Purgatory, an untraditional tradition

[JasonTE]

Some people have been posting on the subject of Purgatory in recent weeks. The suggestion was made that the doctrine is taught in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3.

Actually, despite such speculative interpretations put forward by Roman Catholic apologists, the doctrine of Purgatory is absent from and contradicted by scripture. David's last actions on earth were to break a promise (2 Samuel 19:23) and arrange for somebody to be murdered (1 Kings 2:1-10). He also died in polygamy (Deuteronomy 17:17). But he knew he would be in Heaven the moment the next life began (Psalm 17:15). Paul knew he was imperfect (Philippians 3:12), but said he would go to be with the Lord if he died at that time (Philippians 1:23). Scripture repeatedly refers to all believers being at peace, having joy, going to be with the Lord, etc. whenever this life ends (Psalm 49:15, 73:24-25, Isaiah 57:1-2, Daniel 12:13, Matthew 25:34, Luke 16:22, Luke 23:42-43, John 14:2-3, 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, Revelation 7:14-17). Purgatory is never mentioned, but instead is repeatedly contradicted by references to every believer going to Heaven.

Some elements of the later Roman Catholic doctrine can be seen in some church fathers, but the concept of Purgatory is contradicted by the earliest patristic evidence. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:

"These views of the middle state in connection with prayers for the dead show a strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, which afterwards came to prevail in the West through the great weight of St. Augustin and Pope Gregory I. But there is, after all, a considerable difference. The ante-Nicene idea of the middle state of the pious excludes, or at all events ignores, the idea of penal suffering, which is an essential part of the Catholic conception of purgatory. It represents the condition of the pious as one of comparative happiness, inferior only to the perfect happiness after the resurrection. Whatever and wherever Paradise may be, it belongs to the heavenly world; while purgatory is supposed to be a middle region between heaven and hell, and to border rather on the latter. The sepulchral inscriptions in the catacombs have a prevailingly cheerful tone, and represent the departed souls as being 'in peace' and 'living in Christ,' or 'in God.' The same view is substantially preserved in the Oriental church, which holds that the souls of the departed believers may be aided by the prayers of the living, but are nevertheless 'in light and rest, with a foretaste of eternal happiness.' Yet alongside with this prevailing belief, there are traces of the purgatorial idea of suffering the temporal consequences of sin, and a painful struggle after holiness. Origen, following in the path of Plato, used the term 'purgatorial fire,' by which the remaining stains of the soul shall be burned away; but he understood it figuratively, and connected it with the consuming fire at the final judgment, while Augustin and Gregory I. transferred it to the middle state. The common people and most of the fathers understood it of a material fire; but this is not a matter of faith, and there are Roman divines who confine the purgatorial sufferings to the mind and the conscience. A material fire would be very harmless without a material body. A still nearer approach to the Roman purgatory was made by Tertullian and Cyprian, who taught that a special satisfaction and penance was required for sins committed after baptism, and that the last farthing must be paid (Matt. 5:20) before the soul can be released from prison and enter into heaven." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch12.htm , section 156)

Similarly, the historian Jacques Le Goff, when commenting on the views of Cyprian in the third century (a church father who is often misrepresented as having believed in Purgatory, even though he rejected the concept), remarks that the doctrine of Purgatory "did not yet exist" (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 58).

Roman Catholics often incorrectly claim that the doctrine of Purgatory is found in sources such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and the early catacombs. But Le Goff explains:

"The abundant epigraphic and liturgical evidence available for the first few centuries of the Christian era has often been used to prove that belief in Purgatory is very ancient indeed. But it seems to me that the interpretation goes beyond the evidence. The favors that God is urged to grant the dead essentially involve the pleasures of Paradise, or at any rate a state defined by pax et lux, peace and light....A Greek apocryphal work from the late second century, The Acts of Paul and Thekla, speaks of prayers for a dead young girl. The pagan queen Tryphena asks her adopted daughter, the Christian virgin Thekla, to pray for her real daughter Phalconilla, who has died. Thekla prays to God for eternal salvation for Phalconilla....The importance of the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas in the prehistory of Purgatory should neither be exaggerated nor minimized. It is not Purgatory as such that is being discussed here, and none of the images contained in Perpetua's two visions recur in medieval imagery associated with Purgatory. The garden in which Dinocratus [the dead boy being prayed for] finds himself is almost paradisaical in nature; it is neither a valley nor a plain nor a mountain. The thirst and feebleness from which he suffers are described as psychological rather than moral defects. He suffers psychic and physical pain rather than the pain of punishment for a wrong, labor rather than poena, whereas the texts that foreshadow Purgatory or that concern Purgatory per se prefer the latter term to the former. The Passion makes no mention of either judgment or punishment....In this vision of the other world [advocated by Clement of Alexandria and Origen] a number of ingredients of the true Purgatory are lacking, however. No clear distinction is made between time in Purgatory and the time of the Last Judgment. This confusion is so troublesome that Origen is forced both to expand the end of the world and to collapse it into a single moment, while at the same time making its prospect imminent. Purgatory is not really distinguished from Hell, and there is no clear awareness that Purgatory is a temporary and provisional abode. The responsibility for postmortem purification is shared by the dead, with their weight of sin, and God, the benevolent judge of salvation; the living play no part. Finally, no place is designated as the place of purgatory. By making the purifying fire not only 'spiritual' but also 'invisible,' Origen prevented the imagination of the faithful from gaining a purchase on it." (pp. 46, 50, 57)

Regarding Tertullian:

"Between Tertullian's refrigerium interim [a region of the afterlife some believers go to] and Purgatory there is a difference not only of kind - for Tertullian it is a matter of a restful wait until the Last Judgment, whereas with Purgatory it is a question of a trial that purifies because it is punitive and expiatory - but also of duration: souls remain in refrigerium until the resurrection but in Purgatory only as long as it takes to expiate their sins." (pp. 47-48)

Augustine is widely regarded as the father of the doctrine of Purgatory. Roman Catholics often quote him referring to something similar to the modern Catholic doctrine. But what these Catholics don't explain is that Augustine acknowledged that he was speculating. In other words, he wasn't passing on some apostolic tradition handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles. Rather, he was speculating about what might happen in the afterlife. Jacques Le Goff explains:

"[Joseph Ntedika] has put his finger on a key point, showing not only that Augustine's position evolved over the years, which was to be expected, but that it underwent a marked change at a specific point in time, which Ntedika places in the year 413....In the Letter to Dardinus (417) he [Augustine] sketches a geography of the otherworld which makes no place for Purgatory." (pp. 62, 70)

In other words, Augustine's views on the subject developed over time, and he was inconsistent. The Anglican historian George Salmon explains the significance of these facts:

"In like manner, when Augustine hears the idea suggested that, as the sins of good men cause them suffering in this world, so they may also to a certain degree in the next, he says that he will not venture to say that nothing of the kind can occur, for perhaps it may. Well, if the idea of purgatory had not got beyond a 'perhaps' at the beginning of the fifth century, we are safe in saying that it was not by tradition that the later Church arrived at certainty on the subject; for, if the Church had had any tradition in the time of Augustine, that great Father could not have helped knowing it." (The Infallibility of the Church [London, England: John Murray, 1914], pp. 133-134)

Here's an example of Augustine expressing his uncertainty:

"And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it." (The Enchiridion, 69)

Now, doesn't that paint quite a different picture than what we get from Roman Catholic apologists who only quote Augustine affirming the doctrine of Purgatory, then portray it as evidence of some apostolic tradition always held by the church?

Long before Augustine, we find widespread references to deceased Christians, even all deceased Christians, being in Heaven, not Purgatory. When Clement of Rome refers to deceased believers, he always refers to them being in Heaven, never Purgatory (First Clement, 5-6, 44, 50). The same is true of other early sources, such as Polycarp (Epistle to the Philippians, 9) and a document written by the church of Smyrna after Polycarp's martyrdom (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 19). Other early sources refer to all believers going to Heaven or a heavenly region of Hades that doesn't have the suffering associated with Purgatory: Papias (Fragments, 5), Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 5), Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians, 31), Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 5:5:1, 5:31:2), Hippolytus (Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe, 1-2), Cyprian (Treatises, 7, On the Mortality, 6-7, 26), etc.

Roman Catholicism claims that Purgatory is an apostolic tradition always held by the Christian church. In reality, the doctrine is neither apostolic nor entirely traditional. It's contradicted by scripture, and it was rejected by the earliest church fathers and some of the later ones as well.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Exmo-Robertson]

Thanks for this post. I've always wanted to know more about this teaching. I can't wait for the responses.

[Ric]

I'm having a chat with someone on the topic of purgatory. I will refer this to them. Thanks!

Today @ 06:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140345#post140345)
JasonTE:

Some people have been posting on the subject of Purgatory in recent weeks. The suggestion was made that the doctrine is taught in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3.

Actually, despite such speculative interpretations put forward by Roman Catholic apologists, the doctrine of Purgatory is absent from and contradicted by scripture. David's last actions on earth were to break a promise (2 Samuel 19:23) and arrange for somebody to be murdered (1 Kings 2:1-10). He also died in polygamy (Deuteronomy 17:17). But he knew he would be in Heaven the moment the next life began (Psalm 17:15). Paul knew he was imperfect (Philippians 3:12), but said he would go to be with the Lord if he died at that time (Philippians 1:23). Scripture repeatedly refers to all believers being at peace, having joy, going to be with the Lord, etc. whenever this life ends (Psalm 49:15, 73:24-25, Isaiah 57:1-2, Daniel 12:13, Matthew 25:34, Luke 16:22, Luke 23:42-43, John 14:2-3, 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, Revelation 7:14-17). Purgatory is never mentioned, but instead is repeatedly contradicted by references to every believer going to Heaven.

Some elements of the later Roman Catholic doctrine can be seen in some church fathers, but the concept of Purgatory is contradicted by the earliest patristic evidence. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:

"These views of the middle state in connection with prayers for the dead show a strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, which afterwards came to prevail in the West through the great weight of St. Augustin and Pope Gregory I. But there is, after all, a considerable difference. The ante-Nicene idea of the middle state of the pious excludes, or at all events ignores, the idea of penal suffering, which is an essential part of the Catholic conception of purgatory. It represents the condition of the pious as one of comparative happiness, inferior only to the perfect happiness after the resurrection. Whatever and wherever Paradise may be, it belongs to the heavenly world; while purgatory is supposed to be a middle region between heaven and hell, and to border rather on the latter. The sepulchral inscriptions in the catacombs have a prevailingly cheerful tone, and represent the departed souls as being 'in peace' and 'living in Christ,' or 'in God.' The same view is substantially preserved in the Oriental church, which holds that the souls of the departed believers may be aided by the prayers of the living, but are nevertheless 'in light and rest, with a foretaste of eternal happiness.' Yet alongside with this prevailing belief, there are traces of the purgatorial idea of suffering the temporal consequences of sin, and a painful struggle after holiness. Origen, following in the path of Plato, used the term 'purgatorial fire,' by which the remaining stains of the soul shall be burned away; but he understood it figuratively, and connected it with the consuming fire at the final judgment, while Augustin and Gregory I. transferred it to the middle state. The common people and most of the fathers understood it of a material fire; but this is not a matter of faith, and there are Roman divines who confine the purgatorial sufferings to the mind and the conscience. A material fire would be very harmless without a material body. A still nearer approach to the Roman purgatory was made by Tertullian and Cyprian, who taught that a special satisfaction and penance was required for sins committed after baptism, and that the last farthing must be paid (Matt. 5:20) before the soul can be released from prison and enter into heaven." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch12.htm , section 156)

Similarly, the historian Jacques Le Goff, when commenting on the views of Cyprian in the third century (a church father who is often misrepresented as having believed in Purgatory, even though he rejected the concept), remarks that the doctrine of Purgatory "did not yet exist" (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 58).

Roman Catholics often incorrectly claim that the doctrine of Purgatory is found in sources such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and the early catacombs. But Le Goff explains:

"The abundant epigraphic and liturgical evidence available for the first few centuries of the Christian era has often been used to prove that belief in Purgatory is very ancient indeed. But it seems to me that the interpretation goes beyond the evidence. The favors that God is urged to grant the dead essentially involve the pleasures of Paradise, or at any rate a state defined by pax et lux, peace and light....A Greek apocryphal work from the late second century, The Acts of Paul and Thekla, speaks of prayers for a dead young girl. The pagan queen Tryphena asks her adopted daughter, the Christian virgin Thekla, to pray for her real daughter Phalconilla, who has died. Thekla prays to God for eternal salvation for Phalconilla....The importance of the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas in the prehistory of Purgatory should neither be exaggerated nor minimized. It is not Purgatory as such that is being discussed here, and none of the images contained in Perpetua's two visions recur in medieval imagery associated with Purgatory. The garden in which Dinocratus [the dead boy being prayed for] finds himself is almost paradisaical in nature; it is neither a valley nor a plain nor a mountain. The thirst and feebleness from which he suffers are described as psychological rather than moral defects. He suffers psychic and physical pain rather than the pain of punishment for a wrong, labor rather than poena, whereas the texts that foreshadow Purgatory or that concern Purgatory per se prefer the latter term to the former. The Passion makes no mention of either judgment or punishment....In this vision of the other world [advocated by Clement of Alexandria and Origen] a number of ingredients of the true Purgatory are lacking, however. No clear distinction is made between time in Purgatory and the time of the Last Judgment. This confusion is so troublesome that Origen is forced both to expand the end of the world and to collapse it into a single moment, while at the same time making its prospect imminent. Purgatory is not really distinguished from Hell, and there is no clear awareness that Purgatory is a temporary and provisional abode. The responsibility for postmortem purification is shared by the dead, with their weight of sin, and God, the benevolent judge of salvation; the living play no part. Finally, no place is designated as the place of purgatory. By making the purifying fire not only 'spiritual' but also 'invisible,' Origen prevented the imagination of the faithful from gaining a purchase on it." (pp. 46, 50, 57)

Regarding Tertullian:

"Between Tertullian's refrigerium interim [a region of the afterlife some believers go to] and Purgatory there is a difference not only of kind - for Tertullian it is a matter of a restful wait until the Last Judgment, whereas with Purgatory it is a question of a trial that purifies because it is punitive and expiatory - but also of duration: souls remain in refrigerium until the resurrection but in Purgatory only as long as it takes to expiate their sins." (pp. 47-48)

Augustine is widely regarded as the father of the doctrine of Purgatory. Roman Catholics often quote him referring to something similar to the modern Catholic doctrine. But what these Catholics don't explain is that Augustine acknowledged that he was speculating. In other words, he wasn't passing on some apostolic tradition handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles. Rather, he was speculating about what might happen in the afterlife. Jacques Le Goff explains:

"[Joseph Ntedika] has put his finger on a key point, showing not only that Augustine's position evolved over the years, which was to be expected, but that it underwent a marked change at a specific point in time, which Ntedika places in the year 413....In the Letter to Dardinus (417) he [Augustine] sketches a geography of the otherworld which makes no place for Purgatory." (pp. 62, 70)

In other words, Augustine's views on the subject developed over time, and he was inconsistent. The Anglican historian George Salmon explains the significance of these facts:

"In like manner, when Augustine hears the idea suggested that, as the sins of good men cause them suffering in this world, so they may also to a certain degree in the next, he says that he will not venture to say that nothing of the kind can occur, for perhaps it may. Well, if the idea of purgatory had not got beyond a 'perhaps' at the beginning of the fifth century, we are safe in saying that it was not by tradition that the later Church arrived at certainty on the subject; for, if the Church had had any tradition in the time of Augustine, that great Father could not have helped knowing it." (The Infallibility of the Church [London, England: John Murray, 1914], pp. 133-134)

Here's an example of Augustine expressing his uncertainty:

"And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it." (The Enchiridion, 69)

Now, doesn't that paint quite a different picture than what we get from Roman Catholic apologists who only quote Augustine affirming the doctrine of Purgatory, then portray it as evidence of some apostolic tradition always held by the church?

Long before Augustine, we find widespread references to deceased Christians, even all deceased Christians, being in Heaven, not Purgatory. When Clement of Rome refers to deceased believers, he always refers to them being in Heaven, never Purgatory (First Clement, 5-6, 44, 50). The same is true of other early sources, such as Polycarp (Epistle to the Philippians, 9) and a document written by the church of Smyrna after Polycarp's martyrdom (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 19). Other early sources refer to all believers going to Heaven or a heavenly region of Hades that doesn't have the suffering associated with Purgatory: Papias (Fragments, 5), Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 5), Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians, 31), Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 5:5:1, 5:31:2), Hippolytus (Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe, 1-2), Cyprian (Treatises, 7, On the Mortality, 6-7, 26), etc.

Roman Catholicism claims that Purgatory is an apostolic tradition always held by the Christian church. In reality, the doctrine is neither apostolic nor entirely traditional. It's contradicted by scripture, and it was rejected by the earliest church fathers and some of the later ones as well.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[spl_cadet]

You've doomed yourself. You just motivated me to get off my butt and write up a webpage for my site on purgatory. :cool:

[JasonTE]

spl_cadet,

If you're going to defend the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, you're going to have to refute not only me, but also mainstream scholarship, including some of your own denomination's scholars. Historians such as Jacques Le Goff refer to a variety of views existing on this subject among the church fathers, including an absence of Purgatory early on. Protestants aren't the only ones who have reached these conclusions.

Judging from my past interactions with you, and judging from the material at your web site, I don't think you're prepared to address this subject in much depth. I'll give some examples.

In one of your articles (http://catholic-cadet.sourcecod.com/apol/solascriptura.html ), you claim that passages like John 21:25 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are evidence against sola scriptura. The issue with sola scriptura has never been whether the revelation of God was ever oral. The issue, rather, is what revelation we have today. You cite John 21:25, but your denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, has never given us a single word Jesus spoke during His earthly ministry, outside of what's recorded in scripture. If the RCC doesn't know what John 21:25 is referring to, why would you cite such a passage as evidence against sola scriptura? By your own logic, John 21:25 would also be evidence against the Roman Catholic rule of faith. After all, not every word and deed of Jesus is recorded in Roman Catholicism's rule of faith, just as they're not recorded in scripture.

In another article (http://catholic-cadet.sourcecod.com/apol/christchurch.html ), you give a listing of some attributes of the Christian church. The list is highly selective and misleading. You cite 1 Timothy 3 in support of having bishops, priests, and deacons, even though the passage only mentions two church offices. There's a consensus among modern scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars, that the offices of bishop and presbyter were the same early on. The two terms were interchangeable, as we see in Acts 20:17-28 and Titus 1:5-7, for example. Repeatedly, we see two offices mentioned, bishops and deacons, not three offices (Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-13). We find similar evidence in the earliest patristic documents. The monarchical episcopate appears in Ignatius early in the second century, but it seems to have been absent earlier, and it arose gradually at different times in different parts of the world. This is confirmed not only by the earliest evidence and by modern scholarship, but also by some of the later church fathers, such as Jerome.

To cite one more example, you mention John 6 as evidence of the eucharist. First of all, where are you getting the concept that Protestants reject the eucharist? We don't. What we reject is transubstantiation and other non-apostolic Roman Catholic traditions about the eucharist. We don't reject the eucharist itself. Furthermore, what does John 6 have to do with the eucharist? Jesus spoke those words before the Last Supper. There was no eucharist yet. He explained to us what He meant in verse 35 of John 6. The eating and drinking are coming to Christ and believing in Him, not participation in a transubstantiated eucharist. Besides, your own denomination's modern ecumenism makes a eucharistic interpretation of John 6 problematic. Your denomination now claims that Protestants can be saved, yet, if John 6:53 is referring to a transubstantiated eucharist, how is that possible? What you're essentially telling us, then, is that Jesus was teaching people that they must participate in a transubstantiated eucharist in order to be saved, even though there was no eucharist in existence when He spoke those words, and even though you think Protestants can be saved without participating in a transubstantiated eucharist. That's not a credible interpretation of the passage.

I could go on, but I think these examples I've given are sufficient to show that you aren't addressing these issues in much depth. Before you write an article on Purgatory, I hope you'll understand the doctrine and its history better than you've understood the other issues you've written about.

[Ric]

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Today @ 10:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140467#post140467)
JasonTE:

spl_cadet,

If you're going to defend the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, you're going to have to refute not only me, but also mainstream scholarship, including some of your own denomination's scholars. Historians such as Jacques Le Goff refer to a variety of views existing on this subject among the church fathers, including an absence of Purgatory early on. Protestants aren't the only ones who have reached these conclusions.

Judging from my past interactions with you, and judging from the material at your web site, I don't think you're prepared to address this subject in much depth. I'll give some examples.

In one of your articles (http://catholic-cadet.sourcecod.com/apol/solascriptura.html ), you claim that passages like John 21:25 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are evidence against sola scriptura. The issue with sola scriptura has never been whether the revelation of God was ever oral. The issue, rather, is what revelation we have today. You cite John 21:25, but your denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, has never given us a single word Jesus spoke during His earthly ministry, outside of what's recorded in scripture. If the RCC doesn't know what John 21:25 is referring to, why would you cite such a passage as evidence against sola scriptura? By your own logic, John 21:25 would also be evidence against the Roman Catholic rule of faith. After all, not every word and deed of Jesus is recorded in Roman Catholicism's rule of faith, just as they're not recorded in scripture.

In another article (http://catholic-cadet.sourcecod.com/apol/christchurch.html ), you give a listing of some attributes of the Christian church. The list is highly selective and misleading. You cite 1 Timothy 3 in support of having bishops, priests, and deacons, even though the passage only mentions two church offices. There's a consensus among modern scholars, including Roman Catholic scholars, that the offices of bishop and presbyter were the same early on. The two terms were interchangeable, as we see in Acts 20:17-28 and Titus 1:5-7, for example. Repeatedly, we see two offices mentioned, bishops and deacons, not three offices (Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-13). We find similar evidence in the earliest patristic documents. The monarchical episcopate appears in Ignatius early in the second century, but it seems to have been absent earlier, and it arose gradually at different times in different parts of the world. This is confirmed not only by the earliest evidence and by modern scholarship, but also by some of the later church fathers, such as Jerome.

To cite one more example, you mention John 6 as evidence of the eucharist. First of all, where are you getting the concept that Protestants reject the eucharist? We don't. What we reject is transubstantiation and other non-apostolic Roman Catholic traditions about the eucharist. We don't reject the eucharist itself. Furthermore, what does John 6 have to do with the eucharist? Jesus spoke those words before the Last Supper. There was no eucharist yet. He explained to us what He meant in verse 35 of John 6. The eating and drinking are coming to Christ and believing in Him, not participation in a transubstantiated eucharist. Besides, your own denomination's modern ecumenism makes a eucharistic interpretation of John 6 problematic. Your denomination now claims that Protestants can be saved, yet, if John 6:53 is referring to a transubstantiated eucharist, how is that possible? What you're essentially telling us, then, is that Jesus was teaching people that they must participate in a transubstantiated eucharist in order to be saved, even though there was no eucharist in existence when He spoke those words, and even though you think Protestants can be saved without participating in a transubstantiated eucharist. That's not a credible interpretation of the passage.

I could go on, but I think these examples I've given are sufficient to show that you aren't addressing these issues in much depth. Before you write an article on Purgatory, I hope you'll understand the doctrine and its history better than you've understood the other issues you've written about.

[spl_cadet]

If you're going to defend the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, you're going to have to refute not only me, but also mainstream scholarship, including some of your own denomination's scholars.

Cool.



In one of your articles (http://catholic-cadet.sourcecod.com...ascriptura.html )

In another article (http://catholic-cadet.sourcecod.com...ristchurch.html )

Congratulations, you've just listed two of my very earliest works, the second of which wasn't even created by me (used with permission from someone on CARM) and the first was mainly stolen from a Scriptural cheatsheet with my comments added on. They are both over a year old, when I first started into apologetics.


I could go on, but I think these examples I've given are sufficient to show that you aren't addressing these issues in much depth

1. If you do want to, I suggest you go after my newer articles. Look in my updates thing for that.
2. I do have a tendency towards smaller pages. That's because 1. I write that way, 2. I don't like spending more than a couple hours writing something up and 3. If you want a 200K text file on it, you can go to Dave Armstrong, not me.


Before you write an article on Purgatory, I hope you'll understand the doctrine and its history better than you've understood the other issues you've written about.

Nope, but it's good learning experience.

[Bartholomew]

JasonTE,

Thanks for the informative post.

~Matt

[spl_cadet]

To cite one more example, you mention John 6 as evidence of the eucharist. First of all, where are you getting the concept that Protestants reject the eucharist? We don't.

Context my friend. You reject the Catholic view on the Eucharist, which is obvious from the fact that my argument is on a Catholic site. Also, if it's from one of my earlier articles, it's possible that I had not yet learned that you guys had one.


What we reject is transubstantiation and other non-apostolic Roman Catholic traditions about the eucharist.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

And that objection just died an untimely death :rofl:


Furthermore, what does John 6 have to do with the eucharist?

Quite a lot.


Jesus spoke those words before the Last Supper. There was no eucharist yet.

And your point is what? He preached about the need to turn to Him for Redemption before He was brought to trial remember.


He explained to us what He meant in verse 35 of John 6. The eating and drinking are coming to Christ and believing in Him, not participation in a transubstantiated eucharist.

Double meaning actually. Or is there some reason that He doesn't correct the Jews when they take Him literally and think they have to eat Him, despite the fact that He did correct mistaken ideas taken from a parable of his?


Besides, your own denomination's modern ecumenism makes a eucharistic interpretation of John 6 problematic. Your denomination now claims that Protestants can be saved, yet, if John 6:53 is referring to a transubstantiated eucharist, how is that possible?

We've claimed that for decades prior to ecumenicism. The Baltimore Catechism itself states that Prots may be saved.
Furthermore, it is possible according to the historic Christian belief in baptismal regeneration and in God's great mercy.

[JasonTE]

spl_cadet said:


If you do want to, I suggest you go after my newer articles.

If you don't want people to associate the older articles with what you believe, I suggest that you remove them from your web site. I've read some of your newest material. There are many errors in your newer articles, as in the older material.

I don't want to discourage you from defending Christianity. Being involved in Christian apologetics is a good thing. But Roman Catholicism isn't Christianity.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[JasonTE]

spl_cadet said:


Context my friend. You reject the Catholic view on the Eucharist, which is obvious from the fact that my argument is on a Catholic site. Also, if it's from one of my earlier articles, it's possible that I had not yet learned that you guys had one.

If you didn't know that Protestants have the eucharist, then why were you involved in apologetics, even to the point of having your own web site? Somebody who doesn't know that Protestants have the eucharist is significantly ignorant of Protestantism.


Ignatius of Antioch
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

And that objection just died an untimely death

There are a number of problems with your reasoning. To begin with, you're responding to a comment I made about apostolic teaching, and Ignatius wasn't an apostle. You can't argue that it's inconceivable that Ignatius would disagree with apostolic teaching, since a.) you can't deny that it's logically possible for such a person, even one living so early, to depart from what the apostles taught, b.) I've given an example of Ignatius departing from apostolic teaching with regard to the monarchical episcopate, and c.) you as a Roman Catholic disagree with what Ignatius taught on some issues, such as his view of salvation and his view of ecumenism.

Secondly, I see no justification for concluding that Ignatius is referring to a physical presence of Christ in the eucharist. In the passage you're citing, he was responding to people who deny that Jesus came in the flesh. Ignatius could be responding to them by saying that the eucharist has a physical presence of Christ, but he could also be saying that the eucharist refutes their beliefs because it represents Christ's physicality. For example, Ignatius writes elsewhere that belief in Christ's passion is our resurrection (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, shorter version, 5). Is Ignatius saying that belief in Christ's passion is transubstantiated into our resurrection? No, he's obviously using "is" in the sense of "results in" or "represents". The passage you've cited can be read either way. It's inconclusive.

Third, even if we were to assume that Ignatius was referring to a physical presence in the eucharist, how could you possibly know it was transubstantiation? Why couldn't it be consubstantiation?

Fourth, what about the other church fathers? Why cite only Ignatius? It's a fact of history that the church fathers held multiple views of the eucharist, including views that contradict transubstantiation. The Roman bishop Gelasius, for example, held a view that contradicts transubstantiation, even though the Council of Trent falsely claimed that transubstantiation is the view always held by the Christian church. For documentation of the variety of views held by the fathers, see Philip Schaff's comments in section 69 at:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

And section 95 at:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm

I also recommend consulting Schaff's footnotes, since the notes cite additional passages from the fathers and cite other scholars confimring Schaff's conclusions.


And your point is what? He preached about the need to turn to Him for Redemption before He was brought to trial remember.

God was saving people prior to Christ's work on the cross. But people weren't participating in the eucharist prior to the Last Supper. Why would Jesus tell people that they must participate in a transubstantiated eucharist in order to be saved if there was no transubstantiated eucharist for them to participate in? Furthermore, why does verse 35 identify the eating and drinking as coming to Christ and believing in Him if the eating and drinking are participation in a transubstantiated eucharist? And why should we believe that the eucharist is transformed into Christ's flesh and blood when there is no physical evidence of this alleged physical transformation? When Jesus turned the water into wine at the wedding in Cana, did it continue to look, smell, and taste like water?


Double meaning actually.

If you want to argue that there's a second meaning to John 6, you need to prove that second meaning rather than just gratuitously asserting it. We know that John 6 has the meaning I've ascribed to it. John 6:35 tells us so. Since you're asserting that the passage also has a second, eucharistic meaning, you need to prove that assertion.


Or is there some reason that He doesn't correct the Jews when they take Him literally and think they have to eat Him, despite the fact that He did correct mistaken ideas taken from a parable of his?

First of all, how can you possibly know that they left Jesus because of the statements about eating flesh and drinking blood? The immediate context is Jesus' teachings on predestination and the hypocrisy of the false disciples (John 6:64-65). Even though John 6:66 starts with the phrase "Because of this", you're ignoring verses 64 and 65, and you're going back to an earlier part of the passage to explain why these false disciples left. I see no justification for that.

Secondly, as far as the flesh/blood statements are concerned, Jesus repeatedly allows people to misunderstand Him, including in John's gospel. It's a form of judgment. Some people don't have eyes to see or ears to hear. In Matthew 13:10-17, Jesus explains that He purposely kept some people from understanding what He was teaching. In John 2:19-22, Jesus refers to His body as a "temple", which many people misunderstood as a reference to the actual temple in Jerusalem. He didn't explain to these people what He really meant. We read in Mark 14:56-59 that some people, long after Jesus had made the statement in John 2:19, were still thinking that He had referred to the actual temple in Jerusalem. And in John 21:22-23, we read of another instance of Jesus saying something that was misunderstood by some people, with the misunderstanding leading to the false conclusion that the apostle John wouldn't die. Yet, Jesus didn't clarify the statement. It was John who clarified it decades later in his gospel.

Third, how do you know that Jesus didn't clarify His meaning to these people? How do you know that passages like John 6:35 and John 6:63 aren't clarifications of what Jesus meant? I reject the assertion that Jesus didn't clarify His meaning. Even if He hadn't clarified it, this wouldn't be the first time He did so.

Matthew 26:29 refers to the wine remaining wine after consecration. Jesus explains that people will drink the same substance in the coming kingdom, even though the eucharist apparently will be celebrated only until Christ's second coming (1 Corinthians 11:26). Consubstantiation remains a possibility, but transubstantiation is ruled out.

By the way, you may be interested in reading some articles written by a colleague of mine by the name of Mike Taylor. He's a former Roman Catholic who was training to be a Jesuit. He recently converted to Evangelicalism. He's written some articles on John 6 and eucharistic doctrine. You can access them at his web site:

http://members.aol.com/epologist


Furthermore, it is possible according to the historic Christian belief in baptismal regeneration and in God's great mercy.

How does baptismal regeneration explain how Protestants can be saved in light of John 6:53? And if John 6:53 is about participation in a transubstantiated eucharist, how can anybody, Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise, be justified through baptism? After all, participating in baptism doesn't mean that you've participated in a transubstantiated eucharist. In light of John 6:53, are we to conclude that baptized people are spiritually dead until they participate in the eucharist? Such absurd conclusions are the burden you carry if you're to maintain your eucharistic interpretation of John 6.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 07:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140657#post140657)
JasonTE:
If you don't want people to associate the older articles with what you believe, I suggest that you remove them from your web site. I've read some of your newest material. There are many errors in your newer articles, as in the older material.

I'll correct them when I get around to them. There are constraints on my time of course, and I am involved with other projects other than going and reading through my oldest articles and seeing what bits are incorrect.


I don't want to discourage you from defending Christianity. Being involved in Christian apologetics is a good thing. But Roman Catholicism isn't Christianity.

Catholicism is however the true branch of Christianity.

[JasonTE]

spl_cadet said:


Catholicism is however the true branch of Christianity.

We could discuss the veneration of images, the sinlessness of Mary, and other doctrines of Roman Catholicism that were not only unknown to the earliest Christians, but even widely contradicted by them. But let's go straight to the foundation.

Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation, and there was no papacy in the earliest generations of church history. Church offices such as that of the deacon and the bishop are mentioned explicitly and often. Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church and its bishops. We see Paul, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other early sources giving multiple reasons for the importance of the Roman church, but a papacy is never a reason they give. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history, and the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more, there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determing whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy.

I'm aware of passages Roman Catholics cite from the gospels and from church fathers such as Ignatius and Irenaeus, as alleged evidence of an early papacy. But all of these passages are cited as vague allusions to a papacy, not as explicit references to the office. Every one of these passages can reasonably be interpreted in a non-papal way. If there had been a papacy early on, Catholics wouldn't have to resort to such alleged vague allusions to the office in order to prove its existence. The office would be mentioned explicitly and often. But it isn't. It's not mentioned at all.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Belteshazzar]

JasonTE:

Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation, and there was no papacy in the earliest generations of church history.

You seem to be shifting arguments pretty quickly here Jason. Do you want to talk about purgatory, or do you just want to throw rocks at the Church?

Roman Catholicism claims Jesus Christ appointed Peter to be the foundation of the Church, and this leadership has been passed down by apostolic succession from Peter down through all the Bishops of Rome to John Paul II.

Acts, when read in context, quite clearly shows Paul appealing to the authority of Peter, James, and the disciples. Paul challenges them, he questions them, he exhorts them to represent Christ to the Greeks, but he appeals to them. If the Protestant view were held by Paul, he would have created yet another denomination and went on his merry way.

And it always strikes me as odd to see Protestants throwing rocks at the Church by quoting scripture. How would you even know they were scripture if it had not been for the Catholic Church?

Augustine

I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.

Jerry

[spl_cadet]

If you didn't know that Protestants have the eucharist, then why were you involved in apologetics, even to the point of having your own web site?

Why? Initially it was to provide Christian stuff on Wicca as I couldn't find anything about it online. Ironically, that still has yet to occur.
Defending against Protestantism came with my introduction to Chick.


Somebody who doesn't know that Protestants have the eucharist is significantly ignorant of Protestantism.

You're right. Though thinking about it last night, it could have simply been a confusion over the fact that we call it the eucharist and you guys tend to call it communion plain and simple.



There are a number of problems with your reasoning. To begin with, you're responding to a comment I made about apostolic teaching, and Ignatius wasn't an apostle.

But of course Ignatius couldn't have recieved that teaching :ahem:


You can't argue that it's inconceivable that Ignatius would disagree with apostolic teaching, since a.) you can't deny that it's logically possible for such a person, even one living so early, to depart from what the apostles taught, b.) I've given an example of Ignatius departing from apostolic teaching with regard to the monarchical episcopate, and c.) you as a Roman Catholic disagree with what Ignatius taught on some issues, such as his view of salvation and his view of ecumenism.

Translation: I'm going to bluff my way around this one.
What's your point? Are there areas of disagreement? Yes. But we take the ECF's as a whole.


Ignatius could be responding to them by saying that the eucharist has a physical presence of Christ, but he could also be saying that the eucharist refutes their beliefs because it represents Christ's physicality.

Jason Engwer=Bill Clinton.

Is=is. Not represents.


Is Ignatius saying that belief in Christ's passion is transubstantiated into our resurrection? No, he's obviously using "is" in the sense of "results in" or "represents".

Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to[a true belief in] Christ's passion, which is our resurrection.

We are resurrected to our eternal life because of Christ's passion. So Christ's passion is indeed in a literal sense our resurrection.


Fourth, what about the other church fathers? Why cite only Ignatius?

Because I prefer not to flood posts with multiple quotations when one will do.

But, if you insist:
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66).

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).


The Roman bishop Gelasius, for example, held a view that contradicts transubstantiation, even though the Council of Trent falsely claimed that transubstantiation is the view always held by the Christian church.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Pope Gelasius was using the Greek understanding of symbolism. According to the Greek understanding, the substance was simply how it appeared to our senses.



God was saving people prior to Christ's work on the cross.

But only through the Cross.


Why would Jesus tell people that they must participate in a transubstantiated eucharist in order to be saved if there was no transubstantiated eucharist for them to participate in?

Because there would be.


Furthermore, why does verse 35 identify the eating and drinking as coming to Christ and believing in Him if the eating and drinking are participation in a transubstantiated eucharist?

Because there is a dual meaning in the passage.



If you want to argue that there's a second meaning to John 6, you need to prove that second meaning rather than just gratuitously asserting it. We know that John 6 has the meaning I've ascribed to it. John 6:35 tells us so. Since you're asserting that the passage also has a second, eucharistic meaning, you need to prove that assertion.

I have, with the verses following it.


And why should we believe that the eucharist is transformed into Christ's flesh and blood when there is no physical evidence of this alleged physical transformation?

Well, first off, there is the occasional Eucharistic miracle.
Second, I suggest you harken back to Christ's words to St. Thomas.



First of all, how can you possibly know that they left Jesus because of the statements about eating flesh and drinking blood?

Firstly, where did I refer to them leaving Christ? I was referring to them questioning Him over His statements in 48-60.


The immediate context is Jesus' teachings on predestination and the hypocrisy of the false disciples (John 6:64-65).

And the context of their leaving is at 60-61.



Secondly, as far as the flesh/blood statements are concerned, Jesus repeatedly allows people to misunderstand Him, including in John's gospel. It's a form of judgment. Some people don't have eyes to see or ears to hear.

And where does He leave the apostles ignorant?



Third, how do you know that Jesus didn't clarify His meaning to these people?

Well then it wouldn't be in the Bible.


How do you know that passages like John 6:35 and John 6:63 aren't clarifications of what Jesus meant?

Because 35 is prior and 48 is in response to 42. And I fail to see how 63 could possibly be a clarification.



Matthew 26:29 refers to the wine remaining wine after consecration.

No it doesn't. Unless you want to posit that because Catholics will refer to wine in communion that we deny Transubstantiation.


He's a former Roman Catholic who was training to be a Jesuit. He recently converted to Evangelicalism.

I feel sorry for him.


How does baptismal regeneration explain how Protestants can be saved in light of John 6:53?

As I said, God's great mercy and also the dual meaning.

Oh, and here's a stumper for you: The Greek word used when Jesus says you have to eat Him literally means to gnaw or chew. There is no metaphorical meaning.

[JasonTE]

Belteshazzar said:


You seem to be shifting arguments pretty quickly here Jason. Do you want to talk about purgatory, or do you just want to throw rocks at the Church?

I explained why I mentioned other issues. I was addressing spl_cadet's knowledge of Protestantism, his claim that Catholicism is the true branch of Christianity, etc. If you want to discuss Purgatory without discussing those other topics, you can do so. But as long as I'm interacting with spl_cadet and the claims he's made, those other topics have some relevance.

As for "throwing rocks at the Church", do you consider it "throwing rocks" when the Council of Trent issues dozens of anathemas against people who disagree with it on a large variety of issues? How about when Pope Pius XII says that those who oppose the Assumption of Mary doctrine have fallen away completely from the faith? Is that "throwing rocks"? Or is it "throwing rocks" only when Protestants criticize Roman Catholicism?


Acts, when read in context, quite clearly shows Paul appealing to the authority of Peter, James, and the disciples. Paul challenges them, he questions them, he exhorts them to represent Christ to the Greeks, but he appeals to them. If the Protestant view were held by Paul, he would have created yet another denomination and went on his merry way.

First of all, how is "the authority of Peter, James, and the disciples" equivalent to a papacy? Secondly, when have Protestants argued that Paul should have started his own denomination? Paul looked to James, Peter, and John for fellowship and coordination of their efforts, not submission (Galatians 2:7-10). As Paul explains, his apostolic authority was from God without any human intervention (Galatians 1:1). He didn't even go to visit Peter and James until years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18). When discussing the foundation of the church and church order, Paul mentions the apostles as a group (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20), without any singling out of Peter. He names Peter second as a reputed pillar of the church (Galatians 2:9), but that's not equivalent to describing him as a Pope. Paul writes a lot about church government, settling disputes, etc., but never says anything about a papal office.


How would you even know they were scripture if it had not been for the Catholic Church?

The same way people recognized scripture before the time of Christ. Jesus and the apostles expected people to recognize scripture, and held them responsible for obeying it, long before the RCC defined its canon at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century (Luke 24:25-27, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Timothy 5:18, etc.). For hundreds of years, men like David, Nehemiah, Daniel, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and Augustine lived and died in submission to scripture without thinking they needed an infallible Roman Catholic magisterium to define what is and isn't scripture for them.

Your quotation of Augustine, which you didn't document, is irrelevant, since Augustine didn't define the catholic church as the Roman Catholic Church. And Protestants don't deny that the catholic church is involved in helping us identify the canon. What we deny is that the catholic church is the Roman Catholic Church.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[JasonTE]

spl_cadet said:


Is=is. Not represents.

So, when Ignatius says that belief in Christ's passion is the resurrection, he means that belief in Christ's passion is transubstantiated into the physical, historical resurrection of Christ? When Jesus says that the cup is the new covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20), He means that the cup holding the wine is transubstantiated into the new covenant, even though covenants are non-physical entities? When you read John 4:13-14, do you conclude that Jesus gives people physical water to drink, and that a physical fountain is then formed within their body? Since there's no physical evidence of such a thing occurring, should we conclude that transubstantiation has occurred, that physical water is involved, but under the appearance of there being no water?

Let's say somebody is giving you directions, with a map, regarding how to get back to your house. He draws two circles on the map. He points to one of them, and he says, "This is your house." Do you conclude that the map has been transubstantiated into your house under the appearance of remaining a map?


We are resurrected to our eternal life because of Christ's passion. So Christ's passion is indeed in a literal sense our resurrection.

Why are you interpreting that passage in Ignatius differently than you interpreted the other one? In the other case, you told us that a physical transformation must be involved. But with this passage, you tell us that Igantius is saying that our resurrection results from belief in Christ's passion. You're defining "is" differently in each case. Why, then, have you told me that it's unreasonable to say that "is" can have more than one meaning?

Your mentioning of Bill Clinton is absurd. The problem with Bill Clinton's comment wasn't that there aren't multiple meanings of "is". The problem is that the definition he put forward was implausible in that context. But there's nothing in the context of the Last Supper or Ignatius that makes my interpretation of "is" implausible. To the contrary, the fact that scripture refers to the wine remaining wine (Matthew 26:29) and the fact that no physical transformation can be seen, smelled, or tasted are evidence that my interpretation is more plausible than yours. We know for a fact that Jesus meant "is" in my sense in Luke 22:20.

Besides, even if we accepted your interpretation, how would that prove transubstantiation? Why not consubstantiation?

You cited Justin Martyr and Irenaeus on the eucharist, apparently without reading the material from Philip Schaff that I linked to. Justin doesn't tell us much about his view of Christ's presence in the eucharist, so we don't know which view he held. Irenaeus refers to the wine remaining after consecration, and he refers to the eucharist containing earthly and heavenly elements, so if he believed in a physical presence, it seems to have been consubstantiation, not transubstantiation. Other fathers held other views, including the symbolic view of Zwingli and the spiritual presence view of Calvinism. Again, see the extensive documentation in Schaff's material that I linked to.


Hate to burst your bubble, but Pope Gelasius was using the Greek understanding of symbolism. According to the Greek understanding, the substance was simply how it appeared to our senses.

You've given us no documentation at all. Here are the words of Gelasius:

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries." (cited in Philip Schaff, http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm , 95)

There are two words, not just one. He refers to the "substance" and "nature" remaining. Not only does Philip Schaff identify this passage as a contradiction of transubstantiation, but so does the Roman Catholic scholar Edward Kilmartin.


Because there would be.

Jesus repeatedly uses the present tense. He says that He is the bread of life, that people don't have life if they don't eat the flesh and drink the blood, etc.

And, again, Jesus identifies the eating and drinking for us in John 6:35. Why should we be looking for some second meaning? Because it's helpful to Roman Catholic apologetics? That's not a good reason.

How did the apostles respond to Jesus? Did Thomas walk up to Him and try to eat one of His fingers? Did Peter bite His leg? They don't seem to have seen a need for physical consumption of Jesus' body. Unlike you, they probably understood what Jesus said in verses 35 and 63.

Let's step back for a moment and consider what Roman Catholicism would have us believe. Jesus speaks in the present tense about how He is the bread of life, how people have no life if they don't eat His flesh and drink His blood, etc. And no eucharist existed yet. But Catholics want us to believe that Jesus was referring to some future sacrament that didn't yet exist. And even though Jesus says that you can't be saved without the eating and drinking (John 6:53), Catholics tell us that people can be saved when they're baptized before ever participating in the eucharist or, if they're Protestant, for example, without ever participating in a transubstantiated eucharist. Then, once we get to the eucharist, and we see that there's no physical evidence of a transformation into flesh and blood, we're told that the transformation has occurred under the appearance of no transformation occurring. So, what we have is Jesus telling people to participate in the eucharist before the eucharist existed, telling them that they must participate in it in order to be saved, even though people are actually saved when they're baptized, and this physical transformation into flesh and blood occurs without any physical evidence. Now, considering that there's a credible non-eucharistic interpretation of John 6 that doesn't involve such difficulties, why would anybody choose the Roman Catholic interpretation?


Well, first off, there is the occasional Eucharistic miracle.

Even if we were to assume the validity of these alleged miracles, they ought to be happening every time the eucharist is offered within the RCC. But that isn't the case.

Just after telling us that there is physical evidence in some cases, you go on to tell us:


Second, I suggest you harken back to Christ's words to St. Thomas.

Which is it? Should we expect physical evidence or shouldn't we? Jesus didn't criticize Thomas for wanting evidence.

We aren't in the situation Jesus described to Thomas. We aren't people who "don't see". Rather, we do see. The eucharist is right before our eyes, and there's no physical evidence of a transformation. If you want to make a parallel with Jesus' resurrection, it would be like Thomas looking at a wall while the other disciples tell him that he should believe Jesus has risen from the dead under the appearance of a wall. Like I said before, do you think the wedding guests in John 2 would have thought much of an alleged miracle in which Jesus turns the water into wine with the liquid continuing to look, smell, and taste like water?


Firstly, where did I refer to them leaving Christ? I was referring to them questioning Him over His statements in 48-60.

And I cited multiple places where Jesus explains what He meant, such as in verse 35. And I cited examples of Jesus letting people misunderstand or misrepresent His teachings. Your suggestion that Jesus should have clarified what He meant, if He wasn't referring to the eucharist, is fallacious, since He did clarify what He meant, and, even if He hadn't, it wouldn't be unprecedented for Him to leave something unclarified.

I could ask you the same question. Since the eucharist didn't exist yet, why didn't He explain that He was referring to the eucharist? Probably because He wasn't referring to the eucharist, and what He said in verses 35 and 63, for example, was sufficient to explain what He did mean.


And the context of their leaving is at 60-61.

Verse 66 says that they left because of "this". What's immediately before the word "this" is what Jesus said in verses 64-65 about predestination and the hypocrisy of the false disciples. For you to ignore what comes just before verse 66, and go back to verses 60-61, makes no sense.


Because 35 is prior and 48 is in response to 42.

How can you separate verse 35 from verses 42 and 48? Jesus identifies Himself as the bread of life in verse 32. He repeats that same theme in verse 41 and over and over again through verse 58.

Besides, verse 35 says that hunger and thirst are ended forever. If coming to Christ and believing in Him ends the hunger and thirst, why would He tell people to go on and eat and drink something else after having their hunger and thirst eternally satisfied? Your interpretation creates one absurdity after another.


No it doesn't. Unless you want to posit that because Catholics will refer to wine in communion that we deny Transubstantiation.

In Matthew 26:29, Jesus refers to the substance as wine after consecration. He says that He'll drink the substance in the coming kingdom, even though the eucharist apparently is to be celebrated only until the time of the second coming (1 Corinthians 11:26). If the substance in the cup is something Christians will drink in the kingdom, it isn't Christ's blood.


Oh, and here's a stumper for you: The Greek word used when Jesus says you have to eat Him literally means to gnaw or chew. There is no metaphorical meaning.

You're mistaken. See Mike Taylor's comments here:

http://members.aol.com/epologist/John6chew.htm

And Glenn Miller's comments here:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hnoblood2.html#john6

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[brianberean]

Today @ 02:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140450#post140450)
spl_cadet:

You've doomed yourself. You just motivated me to get off my butt and write up a webpage for my site on purgatory. :cool:

Yes Jason, you should give up and admit defeat now. The cadet has gotten "off his butt" and sought the aid of PhilVaz :eek:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=4228&sid=29d53f90c4263994e15efc50a75c892c

Turn out the lights, the party's over :help:

Really Cadet..is that the best you can do? Getting off your butt to go over to a catholic board and ask for articles to copy from?

Brian

[JasonTE]

brianberean said:


Yes Jason, you should give up and admit defeat now. The cadet has gotten "off his butt" and sought the aid of PhilVaz

For those who don't know, PhilVaz is Phil Porvaznik, a Roman Catholic apologist I debated last year:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte3/debate2.htm

Phil violated the rules of the debate more than a dozen times, and he never turned in his closing remarks, even though I had turned mine in hours before the deadline.

Phil responds to me on the issue of Purgatory by distinguishing between Heaven and Hades. He says that the fathers refer to believers being in Hades, but not Heaven. However, these fathers define Hades in a way that's identical to the Protestant definition of Heaven. It's a place without the suffering of Purgatory. The term "Heaven" is a broad phrase that Protestants apply to a state of joy, peace, etc. in the afterlife. There are multiple regions within Heaven, such as Hades and the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21. But all of these regions together are under the broad category of "Heaven". Thus, Phil's distinction between a heavenly region of Hades and Heaven itself is insignificant and misleading. If a church father refers to all believers going to a place of peace, joy, etc., without the suffering associated with Purgatory, the fact that this region of Heaven is referred to as "Hades", and that the believers will later go to a different region, doesn't change the fact that it isn't Purgatory.

Phil Porvaznik says that something like the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory appears in Augustine, and he suggests that earlier contradictions of the doctrine can be attributed to development of doctrine. But, as I've documented, Augustine wrote that his view of the afterlife was speculative, not some apostolic tradition always held by the Christian church. The RCC, on the other hand, claims that Purgatory is an apostolic tradition always held by the Christian church. Not only did Augustine say that his view was speculative, but, as I also documented earlier, he was inconsistent in that view, not always advocating a concept of Purgatory.

People like Phil Porvaznik can't argue that there was some seed form of Purgatory that developed into what Augustine advocated. When people like Irenaeus and Hippolytus say that all believers go to a heavenly region of Hades, that isn't a seed form of Purgatory. That's a contradiction of Purgatory. Similarly, when scripture repeatedly refers to all believers going to Heaven at the end of this life, that isn't a seed form of Purgatory. It's a contradiction of Purgatory. Contradictions are not the same as developments.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 01:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141383#post141383)
brianberean:



Yes Jason, you should give up and admit defeat now. The cadet has gotten "off his butt" and sought the aid of PhilVaz :eek:

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=4228&sid=29d53f90c4263994e15efc50a75c892c

Turn out the lights, the party's over :help:

Really Cadet..is that the best you can do? Getting off your butt to go over to a catholic board and ask for articles to copy from?

Brian

1. I did not ask for articles to copy from.
2. I have yet to actually use anything from that article.
3. I recognize that, when I don't know as much as I need to about a subject, that it is necessary to look things up and ask for help. ECF's are such an area.

[Joe Gofish]

You've doomed yourself. You just motivated me to get off my butt and write up a webpage for my site on purgatory. :cool:Heb. 12:29 - God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell).



1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).

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.” The phrase for "suffer loss" in the Greek is "zemiothesetai." The root word is "zemioo" which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).

1 Cor. 3:15 – further, Paul writes “he himself will be saved, "but only" (or “yet so”) as through fire.” “He will be saved” in the Greek is “sothesetai” (which means eternal salvation). The phrase "but only" (or “yet so”) in the Greek is "houtos" which means "in the same manner." This means that man is both eternally rewarded and eternally saved in the same manner by fire.

1 Cor. 3:13 - when Paul writes about God revealing the quality of each man's work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants, in attempting to disprove the reality of purgatory, argue that Paul was only writing about rewarding good works, and not punishing sins (because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a purgatory).

1 Cor. 3:17 - but this verse proves that the purgation after death deals with punishing sin. That is, destroying God's temple is a bad work, which is a mortal sin, which leads to death. 1 Cor. 3:14,15,17 - purgatory thus reveals the state of righteousness (v.14), state of venial sin (v.15) and the state of mortal sin (v.17), all of which are judged after death.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter refers to this purgatorial fire to test the fruits of our faith.

Jude 1:23 - the people who are saved are being snatched out of the fire. People are already saved if they are in heaven, and there is no possibility of salvation if they are in hell. These people are being led to heaven from purgatory.

Rev. 3:18-19 - Jesus refers to this fire as what refines into gold those He loves if they repent of their sins. This is in the context of after death because Jesus, speaking from heaven, awards the white garment of salvation after the purgation of fire (both after death).

Dan 12:10 - Daniel refers to this refining by saying many shall purify themselves, make themselves white and be refined.

Wis. 3:5-6 - the dead are disciplined and tested by fire to receive their heavenly reward. This is the fire of purgatory.

Sirach 2:5 - for gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.

Zech. 13:8-9 - God says 2/3 shall perish, and 1/3 shall be left alive, put into the fire, and refined like silver and tested like gold. The ones that perish go to hell, and there is no need for refinement in heaven, so those being refined are in purgatory. Mal. 3:2-3 - also refers to God's purification of the righteous at their death.