a similar purging in purgatory? After all, to paraphrase Mr. Sungenis, "Since Scripture is usually very direct and candid, it should go without saying that if the intent was to teach unambiguously and unequivocally that a man could finally be justified after a stopover in purgatory, the writer would have been compelled to mention that intermediate place of woe right then and there to help make the point indisputable" (NBFA, p. 2). But since no exception was made, we must abhor your fiery furnace.
Sorry, I have shown 1 Cor. 3:15 is explicit in showing purgatory. It is a fire that cleanses, in the context of language that shows it purifies. Jesus purging our sins you do not believe in any way. You don't believe he purges our sins, we are still filthy rags covered over and any pursuit of holiness is only a sign of one's justification. Of course, our sins are purged in justification, however, that purging is on initial justification, when one is made righteous, in Romans 5:19, and that means baptism as Paul shows in Romans 6:3-4. The rest of Hebrews shows that endurance is absolutely necessary and one can fall away from salvation, Heb. 2:1-3, 3:12-14, 3:18-4:1, 4:6, 11, 6:4-6, 10:23-29, 10:35-36, 12:12-17, 12:25, are sample, not exhaustive passages in Hebrews which show that after having one being purged from sins, one can lose that salvation. One must pursue that holiness without which no one will see the Lord, Heb 12:14. That pursuit is absolutely necessary and is the means for salvation.
Let us look at your supposed 'faith alone' Father, St. John Chrysostom, who in his examination of Hebrews 7 & Hebrews 9, but that is another issue, absolutely shows that it points to the sacrifice of the Mass, agrees that Jesus purges our sins, but it is our duty to maintain that. We can get stained after by pursuit of wrong doing. Romans 7, points to us still having the battle of Jekyl & Hyde, and we still must put to death the deeds of the flesh (Rom. 8:13) in order to maintain that cleansing. Look at what your 'faith alone' Father, St. John Chrysostom says in his commentary on Hebrews 1:3:
Nay, rather not even are these small, but on the contrary very great: yea so great as to deprive a man even of the kingdom of Heaven. How, and in what manner? He that calls his brother fool, is in danger (He says) of hellfire. Matthew 5:22 But if it be so with him who calls a man fool, which seems to be the slightest of all things, and rather mere children's talk; what sentence of punishment will not he incur, who calls him malignant and crafty and envious, and casts at him ten thousand other reproaches? What more fearful than this?
Now suffer, I beseech you, the word [of exhortation]. For if he that does [anything] to one of the least, does it to Him Matthew 25:40, and he that does it not to one of the least does it not to Him Matthew 25:45, how is it not the same also in the matter of good or evil speaking? He that reviles his brother, reviles God: and he that honors his brother, honors God. Let us train therefore our tongue to speak good words. For refrain, it is said, your tongue from evil. Psalm 34:13 For God gave it not that we should speak evil, that we should revile, that we should calumniate one another; but to sing hymns to God withal, to speak those things which give grace to the hearers Ephesians 4:29, things for edification, things for profit.[12]
ANSWER: We are not going to be impressed with the "frequency" argument if Catholics refuse to be impressed by the fact that we're told frequently (!) that only Christ is sinless (making no exception for Mary) and so we reject the " frequent" playing card Sungenis wishes to play
(Matt 27:19; Jn 8:46; Luke 23:4, 23:22, 23:41, 23:47; Rms 3:23, 3:10, 5:12; Galatians 3:22;
2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 Jn 3:5; Rev 5:3-5).
4. Since then He has purged our sins, let us continue pure; and let us receive no stain, but preserve the beauty which He has implanted in us, and His comeliness undefiled and pure, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. Ephesians 5:27 Even little sins are a spot and a wrinkle, such a thing, I mean, as Reproach, Insult, Falsehood.
So just because Jesus purges us from sins, which you don't believe in justification anyway, it doesn't mean that efforts are not necessary to maintain that justification. Dismissing as that pursuit of holiness only being a sign of one's justification is not what the Hebrew author (I think Paul but that is not important) says. The Saint shows that since He did purge our sins, we are responsible for continuing in that purity, in order to maintain salvation. He notes that reproach, insult, and slander can even deprive one from the kingdom of heaven, even if you have already been purged from sins. That is why we must be careful in what we do, because our actions can have eternal consequences, even cause Christians to get disinherited. He truly believes we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. He shows that Jesus meant what he says in Matthew 5:22 that person can be deprived of the kingdom of heaven by such evil speak. He points to Matthew 25:40, 45 as showing the acts either lead to heaven or hell, but also the way one speaks can lead to such determination of the final destiny.
This assertion then, that the big "P" purges us of any residual evil, is likewise dismissed, for it is not fire that purges away our sins, but the blood.
As already noted Paul says one is saved by fire that though 'he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.' You can't run away from that. It is both and, not either or. Even in Hebrews 12:23-24, it says that those in heaven are called just men who are made perfect, in the context of the blood of the covenant, v.24. That is the sacrifice of the Mass, as offered by Jesus who is called the High Priest, according to the order of Melchizedek. Jesus says this is the Blood of the Covenant (Heb 9:23, 10:29 Mk 14:24, Mt. 26:28). If one dies imperfect on earth, you can not and have not demonstrated that at faith one gets an imputation that declares one righteous even if one is not really, just filthy rags covered over, that person is not made perfect but declared perfect. I do understand and do not downplay that you assert a true Christian will pursue holiness, but you divorce that pursuit as a means of justification, thus denying Heb. 12:14 and Romans 6:22. These Scriptures indicate that this holiness is a means of achieving ultimate salvation, not mere evidence. So, the Hebrews author implies the connection that between one's death on earth, those who died in God's grace with only venial sins, as specified in the difference in Heb. 12:5-10, as opposed to those who died with mortal sins for those who go to hell, 12:15-17, there is a cleansing in between so that they are made perfect, Hebrews 12:23, before they enter heaven. IE. Purgatory.
c) "He used the word "alone" more frequently than anyone else" (NBFA, p. 1).
Just throwing bunches of Scriptures without any identification of what they actually do is not convincing. These passages, seriously the first one is Pilate's wife noting that Jesus is righteous how does that prove faith alone or that Mary sinned exactly? The guy next to Jesus on the cross acknowledging he sinned, shows he acknowledging himself as a sinner shows Mary sinned? In Rev. 5:3-5 Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is superior to everybody else and only He can read the scroll, that is proof for what? None of those passages btw, says Mary sinned, nor teach faith alone as the means of justification, or canceled out the numerous passages as shown in my response to you in reference to the necessity of works for salvation. If you take 'All have sinned' literally, Romans 3:23, that would include Jesus. We know Jesus is an exception, because elsewhere He is identified but that in and of itself shows there is at least one exception. But we know that babies under the age of reason can not sin either, Romans 9:11, nor can severely mentally handicapped people sin. Again, there are exceptions, and anybody with a right mind will acknowledge exceptions, the question is, to what extent are the exceptions? A general rule, that people will sin, does not preclude exceptions. BTW, the reference to 1 John 3:5, 'He appeared to take away sins', sure, wash us clean, not cover us over.
We of course could go further and say Paul used the word "grace" more than anyone else, but nowhere did he speak of a "gracious merit, nor did he use the term, "justification by works done under the auspices of God's grace".
Paul specifically says that we are judged according to works, Romans 2:6, (btw not vindicated according to works) and that the doers of the law will be justified (not vindicated), Romans 2:13, that is under God's grace. Romans 2:4-13, is a good explanation of that, a summary. Paul specifically said work out one's salvation with fear and trembling, (not work out your vindication), for it is with God at work within you, with further specification on how it is done in Phil. 2:12-16, but I've already spelled that out for you. The doers of the law will be justified, you'd like me to use that language, I'll say that. All good? I'll say that, that is Paul's exact words without qualification. But since Jesus says without me you can do nothing, in John 15, and in Romans 2:4 it is because of God's favor, and Phil 2:13, where it says God is at work within you, also 2 Cor. 9:8 which shows grace is the foundation of good works, and that it shows there is a dependence on God, the language "gracious merit", is a summary. But you can't make an equivalent summary of something that is explicitly repudiated by Scripture in James 2. Technically, you can make that claim, but that claim is wrong.
The point is, God frequently makes exceptions to certain circumstances all the time (Josh 7:12, 2 Sam 3:13, 5:6; Esther 4:11, Psalm 127:1; Dan 6:5; Matt 5:20, 32, 12:29, 18:3, 24:22, 26:42; Mk 3:27; Luke 13:3; John 3:2, 3:3-5, 3:27, 6:44, 12:24, 19:11; Acts 8:1). That being so, since there was no exception made for a place called purgatory - alongside us being told that (essentially) Jesus IS our purgatory in Heb 1:3, the claim for P's existence must be abandoned.
God punishes the Israelis because of their abandoning their covenant, Joshua 7:12. We must be born of water and spirit which points to baptism in John 3:3-5. Paul as Saul consented to Stephen's death, Acts 8:1 whose sin for that was wiped away when he placed faith in Christ and had his sins wiped away in Baptism as he himself relates in Acts 22:16. Matthew 5:20 says unless your righteousness (not My righteousness imputed to your account) must exceed that of the Pharisees, right before explicating purgatory, 5:21-26, does not help you. This shows nothing about faith alone. In reference to Hebrews 1:3, as even your imaginary Church Father supposedly believes in Sola Fide, St. John Chrysostom says justification is a journey, not a one-time event.
Oh really, oh thou sinless Mary advocate? Then may not we, along those same lines, say, that for the writer to use the word "purgatory" would have created an obvious and acute contradiction to Hebrews 1:3 and 1 John 1:7? Hmmm. I think I smell a hypocritical rat, and so this complaint is likewise...thrown into the fire.
ANSWER: Under no circumstances whatsoever does 1-J-1 indicate the last stages of some godforsaken tormenting abyss called purgatory. Moreover, under no circumstances whatsoever does the RCC say we are "perfectly cleansed by Christ's blood" in that miserable place. It is rather, by their own tormenting punishments!
The Pope tells us at Vatican 2 that, "expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments...[they] are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt". 5) Sungenis comically bids us to remember that, "Scripture often appeals to its own precise language...[and its] words are chosen very carefully. It makes such choices because it forsees the impact and implications of its teaching. To use the word 'alone' would have created an obvious and acute contradiction" (p. 2-3).
Already looked at Hebrews 1:3. Now let us look at 1 John 1:7 that supposedly somehow contradicts Catholic soteriological theology:
but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Notice there is a condition here, if we walk in the light AS He is in the light. All will get forgiven if you walk like Jesus himself! But we fall short as v. 8 explicitly says! After the initial purging from sins in Heb 1:3, how are we to stay within His grace? So, you just go forth and demonstrate your justification and have his blood keep us cleansed us from all sin? No, it is if we walk in the light, as he is in the light!! So, we must walk in his light in order for that blood to cleanse us from all sin. And we know we don't always perfectly walk in the light because if we say we don't sin we are calling him a liar. Then the next verse, v.9, also destroys your whole theology but I'll look at that shortly. So, this cleansing from sin is conditional, as identified by John himself in this passage, as the rest of the book of Hebrews shows justification is conditional, which you refuse to acknowledge.
6). [in an article elsewhere]... We must be perfectly cleansed by Christ's blood. To get [into heaven] while we are ontologically 'filthy rags' is an affront to God's holiness. Purgatory is only the last stages of the cleansing promised in 1 John 1:7-9.
Would you be nice if you'd give the reference for Vatican 2. The expiation, as well you know, is utterly dependent upon God. Even those cleansing punishments come from the efficacy of the blood of Christ, it is how God applies it to those who died in His grace. This passage, true doesn't say purgatory, however, it does exactly reflect the Catholic understanding of justification and destroys your faith alone understanding of the forgiveness of sins. According to you, all sins, past, present and future, are forgiven when one gets an imputation of Jesus' perfect righteousness when God chooses you to believe in him. Is that what John writes in 1 John 1:7-9? I've already looked at verse 7, and mentioned v. 8 which talks about we as humans will sin, but verse 9 is absolutely essential to understand what John means in his understanding of forgiveness of sins:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Just as the issue of getting sins forgiven and getting cleanses requires us to walk as Jesus does, here John specifically says he will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all righteousness. But what do we do? Oh, confess our sins. So, we must confess sins in order to get those sins forgiven. Your theology says your sins are already forgiven, and whatever sins you have are already forgiven, and yea, confess directly to God is good, but your sins are already forgiven. I guess you do it to get more rewards in heaven. But John says the exact opposite, here. He is a just God, and He really looks at you. John says the exact opposite of your theology. You get forgiveness for sins only
if you confess your sins. Now of course the sacrament of confession is implied. John is the one who heard Jesus himself said to the apostles, after Jesus breathed on the apostles the Holy Spirit 'If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.' (John 20:23) So, this establishes the sacrament to forgive sins. But for the moment that is another debate. Let's say that interpretation is wrong, he is not referring to a sacrament of confession in this letter. Regardless, you only get sins forgiven if you confess sins. That in and of itself destroys faith alone theology. Nothing about sins now and in the future are already forgiven, and just confess your sins only to get more rewards in heaven. No confession, you do not get your sins forgiven. What if the confession is imperfect or sins remain that have not been confessed, or one still has sins? That is what exactly points to purgatory.
You omit to say that the fault of the soldiers for whom Judah was praying was idolatry:
"Then under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden"
Now the RCC says idolatry is a mortal sin which will send you straight to hell, as does the Bible.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:20-21). And you confirm elsewhere: "only mortal sins, as mentioned in Heb. 12:15-17, will cast us out of God's sight (in, "Is there a scriptural basis for purgatory?").
Now it would be different if you or they admitted Judah was wrong to pray for a dead idolator, but no one does!
Catechism editors stupidly agree that purgatory "is based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: 'Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." (CCC 1032). Then they hypocritically state all mortal sins deserve an eternity in hell (CCC 1861). This shows that Catholicism has built up their theology of P on something that is out of step with RC doctrine itself!
7). You say in one of your articles...
"The 2nd Book of Maccabees is the most explicit Scriptural basis for the Doctrine"
ANSWER: One could only hope you moonlight as a comedian and were joking. Apparently, you aren't, and therefore that statement must be judged as going as far beyond the realm of responsible biblical exegesis as possible before entering the insane asylum.
Talking about a comedian, that effort you use to prove that it contradicts, is indeed comic. Well, the problem with your look at this passage, is that you are only showing half of the Biblical story. Yea, you look at half of the biblical story of that passage, mid story. A little like you looking at Romans 3 and 4 on justification (and in Romans 4, ignore how a look at Abraham & David undercuts your whole interpretation), but diminishing and downplaying Romans 2, and refuse to look at what the whole of Romans 5 and 6 and Romans 8, besides many other parts of Romans. You don't seem to figure that into your soteriological scheme. A little like looking at Romans 11:6, and ignoring the background to Romans 11:6, and ignoring the rest of the chapter which absolutely repudiates your faith alone, OSAS theology, which I exposed in my critique. Ok, you give half of the passage 2 Maccabees 12 story, let us give as Paul Harvey would say, 'the rest of the story'.
I want to give more of the background to the specific passage cited. So yes, they died because of the sin. However, was that a sin of idolatry? Now, similar to other times in the Old Testament, when people many times fought on behalf of the Lord, they fought on behalf of the Lord. Like those fighting on the Lord's behalf with Moses, Joshua, David, etc. the same here. Were these people who were slain fighting on behalf of idols? No, Judas and his army were fighting against idolaters. Judas had won other battles earlier in the chapter, by the strength of the Lord, 2nd Maccabees 12:11, 15-16, 28, and most closely to time of this specific incident, v. 36. In v. 34, it talks about those who had died, and mentioned in your citation of 12:37-41, it says in v. 36: Judas called upon the Lord to show himself their ally and leader in the battle.. So yes, these people had sinned, and the Lord was with these people in battle, including those fighting on behalf of God.
2nd Maccabees 12:42-46:
42: and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
44: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
So here is the rest of the story that you left out. These people had sinned for sure. However, was it idolatry, when they were fighting on behalf of the Lord? It would have been indeed superfluous and foolish to pray for dead idolaters. However, though they had some tokens on their body, they were fighting on behalf of God. The key passage those who fell, fell asleep in godliness, that you somehow forgot to include this passage. They had idols attached to their body; however, their whole aim was to fight on behalf of the Lord. So, it was most likely one or the other, treating it like a good luck charm, which is foolish, which it was not, especially when fighting on behalf of Our Lord. Or it was booty. They most likely took it as booty, that they should not have. They were not worshipping the idols that were attached to them. So, it would be a venial sin. Then it would be appropriate to pray for the sins to be blotted out, v. 42. Tying this back to the 1 Cor. 3 passage, it was a mixed bag, the gold was fighting on behalf of the Lord, 1 Cor. 3:14, but the clasping the idol to it, is a bad work, hay, a sin, 1 Cor. 3:15, not the destroying of the temple, the mortal sin of 1 Cor. 3:17. They could have been attempting to enrich themselves, they could have been repenting of it before death, but Judas Maccabees can not read minds and know the state of their soul, but since it is possibly in question, it does not hurt to pray for people who died in godliness, even if their godliness was tainted. So, regardless the same book which in 2 Maccabees 7, which Hebrews 11:35 references about the occasion of people dying rather than violating the law, and looked forward to the resurrection, also gives a clear reference to offering sacrifice on behalf of people who had died with sin on their soul, but had still died in godliness. They had committed the sins that was due punishment as shown by 1 Cor. 3:15, not the idolatry of 1 Corinthians 6:11, or 1 Cor. 3:17.
8) At the end of Paul's life, he admitted he was far from perfect (Phil 3:12); hence, an ideal candidate for P. But he was the one who wrote that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8). And his words in Phil 1:23 are not indicative of someone who was looking to go straight to the "divine waiting room". He wanted to stay and help his friends, but knew that to depart and be with Christ would be far better. If he knew P was a fact, he would never be in a rush to get there and would choose instead to stick around a little longer, as would anyone else if given the choice.
That passage shows that Paul is not in a perfected state, because he had not attained his justification. No, I went over in detail that passage in my analysis of that passage in my section. I will not reiterate what I already went through. He shows that he has not already attained perfection, which totally destroys your faith alone premise. He said if possible, he was not assured of it as of that point, that is why he still had to finish the race.
Next you show another famous Protestant abuse of Scripture by pointing to 2 Cor. 5:8. Let us look at that passage and see if that eviscerates purgatory. How about looking at 2 Cor. 5:8-11:
8. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 9 Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences.
Now, he says he would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. I would rather, is a wish of his, not saying anything about as soon as I leave my body, I immediately go to the Lord in heaven. If I am at work, I would rather be away from work and be at home. Does that mean as soon as I leave work I am immediately at home? No, there is a commute from work to home. There can be traffic, there are traffic lights, etc. And right here there is a gap between v. 8 and v. 10. Paul shows right here in this very passage, because as part of the context, he shows, there is a judgment, 2nd Corinthians 5:10. For all things, good and bad. So, the Christian will be judged for good works and bad works as well. Bad works are sins, so there will be a judgment for sins in the immediate context of 2 Cor. 5:8. So there is a judgment for sure, and that includes the judgment for bad. Exactly as shown in 1 Cor. 3:14-17. Paul is confident that he has shown the good works of 1 Cor. 3:14. Purgatory is not a necessity, it is not for everybody. If he is in grace, he knows for sure eventually he will be with the Lord. And he most likely knew that he would be martyred for the faith, those who die for the faith, will go to be with the Lord immediately. He then says he must do things well pleasing with him. He does not say that any Christian, who dies as a Christian, as soon as he dies, immediately goes to be with the Lord in heaven. He does not say for any Christian to be absent from the body is to immediately go to heaven, and not face the judgment for any bad that they have done, just two verses later! Purgatory is a good thing because one is assured to be in heaven, after the cleansing.
St. John Chrysostom, an Eastern Father, knows that actions, bring eternal consequences, either life or death. Sola Fide, if you are in his grace, you are set for life, and your only eternal concerns are how much rewards you get. We have already seen that he believes purgatory. But he shows that actions bring eternal consequences. Look at his commentary on 2 Cor. 5:10:
Considering then all these things, let us think not of the luxurious, but what is their end; here indeed filth and obesity, there the worm and fire: not of the rapacious, but what is their end; cares here, and fears, and anxieties; there chains indissoluble: not of the lovers of glory, but what these things bring forth; here slavery and dissemblings, and there both loss intolerable and perpetual burnings. For if we thus discourse with ourselves, and if with these and such like things we charm perpetually our evil lusts, quickly shall we both cast out the love of the present things, and kindle that of the things to come. Let us therefore kindle it and make it blaze. For if the conception of them, although a faint sort of one, affords so great pleasure; think how great the gladness, the manifest experience itself shall bring us. Blessed, and thrice blessed, yea, thrice blessed many times, are they who enjoy those good things; just as, consequently, pitiable and thrice wretched are they Who endure the opposite of these. That then we may be not of these but those, let us choose virtue. For so shall we attain unto the good things to come as well; which may all we attain, through the grace and love towards men of our Lord Jesus Christ; by Whom, and with Whom, to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, and honor, now and for ever, and world without end. Amen.[13]
7. Let us hear then, us also. And if you have the fire of lust, set against it that other fire, and this will presently be quenched and gone. And if you purpose to utter some harsh sounding [speech], think of the gnashing of teeth, and the fear will be a bridle to you. And if you purpose to plunder, hear the Judge commanding, and saying, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness, Matthew 22:13 and you will cast out this lust also. And if you are drunken, and surfeitest continually, hear the rich man saying, 'Send Lazarus, that with the tip of his finger he may cool this scorching tongue;' Luke 16:24 yet not obtaining this; and you will hold yourself aloof from that distemper. But if you love luxury, think of the affliction and the straitness there, and you will not think at all of this. If again you are harsh and cruel, bethink you of those virgins who when their lamps had gone out missed so of the bridal chamber, and you will quickly become humane. Or sluggish are you, and remiss? Consider him that hid the talent, and you will be more vehement than fire. Or does desire of your neighbor's substance devour you? Think of the worm that dies not, and you will easily both put away from you this disease, and in all other things will do virtuously. For He has enjoined nothing irksome or oppressive. Whence then do His injunctions appear irksome to us? From our own slothfulness. For as if we labor diligently, even what appears intolerable will be light and easy; so if we are slothful, even things tolerable will seem to us difficult.
So, the Greek Saint does not see that as proving faith alone. Considering this whole passage, he says that we must put to death the deeds of the flesh, as Paul in Romans 8:13 says. He says you have to fear going into sin that can separate you from heaven. He knows that actions, be it lust, greed, slothfulness, can cause you to be disinherited from the Kingdom. He warns us to think of the dread of hell to dissuade us from such mortal sins. This is a Greek doctor. We must choose virtue, to attain eternal life. Even speaking evil of someone leads to hell, as specifically Jesus says, Matthew 5:22. So even when looking at the 2nd Corinthians 5 passage, the Greek Saint says your actions lead to eternal consequences, not just demonstrations of whether you are saved or not, absolutely nothing about 'since I am a Christian, I am guaranteed heaven as soon as I die.'
In reference to Phil. 1:23, Paul does not say or even infer after his death he immediately goes to heaven. If you reach what you call the divine waiting room, you are assured of heaven, and that is a joyful thing, even if you need be detained for some. But look at the passage itself:
Phil 1:23 :
I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.
So, is Paul saying that once he dies, he is guaranteed to be right away in heaven? Notice he said that is his desire. Look at what he said similarly in 2 Cor. 5:2:
1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 Here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling,
Now, the Revised version for 2 Cor. 5:2, has long to put on, but King James, New King James, and Dhouay Rheims translate as desire to put on our heavenly dwelling. BTW, this actually is in the context of the old 2 Cor. 5:8 passage, so this applies even to that passage itself, but is relevant to the Philippians 1:23 passage. His desire is to depart and be with Christ. The same thing he in this passage as when he has died, he desires to put on our heavenly dwelling. As Trent Horn notes:
But Paul describes this taking place at an unspecified time in the future (1 Cor 15:52). Consequently, if there will be an interval after death before our bodies will be perfected, then there is no inconsistency in saying there will be a similar interval after death where our souls will be perfected.[14]
So, Horn shows that saying desire to be with Christ or desire to put on our heavenly dwelling which is not til the end of the World, shows Paul using that language in Phil 1:23, does not mean immediately one will go to heaven, as soon as one dies.
[1] St. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1," The Writings of the Fathers Down to 325 AD. Anthem Publishing, American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition, p. 90.
[2] What does "loss/zemiothesetai" mean in 1 Corinthians 3:15? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange
[3] Gingrich Greek New Testament Lexicon:
[4] Karlo Broussard, Purgatory is for Real, Catholic Answer Press, El Cajon Press, 2020 p. 89.
[5] Bible Gateway 1 Cor. 3:15 cross Reference to Malachi 3
[6] I get the citations from William Albrecht in the following debate Debate: Michael Brown vs. William Albrecht on Purgatory, 51 minutes 15 seconds going forward.
[7] I have a detailed explication of how purgatory is shown here: Jesus' Teaching: Matthew 5:21-26, and Purgatory: Examination & Responses to Protestant Objections
[8] St. Cyprian, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, The Writings of the Fathers Down to 325 AD, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts, 1995, Epistle 51:20, p. 332.
[9] St. John Chrysostom, Demonstrations contra the Pagans.
[10] cf. Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Strong's New Testament 4442 Where is Purgatory in the Bible? The Complete Guide
[11] This is part of this article here: What must a Man Do to Be Saved? A Look at Merit and Salvation
[12] St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Hebrews, Homily 1, Philip Schapf, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series , Volume 14, p. 368.
[13] St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Homily 10:8, NPNP Vol. 12, (This section is on 2 Cor. 5:8-10) P. 330.
[14] Trent Horn The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, pp. 264-265.
2023 1 Corinthians 3:10-17, Proof for Faith Alone or Purgatory? Response to a Claim by a Protestant... Matt1618... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.