Do ANY Christians still believe in "Purgatory" ?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Of course it doesn't exist .. but that was the teaching.

Then why are you arguing over semantics, if you did a poll of 3000 Catholics in different countries as to what they think purgatory is, and who goes there, you would get a few different idea's. And some might not even believe in at all in 2014. One point I read was babies that die and are not yet baptized into the church go there, the ludicrous nature of that thought is astounding. We are all born into sin, but a baby can't sin on purpose, they haven't developed that ability yet ! In theory once their in there, how would a soul like that get out of there, only by prayer of others, it's crazy. Makes no sense.

Every Christian should know our personal salvation can't come via other peoples prayers, Jesus died for us, he has it covered.
When we die, it wipes out sin as well, as it is the ultimate price to pay.

Romans 6:7 defeats the notion of purgatory

For the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.

And the "Hellfire" doctrine too

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Most Hebrew words denote action. This is not surprise since the letters of Hebrew represent programming functions. What action would hell or purgatory provide in relation to their verb action? When a pendulum swings on way, what is the typical response? It swings the other way. Where is it at rest before an unbalanced force swings it again? Consider what is being accomplished by the two extremes. What could be gained by upsetting balance?

Another way to look at this is with righteousness and wickedness. What is the mean between? On one side, wickedness is placing yourself above others with no foundation of goodness from which to stand. Self-righteousness is the exact circumstance as wickedness, but a foundation is perceived. In other words, the righteous and wicked have nothing over the person that seeks the mean. Balance is the key to extremes. A state between allows us to see both sides.

Where are we here on Earth? We are smack dab in the middle between good and evil, learning the knowledge of both. Heaven comes from an appreciation of what it means to not be at rest.

Rock and Roll is back and forth between. Stay awake in the middle. It takes an unbalanced force to upset rest. This is what the knowledge of good and evil accomplishes for the one who chooses a sure foundation from which to rest. Eating from the tree of life first requires our equilibrium to be upset. Where do you find yourself in the swing of this song called life? Somewhere in the middle. Choices reflect the final outcome of our thoughts, words and deeds. Heaven or hell is the state of being determined by our swing between.

Each of us drive the car we're in.

a reply to: igor_ats

The abortion thing is another one also but at the same time the Bible teaches that this can be prevented with self control and I think this could be one of the reasons that fornication is prohibited to believer's. I guess if you wanted to you could say that the Bible is indirectly touching upon abortion which I would say is a direct result of fornication.. Not as a "don't have an abortion or you go to hell" type of thing but more of prevention measure in the first place so abortion doesn't become a choice at all.

But I don't really know either, I can see maybe a point with the abortion thing but the purgatory thing seems like something someone dreamed up themselves. But maybe I'm wrong about both of them also.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, the current definition is that Purgatory is a state of being while alive, and not a place. That is straight from the Pope, which makes it infallible, meaning it can now never be altered. That is the definition for all time for Catholics.

The Pope is only infallible under very specific conditions, and it is not evident that they were valid when he made his statement, which you can read here: 4 August 1999 General Audience.

Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection (cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis: DS 1304; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione: DS 1580; Decretum de purgatorio: DS 1820).

Nonetheless, as I have said numerous times in this thread, I agree with what he says -- it is a state, it is not a place. And I've yet to hear from any of these "absolute depraved, everything we do is an abomination to God" types as to why they wouldn't believe that such horrible and detestable creatures would need to be purified before being brought into God's presence.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Many Christians reject 2 Maccabees. Jews do too. As I already told you, you are lying, it was JEWS who rejected Maccabees, not Christians.

Who cares what the Jews after Christ rejected?

Which Bible did Jesus use? Which Bible did the Apostles use? Which Bible did the early Christian community use? Which Old Testament did Christianity use until the Reformation?

Same answer, in all cases -- the Septuagint. Now, if you can find an ancient copy of that text that doesn't have Maccabees in it, you might start building a case, otherwise it is patently obvious that Jesus, the Apostles and the Christian church was very familiar with that book and what it teaches.

They didn't quote from Maccabees in the New Testament? Who cares? They didn't quote from Ezra or Ecclesiastes, either, did you cut them out of your Old Testament, too? Do you deny that Luther and the Reformists had an ulterior motive in rejecting the version of Hebrew Scripture that Jesus and the Apostles used?

originally posted by: Not Authorized
Quite honestly, the whole thing sounds like a 1500 year old Confidence Trick to me.

The origins of purgatory are actually much older than 1500 years...

A search for the terms 'Egyptian purgatory' brings up some very interesting results:

In every religious system, except that of the New Testament, the doctrine of purgatory after death and prayers for the dead have always found a place. In ancient and modern times... In Egypt, substantially the same doctrine of purgatory was inculcated. www.mtc.org...

...thousands of pagans flooded into the Church and brought their pagan beliefs and traditions with them. One of those ancient pagan beliefs was a place of purification where souls went to make satisfaction for their sins. www.puregospeltruth.com...

As the one of the main founders of Catholicism, Roman emperor Constantine took much of the mythology of the so called "Cult of Mithras" and carried it into Christianity to give us the sort of pagan/Christian hybrid that we now called Catholicism. For instance in order to honor the birthday of his favorite pagan God "Sol Invictus Mithras", Constantine ordered the official Mithras birthday of December 25th to also be the new fake birth date of Jesus. All of the pagan beliefs and practices of the so called "Cult of Mithras" is the real backbone that Catholicism is based on to this very day. thenewholybible.org...

The real secret of Constantine and the bishops of Rome is their cunning introduction of sun worship and paganism into Christianity. It was done so shrewdly that, incredibly, it has been veiled within the faith for centuries. Through Constantine, paganism and Christianity joined hands in the Roman Empire. History readily records that Constantine was a sun-worshiper. In one decree he declared, "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed" (March 7, 321). He made this decree in honor of the sun after his supposed conversion to Christianity! Constantine, even after his "conversion," remained a pagan. www.marytruth.com...

There are many links between ancient sun worship and Catholicism. In Chaldean (or Babylonian) times, the head of the church was the representative of the god Dagon. He was considered to be infallible, and was addressed as "Your Holiness." Nations subdued by Babylon had to kiss the ring and slipper of the Babylonian god-king. Both the Dalai Lama and the Pope claim these same powers and the same titles to this day. Moreover, the vestments of paganism—the fish mitre and robes of the priests of Dagon—are worn by the Catholic bishops and cardinals, and by the Pope. amazingdiscoveries.org...

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, the current definition is that Purgatory is a state of being while alive, and not a place. That is straight from the Pope, which makes it infallible, meaning it can now never be altered. That is the definition for all time for Catholics.

The Pope is only infallible under very specific conditions, and it is not evident that they were valid when he made his statement, which you can read here: 4 August 1999 General Audience.

Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection (cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis: DS 1304; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione: DS 1580; Decretum de purgatorio: DS 1820).

Nonetheless, as I have said numerous times in this thread, I agree with what he says -- it is a state, it is not a place. And I've yet to hear from any of these "absolute depraved, everything we do is an abomination to God" types as to why they wouldn't believe that such horrible and detestable creatures would need to be purified before being brought into God's presence.

Because then Purgatory is an unnecessary term. Everyone agrees we sin and we need to have those sins cleansed. Why call that Purgatory? What is happening is the Pope is trying to save face by taking a term that was used for centuries to steal money and attaching validity to it by altering it's definition to the point there is no need for the term, and it in no way shape or form resembles it's previous definition.

It went from a place that souls went after DEATH, to a process that occurs while ALIVE. They are not the same, at all. It's underhanded.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Many Christians reject 2 Maccabees. Jews do too. As I already told you, you are lying, it was JEWS who rejected Maccabees, not Christians.

Who cares what the Jews after Christ rejected?

Because you LIED and said it was Protestants who rejected those books, when in fact they were rejected by Jews over a Thousand years earlier.

As I said, show me Jesus quoting Maccabees. I will wait for it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It went from a place that souls went after DEATH, to a process that occurs while ALIVE. They are not the same, at all. It's underhanded.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the purgative process takes place when you are alive, in the body, because it does not.

Again, at death, we receive the particular judgement and either:

A) Are condemned and go to hell
B) Are not condemned, and sanctified enough that we go straight to the presence of God
C) Are not condemned, but need to be purged of residual sin

In a sense, the purgative process can start when we are alive, because doing holy things, like praying, following the Stations of the Cross, going on a pilgrimage to a holy place, etc, helps sanctify one and purge residual sin, but if it's not all gone when you die, you get "C" above there, and go into a state of purgatory until it is all gone. But you are not currently in a state of purgatory.

Because you LIED and said it was Protestants who rejected those books, when in fact they were rejected by Jews over a Thousand years earlier.

I didn't lie about anything, please stop distorting what I said. The Protestants rejected those books for their own reasons, not because the Jews had rejected them. The Jews rejected Christ, should Protestants also reject him?

Here's what Martin Luther had to say about the Apocrypha:

These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.

That doesn't sound like something that he got from the Jews.

As I said, show me Jesus quoting Maccabees. I will wait for it.

That is a specious argument and you know it. Show me Jesus quoting Judges. 1 or 2 Samuel. 1 or 2 Chronicles. Proverbs. Ezekiel. Joel. Amos. Habakkuk.

I will wait for it.

originally posted by: adjensen
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the purgative process takes place when you are alive, in the body, because it does not.

What the Pope has said has already been quoted.

Again, at death, we receive the particular judgement and either:

A) Are condemned and go to hell
B) Are not condemned, and sanctified enough that we go straight to the presence of God
C) Are not condemned, but need to be purged of residual sin

In a sense, the purgative process can start when we are alive, because doing holy things, like praying, following the Stations of the Cross, going on a pilgrimage to a holy place, etc, helps sanctify one and purge residual sin, but if it's not all gone when you die, you get "C" above there, and go into a state of purgatory until it is all gone. But you are not currently in a state of purgatory.

No, not in a sense, Purgatory is every time a person is being purified during their entire life. So how do you continue Purgatory after you die without going anywhere? Doesn't really make sense for it to happen after death. That's what happens when you use a lie to milk money out of people and then have to come up with excuses how it was kosher.

I didn't lie about anything, please stop distorting what I said. The Protestants rejected those books for their own reasons, not because the Jews had rejected them. The Jews rejected Christ, should Protestants also reject him?

No, it's a lie because you gave the appearance that until Protestants rejected these books they were accepted. They were not. Jews did not reject Christ, all original Christians were Jews. Each person made up their own mind.

Here's what Martin Luther had to say about the Apocrypha:

These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.

That doesn't sound like something that he got from the Jews.

Which sounds like he is saying they are not the Word of God, but may contain some useful information. That means not EVERYTHING in them is right, as they are equal to Scripture, which will always overrule them.

As I said, show me Jesus quoting Maccabees. I will wait for it.

That is a specious argument and you know it. Show me Jesus quoting Judges. 1 or 2 Samuel. 1 or 2 Chronicles. Proverbs. Ezekiel. Joel. Amos. Habakkuk.

I will wait for it.

You don't need to wait long. Jesus quoted from 24 or more books.
Pro 20:22
Do not say, “I’ll pay you back for this wrong!” Wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you.
Mat 5:39
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

This is what Jesus said ...
Luk 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

No Maccabees there.

When dealing with the other books they are never able to be taken by themselves. The message must be compared to what IS God's word, and it must be shown to match. That doesn't mean they should not be read, but it does mean they can not be read as being true, anything said must then be verified with the Word of God.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Doesn't really make sense for it to happen after death.

It makes perfect sense for it to happen after death, unless you think that you will die in a state of sanctification.

Will you? Do you think that you are sinless and worthy to stand in the company of God?

All of the rest of your arguments are a load of bickering, let's focus on this one.

Here's what C.S. Lewis (not a Catholic, and one of my favourite writers,) had to say about purgatory:

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don't think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more... The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.

My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round',' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will [not] be disgusting and unhallowed." (C.S. Lewis, Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer)

Do you believe that you are sinless? Or that you are "utterly depraved"? If the former, you are rejecting the teaching of Saint Paul; if the latter, you need to explain how C.S. Lewis is wrong in his Protestant defense of the concept of purgatory.

originally posted by: adjensen
Will you? Do you think that you are sinless and worthy to stand in the company of God?

Yes, of no doing of my own. That's the difference, you think YOU can make yourself sinless, I know only God can make me sinless.

All of the rest of your arguments are a load of bickering, let's focus on this one.

Translation: You did not think I would find a verse and found several so you want to forget that part. Thanks.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes, of no doing of my own. That's the difference, you think YOU can make yourself sinless, I know only God can make me sinless.

Wrong. Purgatory teaches that God makes us sinless, through a process of purification. You seem to think that dying makes you sinless.

Translation: You did not think I would find a verse and found several so you want to forget that part. Thanks.

No, I dismissed your arguments because they are pointless.

Pro 20:22
Do not say, “I’ll pay you back for this wrong!” Wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you.
Mat 5:39
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

You seriously think that this is "quoting Proverbs"? Give me a break.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes, of no doing of my own. That's the difference, you think YOU can make yourself sinless, I know only God can make me sinless.

Wrong. Purgatory teaches that God makes us sinless, through a process of purification. You seem to think that dying makes you sinless.

Translation: You did not think I would find a verse and found several so you want to forget that part. Thanks.

No, I dismissed your arguments because they are pointless.

Pro 20:22
Do not say, “I’ll pay you back for this wrong!” Wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you.
Mat 5:39
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

You seriously think that this is "quoting Proverbs"? Give me a break.

No, it's through Penance that you become, through you.

Yes, it is. It's fairly clear.

You also forgot this ...

Luk 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Where is Maccabees there? It's not. Anyways, it's pointless to continue with you, good night.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

it's pointless to continue with you

Yup
Agreed
Nothing beats a good old fashioned classic Catholic defending his ancient dogma.
When basically every facet of Christianity has moved on, and with good reason.
It's time to hear other voices on this topic.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
They will be judged on what they know and the innate knowledge of right and wrong all people have.

No they need to know Christ or something or profess him to be their savior - something along those lines. For example agree on Ghandi being in hell if we are using "what we know about the Bible".

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It is not for non-believers. It is solely for Christians.

Yes, but there is so much mis-information out there, most ppl just go along with the pop-culture interpretation

Also does the official description of Purgatory say anything about unbaptized infants?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Anyways, it's pointless to continue with you, good night.

Oh, I quite agree, since you've never actually addressed the facts that I've raised, you've done nothing but post strawman arguments.

At any rate, the OP's question has been answered, yes, Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, still believe in purgatory. The facts remain:

1) Belief in purgatory and the efficacy of prayers for the dead are of Jewish origin, not Christian, pre-date Christ by centuries, and neither Christ nor the Apostles spoke against them

2) Jews still pray for the dead

3) The majority of Christians -- the Catholic, Orthodox Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Methodist churches -- pray for the dead

4) For 1500 years, all Christians prayed for the dead

5) Martin Luther's complaint with the Catholic Church was for the practice of paying for indulgences, he wasn't initially opposed to purgatory

6) The Catholic church recognized the corruption of paying for indulgences and banned the practice in 1567

7) Purgatory has nothing to do with salvation -- if you are not saved when you die, you go to hell, you don't get a "second chance" in purgatory

8) Unless one is a dualist or Gnostic, believing that all sin dies with the body, as we know that nothing unholy can be in the presence of God (Rev. 21:27,) there must be a process of purification. Whether one thinks that is solely God, and it takes place in an instant, or one believes that it takes time, through the process of sanctification, they both are indicative of a state of purgatory.

originally posted by: adjensen
You've never actually addressed the facts that I've raised, you've done nothing but post strawman arguments.

Just so you know, he's done that in other topics.

Replies with a logical fallacy, claims he replied to the post already or just ignores it.

a reply to: igor_ats

Also does the official description of Purgatory say anything about unbaptized infants?

No.

In refuting a heresy, St. Augustine put forth the idea that unbaptized infants are condemned, a reprehensible idea that some in the church tried to temper by introducing the concept of limbo, a place that was neither heaven nor hell, but where unbaptized infants would go.

Limbo was never official church doctrine, and Pope Benedict XVI officially declared in 2005 that there was no such thing, and that unbaptized infants go to heaven.

I still consider earth to be purgatory!