christology and judas

[Madhu]

reading some calvinist material brought up some doubts on christology.

universalism would imply that the cross would cover judas' sin. but
there are several statements from jesus about the fate of judas. these
could of course be interpreted to apply to satan and his angels (for
whom there is no redemption) but the statements are specific to the
person judas. others are condemned likewise. the argument that judas
(unlike peter) did not properly repent and his suicide was a sign of
rebellion does not explain the mechanics of judgment. if judas was held
to blame for christs betrayal and crucifixion the burden of the cross
would be on him and not on christ.

i can accept that god's plan for redemption of the world was a general
plan did not include every detail - what actually happened did implement
god's plan for redemption but it does not obviate the responsibility of
those involved in the convicting of jesus and the crucifixion, and their
fate is tied with those who reject the kingdom. but however you spin it
there are going to be corner cases which are not going to be neatly
explained.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/03/2022 15:57, Madhu wrote:

> reading some calvinist material brought up some doubts on christology.

Soteriology, surely, rather than Christology.

> universalism would imply that the cross would cover judas' sin. but
> there are several statements from jesus about the fate of judas. these
> could of course be interpreted to apply to satan and his angels (for
> whom there is no redemption) but the statements are specific to the
> person judas.

I agree with you that there is no sin so bad that it cannot be forgiven.
However forgiveness requires that the sinner repent, confess and accept
forgiveness. This Judas notably failed to do.

However I think it goes deeper than his suicide. He had been steadily
stealing from the money given to Christ and I am confident that Jesus
would have spoken to him about this, but without changing him. Finally
Jesus reveals that He knows all and warns Judas in explicit terms about
what he is planning, but Judas still goes ahead and does it.

That, to me, indicates that at the moment when he left the Upper Room he
committed the unpardonable sin - that is, he passed the point beyond
which he was impervious to God's Spirit. So it is not that he *did not*
repent, it is that from then on he *could not* repent - and therefore is
justly excluded from forgiveness.

I would say that the same can be said of the evil angels. I think it
highly likely that they were given repeated opportunities for repentance
and forgiveness, but when they actually took the devil's side and fought
in that "war in heaven", they placed themselves beyond the possibility
of repentance and therefore of forgiveness.

It is interesting to speculate on what would happen if, even now, one of
these evil angels were to turn his back on the devil and fly up to
heaven. Doubtless he would be refused entry at the pearly gates, but
what if he stayed there, refusing to leave and asserting his repudiation
of the devil and all his works? Could there be, in time, a forgiveness?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Mike Davis]

On 27/03/2022 15:57, Madhu wrote:
>

My understanding is that for an individual to be 'saved / redeemed' they
must have acknowledged their sin/sinfulness. I believe that while Jesus
took away the sin of the World, there are those who go to hell because
they cannot admit / acknowledge their own faults.

A few weeks ago I preached a sermon explaining this, which included the
following:-

You see when we stand before God – and by that I mean in our daily life
we need to be honest with ourselves and with God and acknowledge our sin
– perhaps you’d be more comfortable to use the word ‘wrongdoing’.
We do this by:-
1. admitting it was our fault
2. Putting aside all excuses (Have you noticed that we are apt to come
to God armed with excuses?)
3. Seeing what it is in us that causes us to sin - which isn’t usually
what we think – for example what’s the weakness we need to be healed of?

As an example:- I have discussions with God that go like this:
Me: “Sorry, Lord that I was rude and dismissive to Joe the other day,
but he had been rather objectionable in pointing out my faults.
God: “Was he right about your faults?”
Me: “Well he may have had a point!”
God: “OK, did you apologise to him?”
Me: “No, I didn’t get a chance!”
God: “Really? But you had a chance to be rude & dismissive of him?
–Don’t forget I saw you!”
Me: “Well, it was merely a reaction! Surely I can be excused that?”
God: “Look I know all your excuses – indeed - I’ve made allowances for
far more than you are aware of! Don’t forget I know you so well!”
Me: “So you forgive me?”
God: “I can’t yet – you really haven’t accepted that you did anything
wrong!”
Me: “But I said I was sorry that I was rude and dismissive!?”
God: “You may be sorry – but you haven’t admitted your fault YET!”
Me: “Lord – Yes - I am at fault – you created me to be perfect, I
messed up – please forgive me!”
God: “That’s more like it; you see I cannot remove sins that you are
hanging on to or denying. You have to let them go! … So what are you
going to do now?”
Me: “I’ll have to go and tell X and apologise for my reaction!”
God: “Sounds Good – but don’t ‘cross you fingers while you do it’, or I
can’t forgive you…”
Me: - (much relieved) - “Understood – and thank you for your mercy!”

You see the key message when we stand before God is that He says:
“I’ve already made allowances for your excuses. Indeed I’ve made far
more excuses than you’ve thought of. BUT you still must take
responsibility for your actions / thoughts/ inclinations. Until you OWN
your own sin – you are not able to give it to Me for forgiveness, nor
can you accept my forgiveness while you are denying your wrongdoing.”

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/03/2022 18:23, Mike Davis wrote:

> My understanding is that for an individual to be 'saved / redeemed' they
> must have acknowledged their sin/sinfulness. I believe that while Jesus
> took away the sin of the World, there are those who go to hell because
> they cannot admit / acknowledge their own faults.

Thanks for sharing that, Mike. I completely agree and also like the idea
that they go to hell because they have passed beyond the point where
they *will not* acknowledge their faults to where they "cannot"
acknowledge them - and if you can't see your faults, how can you improve?

Some people so surround themselves with excuses, justifications,
rationalisations, that they come to believe them and therefore genuinely
cannot see that they are in the wrong. Not even God can get through to
them any longer and therefore not even God can help them towards the
goal of "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect".

[Jason]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 18:23:42 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

> My understanding is that for an individual to be 'saved / redeemed' they
> must have acknowledged their sin/sinfulness. I believe that while Jesus
> took away the sin of the World, there are those who go to hell because
> they cannot admit / acknowledge their own faults.

From my own standpoint, I have difficulties with the word 'cannot'
there. I'm not certain exactly what you are saying or if I have the
wrong end of the stick, but I can't envisage the God of the Bible
condemning someone to hell because of something they 'cannot' do anything
about. I have difficulty enough with the idea that someone could be
condemned to an eternity in hell for something they *can* do something
about but don't.

I'm not sure I even agree with your first sentence, especially the word
'must'. There have been various threads here relevant to this topic,
things like unbaptised babies, the mentally handicapped, people who have
never heard of Jesus and so on. All of these sort of cases, and many
many more I personally believe are down entirely to God's mercy and grace
and are not dependent at all on personal acknowledgements or the like.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/03/2022 13:28, Jason wrote:

> From my own standpoint, I have difficulties with the word 'cannot'
> there. I'm not certain exactly what you are saying or if I have the
> wrong end of the stick, but I can't envisage the God of the Bible
> condemning someone to hell because of something they 'cannot' do anything
> about.

But what if they cannot because of conscious choices previously made?
For example, it is possible that Putin now truly believes that he is the
great liberator for the Ukraine, which is riddled by nazis and is
actively plotting against Russia. There is not a shred of truth in any
of that, but he lied and lied and lied until now he has convinced
himself - if no one else - and cannot accept any alternative view.

In Christian terms, if someone continually rejects the call of the Holy
Spirit to repent, eventually he can no longer hear the voice of the Holy
Spirit and from that point on he cannot repent - but he is definitely
not guiltless because of that.

> I have difficulty enough with the idea that someone could be
> condemned to an eternity in hell for something they *can* do something
> about but don't.

Reading Revelation 20 in Tyndale yesterday morning it struck me that at
the end of time the devil is thrust into the lake of fire and tormented
forever and ever, along with the beast and the false prophet - both of
whom are symbols. However the wicked are consumed by fire from heaven
and even those about whom it is said that they are thrown into the lake
of fire, that is "the second death".

In other words, the ever-burning hell may have a population of precisely
one. Sinners generally and even evil angels are destroyed by the
ever-burning fire.

> I'm not sure I even agree with your first sentence, especially the word
> 'must'. There have been various threads here relevant to this topic,
> things like unbaptised babies, the mentally handicapped, people who have
> never heard of Jesus and so on. All of these sort of cases, and many
> many more I personally believe are down entirely to God's mercy and grace
> and are not dependent at all on personal acknowledgements or the like.

I agree that such cases are in God's purview. I am not sure whether such
can be welcomed into heaven, I am sure they are not deserving of eternal
torment. I think it likely that for some the solution will simply be
that they are not resurrected and pass straight from unconsciousness to
oblivion. (I recognise that there is no foundation in Scripture for that
thought.)

[Mike Davis]

On 29/03/2022 13:28, Jason wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 18:23:42 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that for an individual to be 'saved / redeemed' they
>> must have acknowledged their sin/sinfulness. I believe that while Jesus
>> took away the sin of the World, there are those who go to hell because
>> they cannot admit / acknowledge their own faults.
>
> From my own standpoint, I have difficulties with the word 'cannot'
> there. I'm not certain exactly what you are saying or if I have the
> wrong end of the stick, but I can't envisage the God of the Bible
> condemning someone to hell because of something they 'cannot' do anything
> about.

Yes, perhaps 'cannot' implies an inability, rather than refusal - so I
take your point. (Please understand that I am not trying to be dogmatic
about this - merely to provide food for thought & prayer.)

> I have difficulty enough with the idea that someone could be
> condemned to an eternity in hell for something they *can* do something
> about but don't.

If someone *honestly* can't see that they are doing wrong, I'm sure God
can & will forgive them, but if they compound their wrongdoing by
denying it, then surely they are culpable?

>
> I'm not sure I even agree with your first sentence, especially the word
> 'must'. There have been various threads here relevant to this topic,
> things like unbaptised babies, the mentally handicapped, people who have
> never heard of Jesus and so on. All of these sort of cases, and many
> many more I personally believe are down entirely to God's mercy and grace
> and are not dependent at all on personal acknowledgements or the like.

Sure! And the RC concept of God's mercy - called 'purgatory' -
recognises this, where we are give a chance to acknowledge our
previously unacknowledged sins and see our sinfulness for what it is.

(Once again, I remind you of the way Newman expressed it in Gerontius.
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/verses/gerontius.html )

Blessings

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <t1vn5c$ihv$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 29 Mar 2022 20:37:17 +0100:

> On 29/03/2022 13:28, Jason wrote:
>> From my own standpoint, I have difficulties with the word 'cannot'
>> there. I'm not certain exactly what you are saying or if I have the
>> wrong end of the stick, but I can't envisage the God of the Bible
>> condemning someone to hell because of something they 'cannot' do
>> anything about.

If I read it correctly the calvinist piece that triggered my original
post would tend to agree with you.

> In Christian terms, if someone continually rejects the call of the
> Holy Spirit to repent, eventually he can no longer hear the voice of
> the Holy Spirit and from that point on he cannot repent - but he is
> definitely not guiltless because of that.

But on what basis can this be judged? For example in the Russia Example
there is an inherent earthly bias in making the judgment call - it a
presumption that your access to information is complete and the
information itself is complete and it is not disinformation, and that
God has the same information and he will judge similarly. There is a
similar lack of information in spiritual matters. My best understanding
of God's will is necessarily based on a incomplete model of God and
morality. If I see it continually violated in practice that results in
the "hardening of the heart", and by the mechanics described in the
posts upthread it would only confirm my condemned status. But as far as
I am concerned I am "holding on till the end" even to martyrdom with the
best intentions. (I believe some have put Judas in that pigeonhole. I
don't believe satan or his angels themselves operate on this meta model
but I think some of their deceived do fall into the pattern)

For a concrete example I may disagree with many of God's decisions in
the hope that they will be rectified later. If I agree then that would
negate my own relation to God - precisely like Abraham being called to
sacrifice his son. In Abraham's presumably case he was directly in
communion with God but in our case we only have humans and human
institutions as the purported messengers who are known deceivers. I may
think I'm proving my fidelity to God by being in violation - who can
tell?

Maybe a different example: that I may decide that I don't want to go to
heaven if Hitler is there. Or for a non Godwin example, consider
misdeeds chronicled in lives of the families of house of David. These
were families with problems (understatement) and extremely unsavoury
characters. Do I really want to know them in the resurrection? Would
this attitude exclude me from Heaven and condemn me to hell?

>> I have difficulty enough with the idea that someone could be
>> condemned to an eternity in hell for something they *can* do
>> something about but don't.
>
> Reading Revelation 20 in Tyndale yesterday morning it struck me that
> at the end of time the devil is thrust into the lake of fire and
> tormented forever and ever, along with the beast and the false prophet
> - both of whom are symbols. However the wicked are consumed by fire
> from heaven and even those about whom it is said that they are thrown
> into the lake of fire, that is "the second death".
>
> In other words, the ever-burning hell may have a population of
> precisely one. Sinners generally and even evil angels are destroyed by
> the ever-burning fire.
>
>> I'm not sure I even agree with your first sentence, especially the word
>> 'must'. There have been various threads here relevant to this topic,
>> things like unbaptised babies, the mentally handicapped, people who have
>> never heard of Jesus and so on. All of these sort of cases, and many
>> many more I personally believe are down entirely to God's mercy and grace
>> and are not dependent at all on personal acknowledgements or the like.
>
> I agree that such cases are in God's purview. I am not sure whether
> such can be welcomed into heaven, I am sure they are not deserving of
> eternal torment. I think it likely that for some the solution will
> simply be that they are not resurrected and pass straight from
> unconsciousness to oblivion. (I recognise that there is no foundation
> in Scripture for that thought.)

there are two verses, isaiah and jeremiah (i'll have to look it up
later) which can be stretched to imply this sort of annihilation. but my
understanding is largely the same as yours though my gut feeling is that
the bible speaks of "eternal damnation" coeval with the lake of fire.


I believe the present this creation we find ourselves is is a
beta. God's purpose of this creation is to bring it to judgment where he
will separate out the evil in it and contain it forever in the lake of
fire before the creation of the new heaven and new earth which are
uncontaminated-good and fulfil his purpose. My proposed metaphysics
necessarily involves containing all the evil aspects in the lake of fire
- the question of having a free-will to choose evil in the new heaven
need not arise. Those with that inclination are already contained in the
lake of fire.


But as you said in your last note, without resort to the first order
logic operators of "for all" and "not" which mathematically apply to
sets, the scenario you outline entirely possible: god may sovereignly
choose to resurrect a few good people to inherit and populate the new
heaven and new earth. Revelation remains true: this set is
tautologically the set of whose names are in the book of the lamb, but
that doesn't help us in practical terms.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/03/2022 16:58, Madhu wrote:

> But on what basis can this be judged? For example in the Russia Example
> there is an inherent earthly bias in making the judgment call - it a
> presumption that your access to information is complete and the
> information itself is complete and it is not disinformation, and that
> God has the same information and he will judge similarly.

Fortunately it is not us who will do the judging. We can make
presumptive statements about certain people or situations that seem
clearly evil (or clearly good) but always with the priviso that we may
be wrong and for the reasons you adduce.

> Maybe a different example: that I may decide that I don't want to go to
> heaven if Hitler is there.

I must admit that I would be very surprised to find Hitler there. On the
other hand, I have sufficient confidence in God that if I did spot the
familiar moustache on the other side of the street of gold, I would
expect to find that a) there were extenuating circumstances in Hitler's
background, and b) there had been a drastic and sincere repentance
before death. (For the record, I don't believe either of those is true.)

> there are two verses, isaiah and jeremiah (i'll have to look it up
> later) which can be stretched to imply this sort of annihilation. but my
> understanding is largely the same as yours though my gut feeling is that
> the bible speaks of "eternal damnation" coeval with the lake of fire.

I am sure that whatever God does will be right and good.

> But as you said in your last note, without resort to the first order
> logic operators of "for all" and "not" which mathematically apply to
> sets, the scenario you outline entirely possible: god may sovereignly
> choose to resurrect a few good people to inherit and populate the new
> heaven and new earth. Revelation remains true: this set is
> tautologically the set of whose names are in the book of the lamb, but
> that doesn't help us in practical terms.

Possibly, though I believe that the good people resurrected are "a great
multitude whom no man could number", to quote one who saw them.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/03/2022 11:48, Mike Davis wrote:

> Yes, perhaps 'cannot' implies an inability, rather than refusal - so I
> take your point. (Please understand that I am not trying to be dogmatic
> about this - merely to provide food for thought & prayer.)

It depends on whether that inability was innate or developed. Like the
poster, I do not believe God would condemn someone who had an innate
inability to see or do something. I have no difficulty in condemnation
for someone who has sedulously developed the inability to see any point
of view but his own.

> If someone *honestly* can't see that they are doing wrong, I'm sure God
> can & will forgive them, but if they compound their wrongdoing by
> denying it, then surely they are culpable?

See the above.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <t22eoh$8e3$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:32:17 +0100:

> On 30/03/2022 16:58, Madhu wrote:
> I must admit that I would be very surprised to find Hitler there. On
> the other hand, I have sufficient confidence in God that if I did spot
> the familiar moustache on the other side of the street of gold, I
> would expect to find that a) there were extenuating circumstances in
> Hitler's background, and b) there had been a drastic and sincere
> repentance before death. (For the record, I don't believe either of
> those is true.)

Well I'd think we wouldn't reach heaven in the first place as our
hardened-heart position on Hitler would have already excluded you from
heaven in the first place. Hitler justified and forgiven and doing God's
will in heaven, we're in the lake of fire because we couldn't accept it
till our dying day and we wouldn't be happy there with him.

This follows from the posts upthread about not changing.

[N.B. ADF please note - This isn't about Hitler. I'd prefer to use a
different example but it would have to involve someone from personal
life]

Also, it would really fit the story better if Judas had kept the money,
and shared in the political triumph of the pharisees and anti-jesus
crowd, in line with satan. There were plenty of those who have prospered
ever since.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/03/2022 10:30, Madhu wrote:

> Well I'd think we wouldn't reach heaven in the first place as our
> hardened-heart position on Hitler would have already excluded you from
> heaven in the first place. Hitler justified and forgiven and doing God's
> will in heaven, we're in the lake of fire because we couldn't accept it
> till our dying day and we wouldn't be happy there with him.

Certainly, if Hitler was in heaven and we refused to accept him, your
prognostication is probably correct.

> Also, it would really fit the story better if Judas had kept the money,
> and shared in the political triumph of the pharisees and anti-jesus
> crowd, in line with satan. There were plenty of those who have prospered
> ever since.

Prospered in this life, possibly. In the next? I doubt it. And it is the
next that counts.

[Jason]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 20:37:17 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 29/03/2022 13:28, Jason wrote:
>
>> From my own standpoint, I have difficulties with the word 'cannot'
>> there. I'm not certain exactly what you are saying or if I have the
>> wrong end of the stick, but I can't envisage the God of the Bible
>> condemning someone to hell because of something they 'cannot' do
>> anything about.

> But what if they cannot because of conscious choices previously made?

Past performance is not an indicator of future results.

> For example, it is possible that Putin now truly believes that he is the
> great liberator for the Ukraine, which is riddled by nazis and is
> actively plotting against Russia. There is not a shred of truth in any
> of that, but he lied and lied and lied until now he has convinced
> himself - if no one else - and cannot accept any alternative view.

So at what point do you think that Putin 'cannot' do anything about his
future with Christ. When he told his very first untruth? When he told
his seventieth? When he told his seventy times seventieth?

> In Christian terms, if someone continually rejects the call of the Holy
> Spirit to repent, eventually he can no longer hear the voice of the Holy
> Spirit and from that point on he cannot repent - but he is definitely
> not guiltless because of that.

I would agree that if someone actively rejects the call of the Holy
Spirit they will not be held guiltless. On the other hand, I'm not sure
how many people actually fall into this category, as opposed to not
giving such matters a second thought.

>> I have difficulty enough with the idea that someone could be condemned
>> to an eternity in hell for something they *can* do something about but
>> don't.
>
> Reading Revelation 20 in Tyndale yesterday morning it struck me that at
> the end of time the devil is thrust into the lake of fire and tormented
> forever and ever, along with the beast and the false prophet - both of
> whom are symbols. However the wicked are consumed by fire from heaven
> and even those about whom it is said that they are thrown into the lake
> of fire, that is "the second death".
>
> In other words, the ever-burning hell may have a population of precisely
> one. Sinners generally and even evil angels are destroyed by the
> ever-burning fire.

This is well put, and is (probably) the position that I hold.

>> I'm not sure I even agree with your first sentence, especially the word
>> 'must'. There have been various threads here relevant to this topic,
>> things like unbaptised babies, the mentally handicapped, people who
>> have never heard of Jesus and so on. All of these sort of cases, and
>> many many more I personally believe are down entirely to God's mercy
>> and grace and are not dependent at all on personal acknowledgements or
>> the like.
>
> I agree that such cases are in God's purview. I am not sure whether such
> can be welcomed into heaven, I am sure they are not deserving of eternal
> torment. I think it likely that for some the solution will simply be
> that they are not resurrected and pass straight from unconsciousness to
> oblivion. (I recognise that there is no foundation in Scripture for that
> thought.)

While 'oblivion' is clearly preferable to eternal burning in the fires of
hell, I would certainly like to think that those mentally incapacitated
and the like in this life would have all their tears wiped away and all
their infirmities healed in the next. None of us are in a position to be
welcomed into heaven, and it's only by God's grace that we have any hope
of getting there at all. Such hope I would say extends to all, whether
are not they are able to make a personal acknowledgement of our Lord and
Saviour.

[Jason]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:28:49 +0530, Madhu wrote:

> * "Kendall K. Down" <t1vn5c$ihv$1 @dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Tue, 29 Mar 2022 20:37:17 +0100:
>> On 29/03/2022 13:28, Jason wrote:
>>> From my own standpoint, I have difficulties with the word 'cannot'
>>> there. I'm not certain exactly what you are saying or if I have the
>>> wrong end of the stick, but I can't envisage the God of the Bible
>>> condemning someone to hell because of something they 'cannot' do
>>> anything about.
>
> If I read it correctly the calvinist piece that triggered my original
> post would tend to agree with you.
>
>> In Christian terms, if someone continually rejects the call of the Holy
>> Spirit to repent, eventually he can no longer hear the voice of the
>> Holy Spirit and from that point on he cannot repent - but he is
>> definitely not guiltless because of that.
>
> But on what basis can this be judged? For example in the Russia Example
> there is an inherent earthly bias in making the judgment call - it a
> presumption that your access to information is complete and the
> information itself is complete and it is not disinformation, and that
> God has the same information and he will judge similarly. There is a
> similar lack of information in spiritual matters. My best understanding
> of God's will is necessarily based on a incomplete model of God and
> morality.

I think this is a good point, we don't have a complete picture of the
criteria God will use to judge people. I believe that in the Bible God
teaches "the most excellent way" to help keep us on the right path. But
I also believe that God is Sovereign and is not answerable to us or to
our individual understanding of how things should be done, and that
"there is a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea" as the
hymn goes.

> For a concrete example I may disagree with many of God's decisions in
> the hope that they will be rectified later. If I agree then that would
> negate my own relation to God - precisely like Abraham being called to
> sacrifice his son. In Abraham's presumably case he was directly in
> communion with God but in our case we only have humans and human
> institutions as the purported messengers who are known deceivers. I may
> think I'm proving my fidelity to God by being in violation - who can
> tell?
>
> Maybe a different example: that I may decide that I don't want to go to
> heaven if Hitler is there. Or for a non Godwin example, consider
> misdeeds chronicled in lives of the families of house of David. These
> were families with problems (understatement) and extremely unsavoury
> characters. Do I really want to know them in the resurrection? Would
> this attitude exclude me from Heaven and condemn me to hell?

These are all interesting points. I think the only thing I can say is we
may not be Hitler, but if all of our thoughts and deeds throughout our
lives (or even throughout the last week) were to be pasted on a sheet and
stuck on a wall none of us would look fantastic. But in just the same
way as individuals themselves are transformed in Heaven (the Hitler there
will not be the same as the one of the the 1940s) I think the way we
ourselves look at and relate to others will also be transformed. I'm
sure, should God graciously allow both myself and Hitler to meet in
Heaven I won't look at Hitler in the same way in judgement as I would
here on Earth: I would know we had both escaped 'as if through fire' and
be eternally grateful.

>> I agree that such cases are in God's purview. I am not sure whether
>> such can be welcomed into heaven, I am sure they are not deserving of
>> eternal torment. I think it likely that for some the solution will
>> simply be that they are not resurrected and pass straight from
>> unconsciousness to oblivion. (I recognise that there is no foundation
>> in Scripture for that thought.)
>
> there are two verses, isaiah and jeremiah (i'll have to look it up
> later) which can be stretched to imply this sort of annihilation. but my
> understanding is largely the same as yours though my gut feeling is that
> the bible speaks of "eternal damnation" coeval with the lake of fire.

I still need to give it a lot more thought, but I'm increasingly
favouring the concept of annihilation, and overall I think it's a better
fit with the picture the Bible paints. I do appreciate however that it
is not the traditional church position so I do want to tread carefully.
The everlasting fire was after all not prepared for man, but for 'the
devil and his angels.' And I'm not sure that 'eternal damnation' means
that the torment is eternal, or the effects of being condemned are
eternal. I'm thinking it's a bit like putting an old car into a
crusher. The torment (being crushed) only last a few minutes, but the
effects (it will never run again) is eternal.

[Jason]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:48:46 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 29/03/2022 13:28, Jason wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 18:23:42 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:
>>
>>> My understanding is that for an individual to be 'saved / redeemed'
>>> they must have acknowledged their sin/sinfulness. I believe that while
>>> Jesus took away the sin of the World, there are those who go to hell
>>> because they cannot admit / acknowledge their own faults.
>>
>> From my own standpoint, I have difficulties with the word 'cannot'
>> there. I'm not certain exactly what you are saying or if I have the
>> wrong end of the stick, but I can't envisage the God of the Bible
>> condemning someone to hell because of something they 'cannot' do
>> anything about.
>
> Yes, perhaps 'cannot' implies an inability, rather than refusal - so I
> take your point. (Please understand that I am not trying to be dogmatic
> about this - merely to provide food for thought & prayer.)

Yes point taken. I agree for me too that it's useful to think and pray
about these things.

>> I have difficulty enough with the idea that someone could be condemned
>> to an eternity in hell for something they *can* do something about but
>> don't.
>
> If someone *honestly* can't see that they are doing wrong, I'm sure God
> can & will forgive them, but if they compound their wrongdoing by
> denying it, then surely they are culpable?

Yes indeed, I wasn't really trying to suggest that 'anything goes' or
that the Bible doesn't have something to say regarding unrepentant
sinners. Merely that I find the idea of an 'eternal punishment'
difficult and incommensurate with (my) idea of a merciful, just, loving
and righteous God.

>>
>> I'm not sure I even agree with your first sentence, especially the word
>> 'must'. There have been various threads here relevant to this topic,
>> things like unbaptised babies, the mentally handicapped, people who
>> have never heard of Jesus and so on. All of these sort of cases, and
>> many many more I personally believe are down entirely to God's mercy
>> and grace and are not dependent at all on personal acknowledgements or
>> the like.
>
> Sure! And the RC concept of God's mercy - called 'purgatory' -
> recognises this, where we are give a chance to acknowledge our
> previously unacknowledged sins and see our sinfulness for what it is.

Yes, I'm not RC but I think this is a useful concept. I don't know
exactly if/how it exists as a 'state' or is some sort of process as part
of God's judgement.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/04/2022 10:42, Jason wrote:

> I think this is a good point, we don't have a complete picture of the
> criteria God will use to judge people.

That is, of course, absolutely true. Beware, however, of inventing
excuses and justifications that end up with no one being lost. Scripture
is very clear that not only will *some* be lost, but the *majority* will
be lost. It is a tragedy, but attempting to evade that teaching is not
being honest to God's revelation in Scripture.

> These are all interesting points. I think the only thing I can say is we
> may not be Hitler, but if all of our thoughts and deeds throughout our
> lives (or even throughout the last week) were to be pasted on a sheet and
> stuck on a wall none of us would look fantastic.

Very true. The difference between the saved and the unsaved is not the
excellence of the formers' lives but the fact that they repented and
sought forgiveness (or were willing to do so).

> I still need to give it a lot more thought, but I'm increasingly
> favouring the concept of annihilation, and overall I think it's a better
> fit with the picture the Bible paints. I do appreciate however that it
> is not the traditional church position so I do want to tread carefully.

The traditional church position is based mainly on Greek "science" which
taught that soul (the substance) could not be destroyed. Despite clear
statements in Scripture to the contrary, the early and mediaeval church
kowtowed to science "falsely so called" - rather like so many Christians
do today - and so ended up with the doctrine of ever-burning torment for
lost souls.

> And I'm not sure that 'eternal damnation' means
> that the torment is eternal, or the effects of being condemned are
> eternal.

The latter.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/04/2022 10:15, Jason wrote:

>> But what if they cannot because of conscious choices previously made?

> Past performance is not an indicator of future results.

Without conversion and repentance, past performance is a true indicator
of future results.

> So at what point do you think that Putin 'cannot' do anything about his
> future with Christ. When he told his very first untruth? When he told
> his seventieth? When he told his seventy times seventieth?

That is for God to judge. I would merely say that every time he repeats
what he knows to be false, he makes it more difficult for himself.

> I would agree that if someone actively rejects the call of the Holy
> Spirit they will not be held guiltless. On the other hand, I'm not sure
> how many people actually fall into this category, as opposed to not
> giving such matters a second thought.

Christianity is, unfortunately, an opt-in religion. It is not the
default position of mankind.

> While 'oblivion' is clearly preferable to eternal burning in the fires of
> hell, I would certainly like to think that those mentally incapacitated
> and the like in this life would have all their tears wiped away and all
> their infirmities healed in the next. None of us are in a position to be
> welcomed into heaven, and it's only by God's grace that we have any hope
> of getting there at all. Such hope I would say extends to all, whether
> are not they are able to make a personal acknowledgement of our Lord and
> Saviour.

I did make it clear that the idea of oblivion was not a Scriptural one.
It may well be wrong, even though it seems to me to make sense.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/04/2022 10:50, Jason wrote:

> Yes indeed, I wasn't really trying to suggest that 'anything goes' or
> that the Bible doesn't have something to say regarding unrepentant
> sinners. Merely that I find the idea of an 'eternal punishment'
> difficult and incommensurate with (my) idea of a merciful, just, loving
> and righteous God.

Eternal punishment is not incompatible with a loving God; eternal
punishing is. Don't confuse the two.

> Yes, I'm not RC but I think this is a useful concept. I don't know
> exactly if/how it exists as a 'state' or is some sort of process as part
> of God's judgement.

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is based on the nonsensical premise
that "sin cannot exist in the presence of a holy God" (and I have heard
Protestants trumpet the same nonsense).

Just remember where sin began and with whom it began - in heaven and
with the angel closest to God. It took open warfare to remove the devil
and his angels from heaven. There is no logical or Scriptural bar on
sinful humans existing in heaven and in God's presence.

However the idea that we will go through a process of improvement after
death is almost certainly true (rather than being instantly transformed
upon death). There will almost certainly be embarrassment and shame as
our sinful habits are trained out of us, but there will not be "fiery
purifying" as traditional purgatory is depicted. (See
http://v-catholic.com/prayers/monday-devotion-a-prayer-to-help-the-poor-souls-in-purgatory/
if you don't believe me.)

[Mike Davis]

On 01/04/2022 20:44, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 01/04/2022 10:50, Jason wrote:
>
>> Yes indeed, I wasn't really trying to suggest that 'anything goes' or
>> that the Bible doesn't have something to say regarding unrepentant
>> sinners.  Merely that I find the idea of an 'eternal punishment'
>> difficult and incommensurate with (my) idea of a merciful, just, loving
>> and righteous God.
>
> Eternal punishment is not incompatible with a loving God; eternal
> punishing is. Don't confuse the two.
>
>> Yes, I'm not RC but I think this is a useful concept.  I don't know
>> exactly if/how it exists as a 'state' or is some sort of process as part
>> of God's judgement.
>
> The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is based on the nonsensical premise
> that "sin cannot exist in the presence of a holy God" (and I have heard
> Protestants trumpet the same nonsense).

Where do you get that from? I can't see that it's nonsensical, but the
concept doesn't depend on that premise.

>
> Just remember where sin began and with whom it began - in heaven and
> with the angel closest to God. It took open warfare to remove the devil
> and his angels from heaven. There is no logical or Scriptural bar on
> sinful humans existing in heaven and in God's presence.
>
> However the idea that we will go through a process of improvement after
> death is almost certainly true (rather than being instantly transformed
> upon death). There will almost certainly be embarrassment and shame as
> our sinful habits are trained out of us, but there will not be "fiery
> purifying" as traditional purgatory is depicted. (See
> http://v-catholic.com/prayers/monday-devotion-a-prayer-to-help-the-poor-souls-in-purgatory/
> if you don't believe me.)

I just love the way you choose the more dramatic forms of prayer to
illustrate your point! You seem more to object to the style than the
purpose.

Yes, we ARE enjoined to pray for 'souls in purgatory', just as we're
enjoined to pray for all in need. Just because you think we go to sleep
before awakening to hear our judgement, still doesn't obviate that our
souls aren't aware of their earthly sinfulness. Nor can you demonstrate
that we do not benefit from other's prayers between now and the last
judgement. Time to pray for your forebears, Kendall, as you hope to meet
them there someday!! ;-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/04/2022 21:57, Mike Davis wrote:

>> The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is based on the nonsensical premise
>> that "sin cannot exist in the presence of a holy God" (and I have
>> heard Protestants trumpet the same nonsense).

> Where do you get that from?  I can't see that it's nonsensical, but the
> concept doesn't depend on that premise.

So you are quite happy with the idea that an imperfect (aka sinful)
person can experience the beatific vision?

> I just love the way you choose the more dramatic forms of prayer to
> illustrate your point! You seem more to object to the style than the
> purpose.

That was merely one of the first pictures to come up on
www.bing.com/images for the search term "purgatory". There are plenty of
others. You may dislike such ideas and such pictures, but they are
standard Catholic teaching - as far back as I can remember and, as the
evidence shows, well back into the Mediaeval period.

On the basis of "know thy enemy" (if you'll pardon the expression) my
father had a collection of Catholic catechisms and other books, picked
up in a Catholic book shop in Lismore, his first posting as a young
minister. My favourite was a catechism illustrated with line drawings of
particular ferocity that quite fascinated me as a child. (Remember,
these books were not purchased from some anti-Catholic source but from a
Catholic book shop.)

> Yes, we ARE enjoined to pray for 'souls in purgatory', just as we're
> enjoined to pray for all in need. Just because you think we go to sleep
> before awakening to hear our judgement, still doesn't obviate that our
> souls aren't aware of their earthly sinfulness. Nor can you demonstrate
> that we do not benefit from other's prayers between now and the last
> judgement. Time to pray for your forebears, Kendall, as you hope to meet
> them there someday!!  ;-)

I am quite satisfied that our eternal destinies are fixed at death and
if I am unrepentant at death, no amount of praying by my sons and
grandsons (down to the nth generation) is going to alter that.

[Jason]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 20:31:56 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 01/04/2022 10:42, Jason wrote:

>> These are all interesting points. I think the only thing I can say is
>> we may not be Hitler, but if all of our thoughts and deeds throughout
>> our lives (or even throughout the last week) were to be pasted on a
>> sheet and stuck on a wall none of us would look fantastic.
>
> Very true. The difference between the saved and the unsaved is not the
> excellence of the formers' lives but the fact that they repented and
> sought forgiveness (or were willing to do so).

I'm not sure I believe in the "magic spell" approach to Salvation: "just
repent and say this prayer and you're in". God has shown us in the Bible
the right way to live, to repent, to seek forgiveness exactly as you
say. But I'm not willing to go further than that and say God will *only*
save people who follow this pattern.

>> I still need to give it a lot more thought, but I'm increasingly
>> favouring the concept of annihilation, and overall I think it's a
>> better fit with the picture the Bible paints. I do appreciate however
>> that it is not the traditional church position so I do want to tread
>> carefully.
>
> The traditional church position is based mainly on Greek "science" which
> taught that soul (the substance) could not be destroyed.

Whether or not it is based on Greek science it is still the traditional
position of the church. As is claimed of many 'modern innovations' it
may be that the church has been seriously mistaken for hundreds of years,
but at the same time I think we should tread carefully before ruling such
things out.

> Despite clear
> statements in Scripture to the contrary, the early and mediaeval church
> kowtowed to science "falsely so called" - rather like so many Christians
> do today - and so ended up with the doctrine of ever-burning torment for
> lost souls.

Certainly there are scriptures that support us being tormented eternally
"where their worm dieth not" so I don't think the picture you are paining
is entirely fair.

>> And I'm not sure that 'eternal damnation' means that the torment is
>> eternal, or the effects of being condemned are eternal.

That is certainly what I would like to think, but I need to spend more
time thinking and praying on this yet.

[Jason]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 20:44:37 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 01/04/2022 10:50, Jason wrote:

>> Yes, I'm not RC but I think this is a useful concept. I don't know
>> exactly if/how it exists as a 'state' or is some sort of process as
>> part of God's judgement.
>
> The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is based on the nonsensical premise
> that "sin cannot exist in the presence of a holy God" (and I have heard
> Protestants trumpet the same nonsense).

I don't know if this is what the Catholics believe in the matter or not,
but I've never heard of this view in (protestant) churches I've
attended. The Holy spirit dwells in us, and we're not sinless; God
walked in the Garden looking for Adam and Eve even after the fall so this
view doesn't make sense to me.

But that's not the same as God welcoming the sinful into Heaven, which is
the reason I've understood Purgatory to be a useful concept.

> However the idea that we will go through a process of improvement after
> death is almost certainly true (rather than being instantly transformed
> upon death). There will almost certainly be embarrassment and shame as
> our sinful habits are trained out of us, but there will not be "fiery
> purifying" as traditional purgatory is depicted. (See
> http://v-catholic.com/prayers/monday-devotion-a-prayer-to-help-the-poor-
souls-in-purgatory/
> if you don't believe me.)

The thing is that I always *have* thought that we would be fully sinless
by the time we enter Heaven. I don't think I've really ever thought
about this, just assumed it to be the case so it may not stand scrutiny.
It's never occurred to me in fact that we will enter Heaven sinful and
undergo some sort of sanctification process to while we're there.

[Jason]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 20:35:48 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 01/04/2022 10:15, Jason wrote:
>
>>> But what if they cannot because of conscious choices previously made?
>
>> Past performance is not an indicator of future results.
>
> Without conversion and repentance, past performance is a true indicator
> of future results.

While the letter of what you say is true, the implication is not. For
many, conversion/repentance etc comes completely unexpectedly and out the
the blue: simply because someone has thought a certain way for 50 years
does not mean that will not meet God tomorrow.

>> So at what point do you think that Putin 'cannot' do anything about his
>> future with Christ. When he told his very first untruth? When he told
>> his seventieth? When he told his seventy times seventieth?
>
> That is for God to judge. I would merely say that every time he repeats
> what he knows to be false, he makes it more difficult for himself.

Maybe that is true, or maybe it is not. It may well be the case for some
people that they have to reach absolutely rock bottom before they turn to
God (which would be the opposite of what you imply).

>> I would agree that if someone actively rejects the call of the Holy
>> Spirit they will not be held guiltless. On the other hand, I'm not
>> sure how many people actually fall into this category, as opposed to
>> not giving such matters a second thought.
>
> Christianity is, unfortunately, an opt-in religion. It is not the
> default position of mankind.

I'm not prepared to say what the default position of mankind is, whether
God will send unbaptised babies straight to the fires of hell or
whatever. All we know for sure is what the Bible tells us we should do,
and as far as I'm concerned what happens outside of that is entirely up
to God.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/04/2022 16:04, Jason wrote:

> I'm not sure I believe in the "magic spell" approach to Salvation: "just
> repent and say this prayer and you're in".

Yet I presume you went through a "magic spell" for marriage: just say
these words and you're married.

> God has shown us in the Bible
> the right way to live, to repent, to seek forgiveness exactly as you
> say.

Certainly, and there is far more to a successful marriage than the
"magic words" - but without the magic words, there is no marriage.

> But I'm not willing to go further than that and say God will *only*
> save people who follow this pattern.

Hmmmm. Whereas I would say that only those who follow the requirements
of repentance and amemdnment in response to the Spirit will be saved and
it is the "magic words" that are optional. (Not because they are
unimportant, but because for various reasons some people may not have
opportunity to learn them.)

> Whether or not it is based on Greek science it is still the traditional
> position of the church. As is claimed of many 'modern innovations' it
> may be that the church has been seriously mistaken for hundreds of years,
> but at the same time I think we should tread carefully before ruling such
> things out.

While I agree that we should take seriously something that has been
believed for so long by so many, neither should that be the determining
factor. Protestants, after all, have long stated that the traditional
positions of the church, held in some cases for centuries, are mistaken.

> That is certainly what I would like to think, but I need to spend more
> time thinking and praying on this yet.

Add "studying Scripture" to thinking and praying and you are on safe
ground. Leave Scripture out and you are setting yourself up to be led
astray.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/04/2022 16:11, Jason wrote:

>> Without conversion and repentance, past performance is a true indicator
>> of future results.

> While the letter of what you say is true, the implication is not. For
> many, conversion/repentance etc comes completely unexpectedly and out the
> the blue: simply because someone has thought a certain way for 50 years
> does not mean that will not meet God tomorrow.

Which is covered by my "without repentance".

> Maybe that is true, or maybe it is not. It may well be the case for some
> people that they have to reach absolutely rock bottom before they turn to
> God (which would be the opposite of what you imply).

Yes, that is commonly said of alcoholics and other drug addicts. Perhaps
a comprehensive defeat in the Ukraine will be Putin's "rock bottom" - we
can hope so.

> I'm not prepared to say what the default position of mankind is, whether
> God will send unbaptised babies straight to the fires of hell or
> whatever. All we know for sure is what the Bible tells us we should do,
> and as far as I'm concerned what happens outside of that is entirely up
> to God.

Indeed, I agree with your conclusion. Nevertheless statements such as
"all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" do, I think, bear
out my contention that salvation is not mankind's default position.

That is a different question from "what happens to unbaptised babies".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/04/2022 16:18, Jason wrote:

> I don't know if this is what the Catholics believe in the matter or not,
> but I've never heard of this view in (protestant) churches I've
> attended.

I am surprised; I have heard it from both laity and clergy.

> The Holy spirit dwells in us, and we're not sinless; God
> walked in the Garden looking for Adam and Eve even after the fall so this
> view doesn't make sense to me.

I know, that is why I dismissed the teaching as "nonsense".

> The thing is that I always *have* thought that we would be fully sinless
> by the time we enter Heaven. I don't think I've really ever thought
> about this, just assumed it to be the case so it may not stand scrutiny.
> It's never occurred to me in fact that we will enter Heaven sinful and
> undergo some sort of sanctification process to while we're there.

There are three possibilities, all of which have advocates within the
church.

1. We must achieve sinless perfection before we die.

2. We are transformed into sinless perfection at death.

3. We must go through a process of education after death.

I reject the first two. (1) is too much like salvation by works; (2)
does not seem to me to be supported in Scripture.

That leaves (3), but that again raises questions. Does this education
process happen in heaven or in some other place? Does it involve fiery
torment (of a spiritual sort, of course) or is it, as on earth, a
transforming of our minds? Can it be shortened by climbing up to Pant
Asaph and saying a prayer for the conversion of England or by putting
coins in Tetzel's money chest?

There is nothing in Scripture to suggest a third place intermediate
between heaven and earth, which means that the process takes place in
heaven.

When you think about it, Eve did a lot of sinful things without being
cast out of Eden; a truly perfect person would not have gone anywhere
near the tree, would have rejected the serpent as soon as he expressed
doubts about God, and so on. Eve did all those things but was not
condemned until she actually picked the fruit and ate it.

In the same way I imagine that in heaven we will still have sinful
inclinations that a truly perfect person would not have, but we are in
heaven because we welcome the intervention by God and the holy angels in
correcting our sins - and so, gradually, we learn to become perfect, as
perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <t2fgf8$622$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:21:11 +0100:

> On 04/04/2022 16:18, Jason wrote:
>> The Holy spirit dwells in us, and we're not sinless; God walked in
>> the Garden looking for Adam and Eve even after the fall so this view
>> doesn't make sense to me.
> I know, that is why I dismissed the teaching as "nonsense".
>> The thing is that I always *have* thought that we would be fully
>> sinless by the time we enter Heaven. I don't think I've really ever
>> thought about this, just assumed it to be the case so it may not
>> stand scrutiny. It's never occurred to me in fact that we will enter
>> Heaven sinful and undergo some sort of sanctification process to
>> while we're there.
>
> There are three possibilities, all of which have advocates within the
> church.
>
> 1. We must achieve sinless perfection before we die.
>
> 2. We are transformed into sinless perfection at death.
>
> 3. We must go through a process of education after death.
>
> I reject the first two. (1) is too much like salvation by works; (2)
> does not seem to me to be supported in Scripture.

paul thinks that those in the first resurrection will be raised to
perfection - the spirits of just men are made perfect - in an instant

15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for
the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and
we shall be changed.

15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality.

Those particitpating in the first resurrection immediately join Jesus
and the clouds of heaven and engage in judging the earth. I think this
requires that they would be perfected momentarily. A happy thought.


Of course there is the notion that in the resurrection one is raised
exactly the same person as he was at the moment of death - if someone
died by suicide he'd wake up in the same state of mind, and it is in
that state they would be cast into the lake of fire.

The state of those who are saved in the second resurrection is indeed an
open question.

> That leaves (3), but that again raises questions. Does this education
> process happen in heaven or in some other place? Does it involve fiery
> torment (of a spiritual sort, of course) or is it, as on earth, a
> transforming of our minds? Can it be shortened by climbing up to Pant
> Asaph and saying a prayer for the conversion of England or by putting
> coins in Tetzel's money chest?

Eastern theories of enlightenment and gnosis are substitutes for the
notion of sanctification and perfection, lifetime processes which
involve transformation and state-change in a moment.

> There is nothing in Scripture to suggest a third place intermediate
> between heaven and earth, which means that the process takes place in
> heaven.

I know you will tell me not to bring it up again so I wont bring up the
case of weeping and gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness, during the
millennium.

Mind you I do have a good pretty good idea of that hell - what it is to
weep and gnash my teeth for eterneity having been given the taste and
training for that even in life on earth.

> When you think about it, Eve did a lot of sinful things without being
> cast out of Eden; a truly perfect person would not have gone anywhere
> near the tree, would have rejected the serpent as soon as he expressed
> doubts about God, and so on. Eve did all those things but was not
> condemned until she actually picked the fruit and ate it.
>
> In the same way I imagine that in heaven we will still have sinful
> inclinations that a truly perfect person would not have, but we are in
> heaven because we welcome the intervention by God and the holy angels
> in correcting our sins - and so, gradually, we learn to become
> perfect, as perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.

As I posted elsewhere on this topic I'm inclined to reject this
option. Evil and satan are separated and contained in the lake of fire,
and there is no option for the just men who are have been made perfect
to sin, or to glory in imperfection.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/04/2022 04:00, Madhu wrote:

> paul thinks that those in the first resurrection will be raised to
> perfection - the spirits of just men are made perfect - in an instant

Hmmmm. The verse to which you refer - Hebrews 12:23 - is, I think,
talking about "forensic justification", which is God declaring someone
to be righteous/perfect, even though they are not perfect in reality.

However it is even more likely that Paul is not talking about moral
perfection at all. Hebrew 11:40 refers to the great men and women of
faith who are all now dead but who are not yet "made perfect" because
they have to wait for us! The previous verse indicates what this lack of
perfection is: they "received not the promise", a phrase which is
clearly a reference to the promise of entry into heaven, as shown by
Hebrews 11:13.

So entry into heaven is "perfection", with no indication that moral
perfection is implied.

> 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
> must put on immortality.

The reference is to a change in our bodies - mortal becomming immortal -
not in our moral characters.

> Those particitpating in the first resurrection immediately join Jesus
> and the clouds of heaven and engage in judging the earth. I think this
> requires that they would be perfected momentarily. A happy thought.

It depends what is involved in this "judging". I agree that it might be
desirable for a judge to be morally perfect (but the contrary is
arguable) if he is deciding guilt or innocence, but the fact that some
are in heaven and some not indicates that that question has already been
decided.

I think myself that the judging which takes place during the Millennium
deals with sentencing, not guilt. That is, the resurrected saints decide
the severity of the punishment awarded to the wicked.

We often hear victims of crime complaining that the criminal "got off
lightly" (and usually I agree with them) while at other times we hear
friends and relatives of the criminal complaining that "he didn't
deserve that". I think it likely that God gives us, who have suffered at
the hands of these people or who are related in some way to these
people, the task of assigning their penalty. That way there will be no
complaints in heaven that God was "soft of crime" or that He was "too
harsh".

> Of course there is the notion that in the resurrection one is raised
> exactly the same person as he was at the moment of death - if someone
> died by suicide he'd wake up in the same state of mind, and it is in
> that state they would be cast into the lake of fire.

I agree with that notion - with reservations. For example, if a martyr
is burned at the stake I don't believe he will wake in the resurrection
still feeling terror and pain. Likewise if someone has died of a painful
disease.

So I believe that we wake with the same characters or personalities. We
know that in this life it is rare for God to miraculously change a
person's personality, preferring instead that the person actively choose
to change and work at achieving the change. I suspect that is because
the latter process ensures that the change becomes permanent whereas a
miraculous change carries the risk of the person in some way hankering
after the way they were.

The same considerations apply after the resurrection.

> The state of those who are saved in the second resurrection is indeed an
> open question.

No one resurrected after the Millennium - which is usually what is meant
by "second resurrection" - will be saved.

> Eastern theories of enlightenment and gnosis are substitutes for the
> notion of sanctification and perfection, lifetime processes which
> involve transformation and state-change in a moment.

I think you are referring to what Christians commonly call "conversion".
St Paul, for example, was changed in a moment from opposing Christ to
championing Him. However St Paul did not become perfect in that instant
and towards the end of his life spoke of "pressing on" towards the
perfection which God requires.

> I know you will tell me not to bring it up again so I wont bring up the
> case of weeping and gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness, during the
> millennium.

I think there will be adequate gnashing of teeth after the millennium
(after the second resurrection) to fulfil the description. ("And them's
wot 'as no teeth will 'ave ter gum it," as a man of my acquaintance once
stated.)

> Mind you I do have a good pretty good idea of that hell - what it is to
> weep and gnash my teeth for eterneity having been given the taste and
> training for that even in life on earth.

In which case I presume that you are rather eager to escape a
prolongation of that state.

> As I posted elsewhere on this topic I'm inclined to reject this
> option. Evil and satan are separated and contained in the lake of fire,
> and there is no option for the just men who are have been made perfect
> to sin, or to glory in imperfection.

That's fine. I don't believe that Scripture is absolutely clear on the
question; my concern is to make sure that I am, by God's grace, in the
first resurrection. What happens after that I will accept quite happily.

[steve hague]

On 04/04/2022 16:18, Jason wrote:

But isn't it a basic concept of Christianity that Jesus' sacrifice on
the cross paid for all of our sins if we believe in Him? God looks at us
through the lens of Jesus, and sees the sinless one, even if we think of
ourselves as unworthy, which we are if we are without Christ. There's no
need for purgatory, the Great Redeemer has said "It is finished."
Steve Hague

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <t2gj7j$oe9$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 5 Apr 2022 06:14:28 +0100:

> On 05/04/2022 04:00, Madhu wrote:
>
>> paul thinks that those in the first resurrection will be raised to
>> perfection - the spirits of just men are made perfect - in an instant
>
> Hmmmm. The verse to which you refer - Hebrews 12:23 - is, I think,
> talking about "forensic justification", which is God declaring someone
> to be righteous/perfect, even though they are not perfect in reality.

(The description is from hebrews i quoted the "in an instant verses"
below)

> However it is even more likely that Paul is not talking about moral
> perfection at all. Hebrew 11:40 refers to the great men and women of
> faith who are all now dead but who are not yet "made perfect" because
> they have to wait for us! The previous verse indicates what this lack
> of perfection is: they "received not the promise", a phrase which is
> clearly a reference to the promise of entry into heaven, as shown by
> Hebrews 11:13.
>
> So entry into heaven is "perfection", with no indication that moral
> perfection is implied.
>
>> 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
>> must put on immortality.
>
> The reference is to a change in our bodies - mortal becomming immortal
> - not in our moral characters.

I don't think the two are orthogonal. My point is that the perfection
(alluded to in Hebrews) comes at the instant of the first resurrection.

>> The state of those who are saved in the second resurrection is indeed an
>> open question.
>
> No one resurrected after the Millennium - which is usually what is
> meant by "second resurrection" - will be saved.

20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast

into the lake of fire.

The wording does not imply that all those in the second resurrection
were cast into the lake of fire. There is room for some of those who are
resurrected for judgment escape judgment because their names are in the
book of the lamb. (They were however not privileged to be in the first
resurrection)

>> Eastern theories of enlightenment and gnosis are substitutes for the
>> notion of sanctification and perfection, lifetime processes which
>> involve transformation and state-change in a moment.
>
> I think you are referring to what Christians commonly call
> "conversion". St Paul, for example, was changed in a moment from
> opposing Christ to championing Him. However St Paul did not become
> perfect in that instant and towards the end of his life spoke of
> "pressing on" towards the perfection which God requires.

No, conversion would correspond to "initiation to practice" in eastern
streams, and "perfection" corresponds to the goal of practice, which is
understood to be "state-change"

[Jason]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 20:06:21 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 04/04/2022 16:04, Jason wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I believe in the "magic spell" approach to Salvation:
>> "just repent and say this prayer and you're in".
>
> Yet I presume you went through a "magic spell" for marriage: just say
> these words and you're married.
>
>> God has shown us in the Bible the right way to live, to repent, to seek
>> forgiveness exactly as you say.
>
> Certainly, and there is far more to a successful marriage than the
> "magic words" - but without the magic words, there is no marriage.

But not a fortnight ago we had a related discussion where you were
positing that it marriage (before God) isn't anything to do with the
words, but the point at which two become one flesh? Hence the non-
consummation grounds for annulment.

>
>> But I'm not willing to go further than that and say God will *only*
>> save people who follow this pattern.
>
> Hmmmm. Whereas I would say that only those who follow the requirements
> of repentance and amemdnment in response to the Spirit will be saved and
> it is the "magic words" that are optional. (Not because they are
> unimportant, but because for various reasons some people may not have
> opportunity to learn them.)

I guess we differ on this point. Again, it's hard to see how your
paragraph above applies to babies and the mentally incapacitated.

>> Whether or not it is based on Greek science it is still the traditional
>> position of the church. As is claimed of many 'modern innovations' it
>> may be that the church has been seriously mistaken for hundreds of
>> years,
>> but at the same time I think we should tread carefully before ruling
>> such things out.
>
> While I agree that we should take seriously something that has been
> believed for so long by so many, neither should that be the determining
> factor. Protestants, after all, have long stated that the traditional
> positions of the church, held in some cases for centuries, are mistaken.

This is true, but there are plenty of other areas where Christians claim
the church is going astray (to put it mildly) by throwing away the
traditional positions in favour of "new works of the spirit".

>> That is certainly what I would like to think, but I need to spend more
>> time thinking and praying on this yet.
>
> Add "studying Scripture" to thinking and praying and you are on safe
> ground. Leave Scripture out and you are setting yourself up to be led
> astray.

Fair point. The 'problem' (if you like) with Scripture is that you are
always to some degree reliant on the interpretation of others even if you
stick to only the Bible as a source, as not many of us are sufficiently
adept at Hebrew/Greek and whatnot to be able to pick apart the nuances.
Pasting words into Strong's I don't think cuts it....

[Jason]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 20:10:43 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 04/04/2022 16:11, Jason wrote:
>
>>> Without conversion and repentance, past performance is a true
>>> indicator of future results.
>
>> While the letter of what you say is true, the implication is not. For
>> many, conversion/repentance etc comes completely unexpectedly and out
>> the the blue: simply because someone has thought a certain way for 50
>> years does not mean that will not meet God tomorrow.
>
> Which is covered by my "without repentance".

You miss the point. I'm arguing that repentance can happen at absolutely
any time: just because someone has not repented for the last 50 years
does not mean that they will not repent tomorrow. That's what I meant by
"past performance is not indicative of future results".

>> I'm not prepared to say what the default position of mankind is,
>> whether God will send unbaptised babies straight to the fires of hell
>> or whatever. All we know for sure is what the Bible tells us we should
>> do, and as far as I'm concerned what happens outside of that is
>> entirely up to God.
>
> Indeed, I agree with your conclusion. Nevertheless statements such as
> "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" do, I think, bear
> out my contention that salvation is not mankind's default position.

I don't think "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is
relevant here, that's the point: I'm happy that God in his infinite mercy
and grace may well choose to save those who "fall short of the glory of
God" quite apart from the most excellent way taught to us in the Bible.

> That is a different question from "what happens to unbaptised babies".

But it's not really, either you need to repent and seek the forgiveness
of God or you do not. Or are you arguing that there is a cut-off age,
before which you are treated differently by God?

[Jason]

That's a good point but there are still some unanswered questions there.
I think the key point there is that God sees as as sinless through the
lens of Jesus just as you say, not that we *actually are* sinless. So in
heaven therefore either we are still sinful, though God continues to see
us as sinless through the lens of Jesus, or all our sin is burned away
and we actually *are* sinless. This is the point of debate where
purgatory may/may not fit in I think....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/04/2022 12:49, Jason wrote:

>> Certainly, and there is far more to a successful marriage than the
>> "magic words" - but without the magic words, there is no marriage.

> But not a fortnight ago we had a related discussion where you were
> positing that it marriage (before God) isn't anything to do with the
> words, but the point at which two become one flesh? Hence the non-
> consummation grounds for annulment.

He he. Well remembered.

Yes, I would have to maintain that marriage is consummation; but as we
are all too well aware, there are plenty of people who engage in sex
without there being a marriage and no intention that there should be a
marriage. The purist might argue that you are married to the first woman
with whom you have sex and all other relationships - including a
subsequent legal marriage - are adulterous. I have a certain sympathy
for that point of view.

However if we are talking about a complete marriage - rather than some
unusual circumstance - then I would say that a public declaration, in
whatever form the culture mandates, followed by physical consummation,
are both necessary for marriage. That is then followed - which was the
point of my comment at the top of this post - by a process of growing
together, making compromises and adjustments, until the couple are truly
one (probably about the time of the Golden Wedding!)

> I guess we differ on this point. Again, it's hard to see how your
> paragraph above applies to babies and the mentally incapacitated.

Babies I believe are covered by their parents, as Paul indicates in 1
Corinthians 7. Adult mentally handicapped are in God's hands and for
them oblivion may be the merciful solution. On the other hand, some
mentally handicapped are quite capable of responding in a child-like way
to the love of God; some, on the other hand, can be quite vicious and
even evil. I'm glad that the judgement is not in my hands.

> This is true, but there are plenty of other areas where Christians claim
> the church is going astray (to put it mildly) by throwing away the
> traditional positions in favour of "new works of the spirit".

Indeed.

> Fair point. The 'problem' (if you like) with Scripture is that you are
> always to some degree reliant on the interpretation of others even if you
> stick to only the Bible as a source, as not many of us are sufficiently
> adept at Hebrew/Greek and whatnot to be able to pick apart the nuances.
> Pasting words into Strong's I don't think cuts it....

I think that if you have a variety of reputable translations and compare
them, you will come close enough to the meaning of what the Bible
authors wrote as makes no difference. It can be useful to consult
commentaries to see if they can provide background information that
would affect the meaning of the passage - but do beware of allowing a
commentary to dictate how you understand the passage.

That is why, although I highly respect Barclay and some other
commentators, I do not have their books and have not read them. In fact,
the only commentary I have is the SDA Bible Commentary and I only
consult that because it is largely an historical and linguistic commentary.

Thus Barclay might say "In Romans 17:11 Paul tells us to X Y Z" whereas
the SDABC would have "Romans 17:11 The Greek word XYZ means this and
that, though its use in Plato's "Republic" adds the meaning that and
this, which may be more relevant here." or "Romans 17:11 At this time,
as Pliny tells us, the Jewish colony in Rome was facing the problem of
abc and Paul may have been addressing that in this passage".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/04/2022 13:02, Jason wrote:

> You miss the point. I'm arguing that repentance can happen at absolutely
> any time: just because someone has not repented for the last 50 years
> does not mean that they will not repent tomorrow. That's what I meant by
> "past performance is not indicative of future results".

There is always that possibility, but I would maintain that past
performance, while not prescriptive of future results, is indicative.

> I don't think "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is
> relevant here, that's the point: I'm happy that God in his infinite mercy
> and grace may well choose to save those who "fall short of the glory of
> God" quite apart from the most excellent way taught to us in the Bible.

I don't believe that God will ever over-ride the individual's free will
and force him or her to be saved.

> But it's not really, either you need to repent and seek the forgiveness
> of God or you do not. Or are you arguing that there is a cut-off age,
> before which you are treated differently by God?

As St Paul says, the Christian parent can "sanctify" his or her
children. Thus I would argue that the infant of a Christian is most
likely to be saved. However there is a point - and I don't profess to
know when it is - when the child becomes an autonomous individual
responsible for its own salvation and the parent's faith no longer
covers it.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/04/2022 08:31, Madhu wrote:

> I don't think the two are orthogonal.

No, they are probably rectilinear or even rhomboidal.

> My point is that the perfection
> (alluded to in Hebrews) comes at the instant of the first resurrection.

Indeed - we gain entry to heaven, which is the perfection about which
Paul was speaking in Hebrews 11.

> The wording does not imply that all those in the second resurrection
> were cast into the lake of fire. There is room for some of those who are
> resurrected for judgment escape judgment because their names are in the
> book of the lamb. (They were however not privileged to be in the first
> resurrection)

Hmmmm. I can see how you might arrive at that conclusion, but I do not
believe that is the correct interpretation. In understand it to mean
that no one in the book of life appears before the Great White Throne
and those who do appear are there because their names are not written in
the book of life.

Still, just make sure your name is in the right place and we can leave
God to worry about the Great White Throne judgement.

> No, conversion would correspond to "initiation to practice" in eastern
> streams, and "perfection" corresponds to the goal of practice, which is
> understood to be "state-change"

Hmmm again. According to Christian teaching, at the moment of conversion
you are covered with Christ's righteousness and are therefore considered
perfect from that moment on (even though you are not actually perfect).
Thus conversion is rather more than initiation to practice, for even if
you were run over by the traditional steam roller the moment after
conversion, you would still enter heaven. (I think that in Hindu
teaching you cannot enter Nirvana until you have achieved enlightenment.)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/04/2022 08:02, steve hague wrote:

> But isn't it a basic concept of Christianity that Jesus' sacrifice on
> the cross paid for all of our sins if we believe in Him? God looks at us
> through the lens of Jesus, and sees the sinless one, even if we think of
> ourselves as unworthy, which we are if we are without Christ. There's no
> need for purgatory, the Great Redeemer has said "It is finished."

Indeed. The term with which I am familiar is "justification", sometimes
referred to as "forensic justification". However there is also
"sanctification". A phrase I recall is "Justification is the work of a
moment, sanctification is the work of a lifetime".

Justification - God seeing us through the lens of Jesus, to use your
phrase - gets us into heaven. I believe, however, that before God will
let us loose on the New Earth we will need to be sanctified and that no
matter how long we live, we will never achieve full sanctification in
this life. I have argued - slightly tongue-in-cheek - that God keeps us
under His eye in heaven for 1,000 years until we have indeed become
fully sanctified and only then creates the New Earth for us.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/04/2022 13:09, Jason wrote:

> That's a good point but there are still some unanswered questions there.
> I think the key point there is that God sees as as sinless through the
> lens of Jesus just as you say, not that we *actually are* sinless. So in
> heaven therefore either we are still sinful, though God continues to see
> us as sinless through the lens of Jesus, or all our sin is burned away
> and we actually *are* sinless. This is the point of debate where
> purgatory may/may not fit in I think....

A good analysis - except that I dislike the term "burned away". I don't
think that fire, no matter how spiritual, will turn me from selfish to
unselfish. Rather it will be a matter of training and counselling and
repeated practice, just as making any character change on earth is done.

"Burning" smacks too much of those idiots who attempt to exorcise by
maltreating the possessed person.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <t2i32j$pj5$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 5 Apr 2022 19:50:59 +0100:

> On 05/04/2022 08:31, Madhu wrote:
>> The wording does not imply that all those in the second resurrection
>> were cast into the lake of fire. There is room for some of those who
>> are resurrected for judgment escape judgment because their names are
>> in the book of the lamb. (They were however not privileged to be in
>> the first resurrection)
>
> Hmmmm. I can see how you might arrive at that conclusion, but I do not
> believe that is the correct interpretation. In understand it to mean
> that no one in the book of life appears before the Great White Throne
> and those who do appear are there because their names are not written
> in the book of life.

I see it as John describing his vision. If he noticed that all those who
were resurrected were tossed into the lake of fire, then it would have
been plainly stated. There is no room for ambiguity. Those of the first
resurrection who are already glorified aren't the "dead" that are being
judged in these verses (see earlier verses). the verses pertain only to
the second (general) resurrection, there wouldn't be a rigmarole of two
books being opened only to find no names of those present in the second
book.

Daniel's informant was also given to understand that that some of those
who are resurrected *at the time of the resurrection* are raised to
glory. In the light of Johns vision it is clear that the earlier
information knows about the second resurrection and is talking about it.

12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

(Sorry, this is one of those things were I am compelled to present the
view again and again even though I've already done it a dozen times)

[Mike Davis]

On 04/04/2022 16:18, Jason wrote:
>

> The thing is that I always *have* thought that we would be fully sinless
> by the time we enter Heaven. I don't think I've really ever thought
> about this, just assumed it to be the case so it may not stand scrutiny.
> It's never occurred to me in fact that we will enter Heaven sinful and
> undergo some sort of sanctification process to while we're there.

That's exactly (I believe) what the doctrine of Purgatory is about.

(I'm currently trying to get my head around Dante's Purgatorio, as the
Church seems to accept that as a good image - if not theologically correct.)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 03/04/2022 02:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 02/04/2022 21:57, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is based on the nonsensical
>>> premise that "sin cannot exist in the presence of a holy God" (and I
>>> have heard Protestants trumpet the same nonsense).
>
>> Where do you get that from?  I can't see that it's nonsensical, but
>> the concept doesn't depend on that premise.
>
> So you are quite happy with the idea that an imperfect (aka sinful)
> person can experience the beatific vision?

Are YOU?
Or are you telling me that God will wipe away your unrepented sins at
the instant of your death? (NOTE- I am fully aware that our sins are
forgiven on the Cross of Christ, but as I recently posted, we have to
let them go, not hang on to them.

>> I just love the way you choose the more dramatic forms of prayer to
>> illustrate your point! You seem more to object to the style than the
>> purpose.
>
> That was merely one of the first pictures to come up on
> www.bing.com/images for the search term "purgatory". There are plenty of
> others. You may dislike such ideas and such pictures, but they are
> standard Catholic teaching - as far back as I can remember and, as the
> evidence shows, well back into the Mediaeval period.

Yes, there have been many ways of trying to express our 'spiritual state
& condition' over the years, but because a particular period's aesthetic
expression of spiritual truth isn't to your taste, doesn't mean that
that they should be rejected out of hand. It's just how a particular
culture expressed the idea.

>
> On the basis of "know thy enemy" (if you'll pardon the expression) my
> father had a collection of Catholic catechisms and other books, picked
> up in a Catholic book shop in Lismore, his first posting as a young
> minister. My favourite was a catechism illustrated with line drawings of
> particular ferocity that quite fascinated me as a child. (Remember,
> these books were not purchased from some anti-Catholic source but from a
> Catholic book shop.)

As above.

>
>> Yes, we ARE enjoined to pray for 'souls in purgatory', just as we're
>> enjoined to pray for all in need. Just because you think we go to
>> sleep before awakening to hear our judgement, still doesn't obviate
>> that our souls aren't aware of their earthly sinfulness. Nor can you
>> demonstrate that we do not benefit from other's prayers between now
>> and the last judgement. Time to pray for your forebears, Kendall, as
>> you hope to meet them there someday!!  ;-)
>
> I am quite satisfied that our eternal destinies are fixed at death and
> if I am unrepentant at death, no amount of praying by my sons and
> grandsons (down to the nth generation) is going to alter that.

How do you know that their prayers have not influenced your repentance
*before* death?
We live *in* time, God is *outside* time. (If not, the sins that Jesus
died for would only be that which occurred before the Crucifixion, those
committed afterwards could then NOt be forgiven!)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 04/04/2022 20:21, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 04/04/2022 16:18, Jason wrote:
>
>> I don't know if this is what the Catholics believe in the matter or not,
>> but I've never heard of this view in (protestant) churches I've
>> attended.
>
> I am surprised; I have heard it from both laity and clergy.
>
>> The Holy spirit dwells in us, and we're not sinless; God
>> walked in the Garden looking for Adam and Eve even after the fall so this
>> view doesn't make sense to me.
>
> I know, that is why I dismissed the teaching as "nonsense".
>
>> The thing is that I always *have* thought that we would be fully sinless
>> by the time we enter Heaven.  I don't think I've really ever thought
>> about this, just assumed it to be the case so it may not stand scrutiny.
>> It's never occurred to me in fact that we will enter Heaven sinful and
>> undergo some sort of sanctification process to while we're there.

I've got a bit behind on this thread, so I've just posted a note asking
your opinion about this, which I think you've answered here:

>
> There are three possibilities, all of which have advocates within the
> church.
>
> 1. We must achieve sinless perfection before we die.
>
> 2. We are transformed into sinless perfection at death.
>
> 3. We must go through a process of education after death.
>
> I reject the first two. (1) is too much like salvation by works; (2)
> does not seem to me to be supported in Scripture.

Agreed.

>
> That leaves (3), but that again raises questions. Does this education
> process happen in heaven or in some other place? Does it involve fiery
> torment (of a spiritual sort, of course) or is it, as on earth, a
> transforming of our minds? Can it be shortened by climbing up to Pant
> Asaph and saying a prayer for the conversion of England or by putting
> coins in Tetzel's money chest?

Look - forget the abuses of simony - and stick to the main point.

>
> There is nothing in Scripture to suggest a third place intermediate
> between heaven and earth, which means that the process takes place in
> heaven.

You have many times acknowledged a 'third place' - you have called it
'soul sleep'.

Let me put it like this:

1. We die.
2. There is a period of waiting for our spirits (souls)
3. We rise on the 'last day' when our bodies are reunited with our
souls, to final judgement and destiny. That is Black and White - one way
or the other.

Refining the argument further;
When we die, there are three options for the soul:-
1a. We have perfectly repented and experience the beatific vision (until
the last day)

1b. We have repented and tried to live a good life, but there's some
muck that clings. That means that the Beatific vision would 'burn us up'.

1c. We have rejected God's mercy and done our own thing, in which case
we have chosen to stay away from God's presence. (That could entail
sleep until the last day & resurrection or it could entail a period of
knowing we messed up.)

ISTM there is no missing this part since we are all present at the Last
Judgement.

1b. then is what we are discussing. (Again I'll refer to Gerontius as
the best description I know of this.) But it seems that it's possible
that once we are exposed to what we have failed to let go of, we will be
offered a chance to have it removed and laid on the Cross of Jesus
(where it's already been dealt with). It won't be without some pain
(sure I don't know in what form such spiritual pain is borne), but we
can (must?) share in Jesus' pain, until we are freed.

> When you think about it, Eve did a lot of sinful things without being
> cast out of Eden; a truly perfect person would not have gone anywhere
> near the tree, would have rejected the serpent as soon as he expressed
> doubts about God, and so on. Eve did all those things but was not
> condemned until she actually picked the fruit and ate it.

Fair enough.

>
> In the same way I imagine that in heaven we will still have sinful
> inclinations that a truly perfect person would not have, but we are in
> heaven because we welcome the intervention by God and the holy angels in
> correcting our sins - and so, gradually, we learn to become perfect, as
> perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.

If you mean stage 3 above, I disagree, because when we see things in the
light of God we will see them as they really are, and having by then had
our faulty vision cleared we will not be further tempted.

Blessings

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 05/04/2022 13:09, Jason wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 08:02:37 +0100, steve hague wrote:

[snip lots]

>
>> But isn't it a basic concept of Christianity that Jesus' sacrifice on
>> the cross paid for all of our sins if we believe in Him? God looks at us
>> through the lens of Jesus, and sees the sinless one, even if we think of
>> ourselves as unworthy, which we are if we are without Christ. There's no
>> need for purgatory, the Great Redeemer has said "It is finished."
>> Steve Hague
>
> That's a good point but there are still some unanswered questions there.
> I think the key point there is that God sees as as sinless through the
> lens of Jesus just as you say, not that we *actually are* sinless. So in
> heaven therefore either we are still sinful, though God continues to see
> us as sinless through the lens of Jesus, or all our sin is burned away
> and we actually *are* sinless. This is the point of debate where
> purgatory may/may not fit in I think....

I think that's about right. When I was a young father I loved my kids
even though they'd made a right mess of their meal - porridge
everywhere! I still preferred them to be cleaned up before I gave them
a really good hug!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 05/04/2022 19:57, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 13:09, Jason wrote:
>
>> That's a good point but there are still some unanswered questions there.
>> I think the key point there is that God sees as as sinless through the
>> lens of Jesus just as you say, not that we *actually are* sinless.  So in
>> heaven therefore either we are still sinful, though God continues to see
>> us as sinless through the lens of Jesus, or all our sin is burned away
>> and we actually *are* sinless.  This is the point of debate where
>> purgatory may/may not fit in I think....
>
> A good analysis - except that I dislike the term "burned away". I don't
> think that fire, no matter how spiritual, will turn me from selfish to
> unselfish. Rather it will be a matter of training and counselling and
> repeated practice, just as making any character change on earth is done.

Think more of the young men in the burning fiery furnace! They weren't
burned up because they were faultless.

>
> "Burning" smacks too much of those idiots who attempt to exorcise by
> maltreating the possessed person.

Forget such abuses - it's not relevant.

--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 05/04/2022 19:55, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 08:02, steve hague wrote:
>
>> But isn't it a basic concept of Christianity that Jesus' sacrifice on
>> the cross paid for all of our sins if we believe in Him? God looks at
>> us through the lens of Jesus, and sees the sinless one, even if we
>> think of ourselves as unworthy, which we are if we are without Christ.
>> There's no need for purgatory, the Great Redeemer has said "It is
>> finished."
>
> Indeed. The term with which I am familiar is "justification", sometimes
> referred to as "forensic justification". However there is also
> "sanctification". A phrase I recall is "Justification is the work of a
> moment, sanctification is the work of a lifetime".

Yes, I (think I) recently posted a discussion I had with God about
repentance.

The key difference is God HAS forgiven us (on the Cross), we have to own
and repent of our sins. If we deny that we have sinned (or worse, say
"Jesus has already forgiven me, so it doesn't matter!") then we haven't
accepted that mercy - which awaits us but isn't yet ours.

>
> Justification - God seeing us through the lens of Jesus, to use your
> phrase - gets us into heaven. I believe, however, that before God will
> let us loose on the New Earth we will need to be sanctified and that no
> matter how long we live, we will never achieve full sanctification in
> this life. I have argued - slightly tongue-in-cheek - that God keeps us
> under His eye in heaven for 1,000 years until we have indeed become
> fully sanctified and only then creates the New Earth for us.

Sounds like Purgatory to me, knowing that "Someone is looking!"
;-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/04/2022 04:12, Madhu wrote:

> I see it as John describing his vision. If he noticed that all those who
> were resurrected were tossed into the lake of fire, then it would have
> been plainly stated. There is no room for ambiguity. Those of the first
> resurrection who are already glorified aren't the "dead" that are being
> judged in these verses (see earlier verses). the verses pertain only to
> the second (general) resurrection, there wouldn't be a rigmarole of two
> books being opened only to find no names of those present in the second
> book.

Certainly John is describing what he saw in vision. It is interesting
that there is no Book of Death, only a Book of Life. As I remark
elsewhere, damnation is mankind's default position, so if you are not in
the Book of Life, that's it - you receive the second death.

However the other books mentioned appear to be a record of the lives of
those not in the Book of Life, which I would understand as determining
the severity of their punishment[1]. So if your name is in the Book of
Life you are in the first resurrection; if your name is not there then
you are in the second resurrection, but the severity of your fate is
determined by your works - Hitler gets a really severe judgement, Joe
Bloggs down the street less so.

> Daniel's informant was also given to understand that that some of those
> who are resurrected *at the time of the resurrection* are raised to
> glory. In the light of Johns vision it is clear that the earlier
> information knows about the second resurrection and is talking about it.

There are two possibilities here. The first is that at the first
resurrection there are indeed some raised (temporarily) to life, but to
shame and contempt, namely those who put Jesus to death. The statement
in Revelation 1:7 that those who pierced Jesus will witness His return
is the basis for this idea.

A more likely possibility - to my mind - is that Daniel is in the Old
Testament and at that time God's plan was for only one resurrection and
no millennium. Ezekiel describes this scenario. However when the Jews
rejected Jesus, an alternative plan involving two resurrections
separated by a millennium was implemented.

> (Sorry, this is one of those things were I am compelled to present the
> view again and again even though I've already done it a dozen times)

No worries.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: Exactly how punishments will vary in the Lake of Fire is not
specified. The simplest would be to vary the length of time that the
person suffers, but other methods are possible.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/04/2022 12:41, Mike Davis wrote:

>> That leaves (3), but that again raises questions. Does this education
>> process happen in heaven or in some other place? Does it involve fiery
>> torment (of a spiritual sort, of course) or is it, as on earth, a
>> transforming of our minds? Can it be shortened by climbing up to Pant
>> Asaph and saying a prayer for the conversion of England or by putting
>> coins in Tetzel's money chest?

> Look - forget the abuses of simony - and stick to the main point.

Purchasing indulgences is not simony - you need to get your sins sorted
out! And the offer of indulgences at St Asaph is still there.

> You have many times acknowledged a 'third place' - you have called it
> 'soul sleep'.

I have never thought of that as "a third place".

> Let me put it like this:
> 1. We die.
> 2. There is a period of waiting for our spirits (souls)
> 3. We rise on the 'last day' when our bodies are reunited with our
> souls, to final judgement and destiny. That is Black and White - one way
> or the other.

With regard to 2, that period of waiting does not depend on the soul's
sinfulness, merely on when the person died. Adam's soul remains
unconscious for 6,000 years, my father's - assuming the second Advent
happens soon - for only a couple of years.

> 1b. We have repented and tried to live a good life, but there's some
> muck that clings. That means that the Beatific vision would 'burn us up'.

Or, as I put it in a previous post, "sin cannot exist in the presence of
a holy God".

> 1b. then is what we are discussing. (Again I'll refer to Gerontius as
> the best description I know of this.) But it seems that it's possible
> that once we are exposed to what we have failed to let go of, we will be
> offered a chance to have it removed and laid on the Cross of Jesus
> (where it's already been dealt with).  It won't be without some pain
> (sure I don't know in what form such spiritual pain is borne), but we
> can (must?) share in Jesus' pain, until we are freed.

1. "failed to let go of" is very different from "refused to let go of".

2. Catholics seem to love pain! We've all got to suffer, we've all got
to share Jesus' pain, we've all got to go through pain to get rid of sin.

Personally, if I am assigned a personal tutor to help me correct those
sins I have not overcome in this life, I will welcome it. I long to be
perfect and free from sin and I don't see the process as any more
"painful" than learning the truth about quantum mechanics.

> If you mean stage 3 above, I disagree, because when we see things in the
> light of God we will see them as they really are, and having by then had
> our faulty vision cleared we will not be further tempted.

In other words, we will welcome whatever help God sees fit to give us.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/04/2022 12:53, Mike Davis wrote:

> Think more of the young men in the burning fiery furnace! They weren't
> burned up because they were faultless.

No, they weren't burned up because God miraculously preserved them. I
don't believe they were sinless or faultless nor do the stories of
martyrs indicate that moral purity protects against physical flames.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/04/2022 12:59, Mike Davis wrote:

> The key difference is God HAS forgiven us (on the Cross), we have to own
> and repent of our sins. If we deny that we have sinned (or worse, say
> "Jesus has already forgiven me, so it doesn't matter!") then we haven't
> accepted that mercy - which awaits us but isn't yet ours.

I think we are saying the same thing, but in different words.

> Sounds like Purgatory to me, knowing that "Someone is looking!"
> ;-)

No worse than CCTV in Britain.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/04/2022 12:12, Mike Davis wrote:

>> So you are quite happy with the idea that an imperfect (aka sinful)
>> person can experience the beatific vision?

> Are YOU?

Yes. Of course, in the presence of God no one will remain imperfect and
sinful, (and anyone who clings to their sins - as you indicate below -
will not enter the presence of God), but if you think about it, God is
omnipresent. That means that an awful lot of terrible wickedness is
taking place in God's presence!

> Or are you telling me that God will wipe away your unrepented sins at
> the instant of your death? (NOTE- I am fully aware that our sins are
> forgiven on the Cross of Christ, but as I recently posted, we have to
> let them go, not hang on to them.

What do you mean by "wipe away"? If you mean "forgiven", then I think we
both know that sins are forgiven at conversion and when we repent and
confess them. However what I am talking about is a defect in character -
like my tendency to bad temper. I think I have improved over my lifetime
but I would not say that I am completely rid of that tendency. I am
quite comfortable with the idea that I can enter God's presence while
still suffering from that tendency and that the process of conquering it
will continue for the first years of eternity.

> Yes, there have been many ways of trying to express our 'spiritual state
> & condition' over the years, but because a particular period's aesthetic
> expression of spiritual truth isn't to your taste, doesn't mean that
> that they should be rejected out of hand. It's just how a particular
> culture expressed the idea.

I am glad that we agree that that culture was both distasteful and wrong.

> How do you know that their prayers have not influenced your repentance
> *before* death?

I am willing to believe that they might have - but if I am unrepentant
at death, then it is obvious that those post-mortem prayers did not
achieve their goal (just as pre-mortem prayers were also ineffective).

> We live *in* time, God is *outside* time. (If not, the sins that Jesus
> died for would only be that which occurred before the Crucifixion, those
> committed afterwards could then NOt be forgiven!)

Quite so, but nevertheless, "it is given unto men once to die and after
this the judgement". We do not get a second chance at salvation[1].

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: There is a very simple reason for this. God desires that we will
serve Him because we love Him. That is why, in this life, He does not
force us to do good and worship Him.

Now, if we are resurrected and see before us the bliss of heaven and the
pains of hell, we may very well decide to turn our backs on the devil
and serve God, but it will be because we desire heaven and seek to
escape hell, *not* because our love for God has suddenly sparked into life.

If I may be forgiven a lengthy quote from "Death in Capelburgh":

=========
Meanwhile the Countess' jester stood forward and gave us another joke.

"My lady, an it please you," he said, bowing in the Countess' direction.
"I heard tell of Gonella, who was jester to the Duke of Italy, how he
encountered three blind men as he went to mass. When they begged an alms
of him, he stopped and said loudly, 'Here is a florin. Take it and
divide it among yourselves', but in fact he gave nothing. The blind men
blessed him for his generosity and then each demanded of the other his
share of the florin. When they all denied having received the alms, they
all doubted but that the one who had received it was determined to keep
the whole for himself, and so they fell to fighting with one another.
Gonella then said, 'Blessed are the peacemakers" and went his way."

It seemed a pretty poor joke to me - a rather nasty, cruel deception -
but Lady Elizabeth seemed to find it hilarious and laughed until she
cried and her courtiers were quick to follow suit, cackling and wiping
their eyes. Margaret dutifully laughed as well, but I was pleased to
note that Father Nicholas sat studying his fingernails in silence.

"How now, sir priest?" Lady Elizabeth suddenly turned on him. "Do you
not think it was a merry jest upon those blind rogues?"

Father Nicholas blushed and then went pale and blushed again, but at
last he said, "I pray you pardon, madam. It is in my mind what is
written in Scripture: 'Non maledices surdo nec coram caeco pones
offendiculum sed timebis Deum tuum quia ego sum Dominus'; that is, 'Thou
shalt not curse a deaf man, neither thou shalt set an hurting before a
blind man; but thou shalt dread thy Lord God, for I am the Lord.' If
that jester did not presently return to those blind men and make good
his largesse, I ween that he did contrary to the law of God and must
answer for it."

Lady Elizabeth stared at him and it was her turn to blush, while the
tittering of the exquisites died away and several of them glared at our
village priest.

"Come," said Lady Elizabeth at last. "If you would reprove me for my
laughter, do you tell a tale that shall be to my edification."

"Willingly, madam," Father Nicholas said. "When that good king Lewis
went on crusade to Africa and was sore beset by his enemies, it is told
that there was a mad woman who went about the camp carrying fire in one
hand and a bottle of water in the other. When she met someone who asked
her what she did, she made reply that she desired to burn Paradise with
the fire and quench Hell with the water, so that none might do good from
desire of the one nor from fear of the other for, quoth she, every good
deed ought to spring from love for God only. I conceive, madam, that her
answer was very witty and wise and she were not as mad as repute made
out, for that we ought to both do good and avoid evil for love of God
only and not from hope of reward nor fear of punishment."

"That is well said, father," Lady Elizabeth said quietly. "I thank you."
She turned to one of the exquisites. "Give a boon to the holy father,
for though he is doubtless sworn to poverty, yet he may accept an
offering to St Stephen without transgressing his vow."

The young man to whom she spoke leaped to his feet, went up to Father
Nicholas and pressed something into his hand. Father Nicholas smiled and
said what I presume was thanks and the young man returned to his seat.

"What did you give him, Manfred?" Lady Elizabeth asked in a penetrating
whisper.

"Six pennies, my lady," the young man replied.

Lady Elizabeth made a noise with her tongue. "Go," she ordered. "Give
him another sixpence and bid him pray for my soul."

The young man bowed and returned to Father Nicholas. There was more
conversation and then the young man came and sat down again.
============

[Mike Davis]

On 07/04/2022 20:33, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 06/04/2022 12:12, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> So you are quite happy with the idea that an imperfect (aka sinful)
>>> person can experience the beatific vision?
>
>> Are YOU?
>
> Yes. Of course, in the presence of God no one will remain imperfect and
> sinful, (and anyone who clings to their sins - as you indicate below -
> will not enter the presence of God), but if you think about it, God is
> omnipresent. That means that an awful lot of terrible wickedness is
> taking place in God's presence!
>
>> Or are you telling me that God will wipe away your unrepented sins at
>> the instant of your death? (NOTE- I am fully aware that our sins are
>> forgiven on the Cross of Christ, but as I recently posted, we have to
>> let them go, not hang on to them.
>
> What do you mean by "wipe away"? If you mean "forgiven", then I think we
> both know that sins are forgiven at conversion and when we repent and
> confess them. However what I am talking about is a defect in character -
> like my tendency to bad temper. I think I have improved over my lifetime
> but I would not say that I am completely rid of that tendency. I am
> quite comfortable with the idea that I can enter God's presence while
> still suffering from that tendency and that the process of conquering it
> will continue for the first years of eternity.

Now THAT seems to me *exactly* what the RCC means by 'purgatory'

>> Yes, there have been many ways of trying to express our 'spiritual
>> state & condition' over the years, but because a particular period's
>> aesthetic expression of spiritual truth isn't to your taste, doesn't
>> mean that that they should be rejected out of hand. It's just how a
>> particular culture expressed the idea.
>
> I am glad that we agree that that culture was both distasteful and wrong.

I didn't say 'wrong' - all this stuff is metaphor (or at least so
outside our experience that it is difficult to know if we've understood
'correctly'), it just seems distasteful and odd to our culture.

>
>> How do you know that their prayers have not influenced your repentance
>> *before* death?
>
> I am willing to believe that they might have - but if I am unrepentant
> at death, then it is obvious that those post-mortem prayers did not
> achieve their goal (just as pre-mortem prayers were also ineffective).

Again, it seems to me that we are going round in circles. There are
three main states of the human at death, and I deliberately put them
crudely:-

1. The person has lived a Good life, fully acknowledged their sins
before God and demonstrated this through their behaviour.

2. The person has lived a reasonably good life, not committed many
serious sins, but repented fully of those. (Even without necessarily
believing in God.)

3. The person Has followed their own desires, while being aware that
many of them are wrong, and not looked to God for forgiveness.

Sure we can quibble about each - including what we mean by 'repenting' -
and subdivide further. But these are the main categories.

>> We live *in* time, God is *outside* time. (If not, the sins that Jesus
>> died for would only be that which occurred before the Crucifixion,
>> those committed afterwards could then NOt be forgiven!)
>
> Quite so, but nevertheless, "it is given unto men once to die and after
> this the judgement". We do not get a second chance at salvation[1].

I accept that, but you have said above:-

"I am quite comfortable with the idea that I can enter God's presence
while still suffering from that tendency and that the process of
conquering it will continue for the first years of eternity."

I'm not talking about 'second chances'; Salvation is a free gift, but it
has to be received.

My point is that (the doctrine of) 'Purgatory' IS the "first years of
eternity", and that the process of abandoning all 'self-ish-ness" is
what we are being stripped of. That's so when the FINAL judgement
occurs, we are free to enter God's presence - an experience that would
destroy us if we had any stain of sin still present. (Think of a black
object exposed to the fullness of sunlight - it would be destroyed.)

So any imperfection in our selves (souls/personality) must be removed
before experiencing the full light of God at our resurrection.

You said:
> Note 1: There is a very simple reason for this. God desires that we will
> serve Him because we love Him. That is why, in this life, He does not
> force us to do good and worship Him.

I agree, but He also understand that, unless we are told the Good News,
and have examples set, we may not understand the purpose of
righteousness and therefore the culpability of one may be different from
another who behaves in exactly the same way.

> Now, if we are resurrected and see before us the bliss of heaven and the
> pains of hell, we may very well decide to turn our backs on the devil
> and serve God, but it will be because we desire heaven and seek to
> escape hell, *not* because our love for God has suddenly sparked into life.

If it's that, it's too late, methinks, and we have NO choice. So
strictly that's not what it's all about, but in one sense we are all
dependant upon the mercy of God.

> If I may be forgiven a lengthy quote from "Death in Capelburgh":

Yes, it made me smile, but the full relevance was lost on me.

In the light of what you've said, I don't think there's much difference
between us. (Except possibly *when* we are when it happens.)

In a parallel post I'm going to copy some of the 'official' RC Catechism
on Purgatory. It's simple and fairly basic.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 07/04/2022 20:33, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 06/04/2022 12:12, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> So you are quite happy with the idea that an imperfect (aka sinful)
>>> person can experience the beatific vision?
>
>> Are YOU?
>
> Yes. Of course, in the presence of God no one will remain imperfect and
> sinful, (and anyone who clings to their sins - as you indicate below -
> will not enter the presence of God), but if you think about it, God is
> omnipresent. That means that an awful lot of terrible wickedness is
> taking place in God's presence!
>
>> Or are you telling me that God will wipe away your unrepented sins at
>> the instant of your death? (NOTE- I am fully aware that our sins are
>> forgiven on the Cross of Christ, but as I recently posted, we have to
>> let them go, not hang on to them.
>
> What do you mean by "wipe away"? If you mean "forgiven", then I think we
> both know that sins are forgiven at conversion and when we repent and
> confess them. However what I am talking about is a defect in character -
> like my tendency to bad temper. I think I have improved over my lifetime
> but I would not say that I am completely rid of that tendency. I am
> quite comfortable with the idea that I can enter God's presence while
> still suffering from that tendency and that the process of conquering it
> will continue for the first years of eternity.

I've tried to reply directly in my first post. Look we have not got all
the answers. We agree that our repentance may, at any point in our
lives, may be imperfect, but as long as it's sincere, I believe that God
has already / is so doing / will redeem us.

The actual RCC understanding of purgatory is fairly limited - it's all
the rubbish that's built up that complicates it.
This is what the CCC contains (I've appended the scriptural refs, but
not the quotes from the Church Fathers). Just one further note:-
'indulgences' are not what you have been taught!!! (They are mainly acts
of charity offered as prayers.)

RCC Catechism part III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly
purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death
they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to
enter the joy of heaven.


1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of
the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.
The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at
the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by
reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

[REFS: 1 Cor 3:12-16 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold,
silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for
what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed
with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If
what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it
is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even
though only as one escaping through the flames. Don’t you know that you
yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?
1 Peter 1:3-9 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an
inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is
kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power
until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the
last time. In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little
while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.
*These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater
worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result
in praise, glory and honour when Jesus Christ is revealed.*
Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not
see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and
glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the
salvation of your souls.]

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final
Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever
utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in
this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that
certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the
age to come.

[REF Matthew 12:30-32 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and
whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every kind
of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit
will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man
will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not
be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."]


1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead,
already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas [Maccabeus] made
atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

[REF 2 Maccabees 12:44-46 For if he had not expected those who had
fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray
for the dead. However, if he was focusing on the splendid reward
reserved for those whose death was marked by godliness, his thought was
holy and devout. Therefore, he had this expiatory sacrifice offered for
the dead so that they might be delivered from their sin.]

From the beginning the Church has honoured the memory of the dead and
offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic
sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision
of God.

The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance
undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and commemorate them. If
Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt
that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not
hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

[REF Job 1:5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would
make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would
sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, ‘Perhaps my
children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.’ This was Job’s
regular custom.]

[Mike Davis]

On 07/04/2022 05:54, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 06/04/2022 12:41, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> That leaves (3), but that again raises questions. Does this education
>>> process happen in heaven or in some other place? Does it involve
>>> fiery torment (of a spiritual sort, of course) or is it, as on earth,
>>> a transforming of our minds? Can it be shortened by climbing up to
>>> Pant Asaph and saying a prayer for the conversion of England or by
>>> putting coins in Tetzel's money chest?
>
>> Look - forget the abuses of simony - and stick to the main point.
>
> Purchasing indulgences is not simony - you need to get your sins sorted
> out! And the offer of indulgences at St Asaph is still there.

I've posted, in response to a post higher, the RCC teaching on purgatory.

Indulgences are 'grace' freely given (from God) in response to acts of
veneration/prayer. In short what we all should be 'doing' to get us
right with God. Like you, I dislike the idea that we are doing it
'looking at ourselves' when it's all about God, but better that than not.
Attempting to purchase God's grace most certainly IS 'Simony' as in Acts
8:18-19 "When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of
the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this
ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy
Spirit.”
The abuse practised by Tetzel & colleagues at that time, was promising
time off purgatory for (and in proportion to) their donations. And that
IS simony.

St Asaph and many other places are merely helping people to prayer (in
some structured way) for their own good. It's what shrines and holy
places are about.

>
>> You have many times acknowledged a 'third place' - you have called it
>> 'soul sleep'.
>
> I have never thought of that as "a third place".
>
>> Let me put it like this:
>> 1. We die.
>> 2. There is a period of waiting for our spirits (souls)
>> 3. We rise on the 'last day' when our bodies are reunited with our
>> souls, to final judgement and destiny. That is Black and White - one
>> way or the other.
>
> With regard to 2, that period of waiting does not depend on the soul's
> sinfulness, merely on when the person died. Adam's soul remains
> unconscious for 6,000 years, my father's - assuming the second Advent
> happens soon - for only a couple of years.

Yes, but such souls are 'outside time' at this point. Or do you mean
they are 'hanging around'?

>> 1b. We have repented and tried to live a good life, but there's some
>> muck that clings. That means that the Beatific vision would 'burn us up'.
>
> Or, as I put it in a previous post, "sin cannot exist in the presence of
> a holy God".

Yes.

>
>> 1b. then is what we are discussing. (Again I'll refer to Gerontius as
>> the best description I know of this.) But it seems that it's possible
>> that once we are exposed to what we have failed to let go of, we will
>> be offered a chance to have it removed and laid on the Cross of Jesus
>> (where it's already been dealt with).  It won't be without some pain
>> (sure I don't know in what form such spiritual pain is borne), but we
>> can (must?) share in Jesus' pain, until we are freed.
>
> 1. "failed to let go of" is very different from "refused to let go of".

Um, obviously 'refused' is resisting God's will, so yes, but 'failed' is
still a form of hanging on to, that we need to get shot of.

> 2. Catholics seem to love pain! We've all got to suffer, we've all got
> to share Jesus' pain, we've all got to go through pain to get rid of sin.

Are you not aware that Jesus experienced the most agonising death
thought up by mankind, and he did it for you and me? Catholics do not
'love pain' but they are aware (and helped to be aware) of the pain
Jesus suffered for us.
We don't share it, we accept our own. Offer up our own pain is a good
form of prayer, - prayer isn't nice words addressed to God, it's our
whole life that we try to offer to God. Not just enduring a few long
sermons on a Sunday morning!!

> Personally, if I am assigned a personal tutor to help me correct those
> sins I have not overcome in this life, I will welcome it. I long to be
> perfect and free from sin and I don't see the process as any more
> "painful" than learning the truth about quantum mechanics.

Good, at least you accept there is a 'need' for purgatory! ;-}

>
>> If you mean stage 3 above, I disagree, because when we see things in
>> the light of God we will see them as they really are, and having by
>> then had our faulty vision cleared we will not be further tempted.
>
> In other words, we will welcome whatever help God sees fit to give us.

Yes, that's a fair way of considering it. And if someone is praying for
me while I'm undergoing that, I don't see it's different from someone
praying for me while I'm undergoing an operation. (And of course, being
outside time at this point, we leave it to God to apply it where and
when it is needed.)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 07/04/2022 05:58, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 06/04/2022 12:59, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> The key difference is God HAS forgiven us (on the Cross), we have to
>> own and repent of our sins. If we deny that we have sinned (or worse,
>> say "Jesus has already forgiven me, so it doesn't matter!") then we
>> haven't accepted that mercy - which awaits us but isn't yet ours.
>
> I think we are saying the same thing, but in different words.

I think so too!

>
>> Sounds like Purgatory to me, knowing that "Someone is looking!"
>> ;-)
>
> No worse than CCTV in Britain.

[Jason]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 19:37:58 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> The purist might argue that you are married to the first woman
> with whom you have sex and all other relationships - including a
> subsequent legal marriage - are adulterous. I have a certain sympathy
> for that point of view.

Indeed, and while this is not a view I agree with, it would at least be
consistent.

>
> However if we are talking about a complete marriage - rather than some
> unusual circumstance - then I would say that a public declaration, in
> whatever form the culture mandates, followed by physical consummation,
> are both necessary for marriage. That is then followed - which was the
> point of my comment at the top of this post - by a process of growing
> together, making compromises and adjustments, until the couple are truly
> one (probably about the time of the Golden Wedding!)

:-) At a practical level, I would agree, though I would tend to think
that from the point of view of God, you are either married or you are
not, I don't think there is a blurry "half-married" state. I like your
comment about golden wedding: it is often said that marriage is a
reflection of Christ with the church: at some point we are redeemed but
there is an ever on-going process of sorting ourselves out with God.

>> I guess we differ on this point. Again, it's hard to see how your
>> paragraph above applies to babies and the mentally incapacitated.
>
> Babies I believe are covered by their parents, as Paul indicates in 1
> Corinthians 7. Adult mentally handicapped are in God's hands and for
> them oblivion may be the merciful solution.

I cannot agree with this final statement at all: why should oblivion be a
merciful solution??? If in the life to come all our infirmities are
healed and all tears wiped away why should you be excluded because of
mental impairment?? If God cannot/will not heal them then why should he
heal any of us?

> On the other hand, some
> mentally handicapped are quite capable of responding in a child-like way
> to the love of God; some, on the other hand, can be quite vicious and
> even evil. I'm glad that the judgement is not in my hands.

That goes for any and all of us, we can only have any hope at all because
of the love and mercy of God.

>> Fair point. The 'problem' (if you like) with Scripture is that you are
>> always to some degree reliant on the interpretation of others even if
>> you stick to only the Bible as a source, as not many of us are
>> sufficiently adept at Hebrew/Greek and whatnot to be able to pick apart
>> the nuances. Pasting words into Strong's I don't think cuts it....
>
> I think that if you have a variety of reputable translations and compare
> them, you will come close enough to the meaning of what the Bible
> authors wrote as makes no difference. It can be useful to consult
> commentaries to see if they can provide background information that
> would affect the meaning of the passage - but do beware of allowing a
> commentary to dictate how you understand the passage.

I tend not to compare different versions too much, perhaps I should do
more of this. The only thing I tend to do is to compare with a
'paraphrase' version to get an overall gist, though I accept some people
think these inaccurate. I know that NT Wright once wrote "If you only
read the NIV you will never understand Paul" and while it might be
overstating the case I'm sure there must be some truth to it or else he
wouldn't have written it!

Commentaries can be useful, but in my experience any time you come across
some gnarly passage you can't get to grips with at all, the commentaries
all tend to gloss over that too.....

> That is why, although I highly respect Barclay and some other
> commentators, I do not have their books and have not read them. In fact,
> the only commentary I have is the SDA Bible Commentary and I only
> consult that because it is largely an historical and linguistic
> commentary.

Fair point.

> Thus Barclay might say "In Romans 17:11 Paul tells us to X Y Z" whereas
> the SDABC would have "Romans 17:11 The Greek word XYZ means this and
> that, though its use in Plato's "Republic" adds the meaning that and
> this, which may be more relevant here." or "Romans 17:11 At this time,
> as Pliny tells us, the Jewish colony in Rome was facing the problem of
> abc and Paul may have been addressing that in this passage".

That sounds reasonable, provided the sources cited as examples aren't all
carefully selected and curated to promulgate a particular point of view.

[Jason]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 19:57:38 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> [snip] I dislike the term "burned away". I don't

> think that fire, no matter how spiritual, will turn me from selfish to
> unselfish. Rather it will be a matter of training and counselling and
> repeated practice, just as making any character change on earth is done.
>
> "Burning" smacks too much of those idiots who attempt to exorcise by
> maltreating the possessed person.

But isn't that a very common metaphor? Burning, refining, fire etc?
Does 1 Corinthinans 3 not make a very powerful metaphor on this basis?

[Jason]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 19:42:43 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 05/04/2022 13:02, Jason wrote:
>
>> You miss the point. I'm arguing that repentance can happen at
>> absolutely any time: just because someone has not repented for the last
>> 50 years does not mean that they will not repent tomorrow. That's what
>> I meant by "past performance is not indicative of future results".
>
> There is always that possibility, but I would maintain that past
> performance, while not prescriptive of future results, is indicative.

Well, I disagree. I think that many people's experience of finding
Christ later in life happens unexpectedly, almost out of the blue. I
can't think of anyone in fact that fit the model you are positing, a
godly person who slowly slowly morphs into a Christian.

>
>> I don't think "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is
>> relevant here, that's the point: I'm happy that God in his infinite
>> mercy and grace may well choose to save those who "fall short of the
>> glory of God" quite apart from the most excellent way taught to us in
>> the Bible.
>
> I don't believe that God will ever over-ride the individual's free will
> and force him or her to be saved.

Force, no. But as I've said before, I don't think many actually say to
God, 'well, I know you are there, but I don't want to spend eternity with
you". Most (in this country at least) I would argue do not give God a
second thought from one day to the next. I don't think God would be
'overriding their free will' whatever he subsequently did.

>> But it's not really, either you need to repent and seek the forgiveness
>> of God or you do not. Or are you arguing that there is a cut-off age,
>> before which you are treated differently by God?
>
> As St Paul says, the Christian parent can "sanctify" his or her
> children. Thus I would argue that the infant of a Christian is most
> likely to be saved.

I'm sure there is much to debate on this point, even if one agrees with
it. Does it hold to the age of 12? 16?? 18?? For the rest of your
days???

> However there is a point - and I don't profess to
> know when it is - when the child becomes an autonomous individual
> responsible for its own salvation and the parent's faith no longer
> covers it.

Sorry, I should have read right to the end! :-) Agreed, that is an
obvious problem even if the situation you posit is true.

[Jason]

Yes, which is why I think the idea is useful, regardless as to whether it
is a state, process, or precisely 'when' (if time is a valid concept in
the heavenly places) it happens.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/04/2022 17:42, Mike Davis wrote:

> Now THAT seems to me *exactly* what the RCC means by 'purgatory'

Hmmm. Are those in Purgatory enjoying the beatific vision?

Do you believe that those translated at the Second Coming are, in fact,
shoved into Purgatory?

> Again, it seems to me that we are going round in circles. There are
> three main states of the human at death, and I deliberately put them
> crudely:-
> 1. The person has lived a Good life, fully acknowledged their sins
> before God and demonstrated this through their behaviour.
> 2. The person has lived a reasonably good life, not committed many
> serious sins, but repented fully of those. (Even without necessarily
> believing in God.)
> 3. The person Has followed their own desires, while being aware that
> many of them are wrong, and not looked to God for forgiveness.
> Sure we can quibble about each - including what we mean by 'repenting' -
> and subdivide further. But these are the main categories.

The trouble is that 1 and 2 are identical - unless you believe in
salvation by works. If you are saved by faith, then the distinction
between "good life" and "reasonably good life" is immaterial.

> I'm not talking about 'second chances'; Salvation is a free gift, but it
> has to be received.

Agreed - but once received, salvation is assured.

> My point is that (the doctrine of) 'Purgatory' IS the "first years of
> eternity", and that the process of abandoning all 'self-ish-ness" is
> what we are being stripped of.

I repeat the question I asked above, as I think it is crucial. When
Jesus comes, there are those still living who are translated. Do you
believe that in fact they don't make it through the pearly gates but are
instead side-tracked off to Purgatory for several thousand years?

> That's so when the FINAL judgement
> occurs, we are free to enter God's presence - an experience that would
> destroy us if we had any stain of sin still present. (Think of a black
> object exposed to the fullness of sunlight - it would be destroyed.)

So you do belive that "sin cannot exist in the presence of a holy God".

> I agree, but He also understand that, unless we are told the Good News,
> and have examples set, we may not understand the purpose of
> righteousness and therefore the culpability of one may be different from
> another who behaves in exactly the same way.

True.

> Yes, it made me smile, but the full relevance was lost on me.

It was the mad woman during King Louis' final crusade.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/04/2022 17:56, Mike Davis wrote:

> 1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead,
> already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas [Maccabeus] made
> atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

You will appreciate, of course, that Protestants do not accept the
apocrypha as "sacred Scripture" - and this verse is one of the reasons why.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/04/2022 18:31, Mike Davis wrote:

> Indulgences are 'grace' freely given (from God) in response to acts of
> veneration/prayer.

Really? I thought it was a bishop (and primarily the Bishop of Rome) who
handed out indulgences.

> Attempting to purchase God's grace most certainly IS 'Simony' as in Acts
> 8:18-19  "When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of
> the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this
> ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy
> Spirit.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony
Simony is the act of selling church offices and roles or sacred things.

> The abuse practised by Tetzel & colleagues at that time, was promising
> time off purgatory for (and in proportion to) their donations. And that
> IS simony.

As no church office was involved, it is not simony.

> Yes, but such souls are 'outside time' at this point. Or do you mean
> they are 'hanging around'?

Certainly they are unconscious of the passing of time - as of all else -
but time is certainly passing as far as Earth is concerned (and, I
suspect, as far as all of God's creation is concerned). It is only God
Himself Who is "outside time" - I'm not even sure that angels have that
privilege.

> We don't share it, we accept our own.

I have heard enough Catholics going on about "sharing in the suffering
of Christ" to take your words as polemic, not fact.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/04/2022 13:27, Jason wrote:

> But isn't that a very common metaphor? Burning, refining, fire etc?
> Does 1 Corinthinans 3 not make a very powerful metaphor on this basis?

I presume you were taught to not eat peas with your knife, though I
imagine that you did do so while an infanct. Was that teaching "burning"?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/04/2022 13:12, Jason wrote:

> :-) At a practical level, I would agree, though I would tend to think
> that from the point of view of God, you are either married or you are
> not, I don't think there is a blurry "half-married" state.

Agreed.

> I cannot agree with this final statement at all: why should oblivion be a
> merciful solution??? If in the life to come all our infirmities are
> healed and all tears wiped away why should you be excluded because of
> mental impairment?? If God cannot/will not heal them then why should he
> heal any of us?

As I have repeatedly said, that is my personal opinion; it is not a
doctrine espoused by any church and may be completely wrong.

> I tend not to compare different versions too much, perhaps I should do
> more of this. The only thing I tend to do is to compare with a
> 'paraphrase' version to get an overall gist, though I accept some people
> think these inaccurate. I know that NT Wright once wrote "If you only
> read the NIV you will never understand Paul" and while it might be
> overstating the case I'm sure there must be some truth to it or else he
> wouldn't have written it!

I wonder what version Wright would have regarded as "proper" Paul?

I have a large number of versions on my bookshelves but only four (five
if you count Welsh) on my computer. If a passage seems obscure, I will
compare those versions - usually finding that it remains obscure!

> Commentaries can be useful, but in my experience any time you come across
> some gnarly passage you can't get to grips with at all, the commentaries
> all tend to gloss over that too.....

See the above!

> That sounds reasonable, provided the sources cited as examples aren't all
> carefully selected and curated to promulgate a particular point of view.

That, of course, is a very valid point. I wish there was some other
commentary with a similar method; I would certainly invest in it just to
avoid the problem you mention.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/04/2022 13:20, Jason wrote:

> Well, I disagree. I think that many people's experience of finding
> Christ later in life happens unexpectedly, almost out of the blue. I
> can't think of anyone in fact that fit the model you are positing, a
> godly person who slowly slowly morphs into a Christian.

Hmmmm. I think, for example, of St Paul and Caiaphas. God knocked Paul
off his horse but did nothing of the sort for Caiaphas. I believe it was
because Paul was truly seeking to serve God (previous life) and simply
needed putting on the right path; Caiaphas served himself and had no
concern for God at all.

> Force, no. But as I've said before, I don't think many actually say to
> God, 'well, I know you are there, but I don't want to spend eternity with
> you". Most (in this country at least) I would argue do not give God a
> second thought from one day to the next. I don't think God would be
> 'overriding their free will' whatever he subsequently did.

Their freewill choice to ignore Him?

> I'm sure there is much to debate on this point, even if one agrees with
> it. Does it hold to the age of 12? 16?? 18?? For the rest of your
> days???

As I said, I leave that question up to God.

[Mike Davis]

I highly recommend Nicholas King's version (NT); he's a reputable Greek
scholar so his commentaries are scholarly, but also mainstream Christian
thought. (His OT commentaries are confined to footnotes, and nothing
like so stimulating.)

Make sure you get the commentary version.
[...because (quote):- "Archbishop Desmond Tutu said of Nicholas King's
translation of the New Testament 'it hits you between the eyes'. One
reason for this is that Nick has not smoothed out the language to
flatter modern ears, rather he gives us the story as the authors
themselves would have told it, complete with grammatical errors and
local dialect. This means that the translation is not always easy to read."]

My example John 6:
NIV: 54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and
I will raise them up at the last day."

Nick King:
54: "The one who munches my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and
I in them and I will raise them up on the last day."
. then one starts to understand v60 a bit more clearly.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 08/04/2022 19:26, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 08/04/2022 17:42, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Now THAT seems to me *exactly* what the RCC means by 'purgatory'
>
> Hmmm. Are those in Purgatory enjoying the beatific vision?

Not yet. I refer you once again to the words of Gerontius (by St John
H Newman) "Take me away!" as the existence of 'sinfulness' in God's
presence is painful. - One reason for repenting fully of our sins
*before* we die. As I've said elsewhere, we have to release our sins
onto the Cross, for full forgiveness in this life, but those
imperfections we carry through the grave need purgation (cleaning),
which, of course, we want to enter freely into the beatific vision.

> Do you believe that those translated at the Second Coming are, in fact,
> shoved into Purgatory?

I'm unable to say. My reading of Revelation suggests that the earthly
upheaval at that time may strip away the sins we cling on to. (Probably
painfully!)

>
>> Again, it seems to me that we are going round in circles. There are
>> three main states of the human at death, and I deliberately put them
>> crudely:-
>> 1. The person has lived a Good life, fully acknowledged their sins
>> before God and demonstrated this through their behaviour.
>> 2. The person has lived a reasonably good life, not committed many
>> serious sins, but repented fully of those. (Even without necessarily
>> believing in God.)
>> 3. The person Has followed their own desires, while being aware that
>> many of them are wrong, and not looked to God for forgiveness.
>> Sure we can quibble about each - including what we mean by 'repenting'
>> - and subdivide further. But these are the main categories.
>
> The trouble is that 1 and 2 are identical - unless you believe in
> salvation by works. If you are saved by faith, then the distinction
> between "good life" and "reasonably good life" is immaterial.

Why do you say that? Let's look at the corollary:- 'Damned by works' -
ie. our sins of the flesh (*all* - money, greed, avarice, even pride,
etc. not just lust & other sexual sin), are committed in the body. So
these need to be a) repented of, and action taken to ensure that our
lives are free of them. - And for the record, I'm not free of them all
yet. So those works damn us, compensating for them may not 'save us' but
they help us not to fall back into perdition. OK?

So my answer to your question, is that there may be some people who are
totally (I used the word 'fully' above) sin free when they die, in which
case they enter the beatific vision upon their death. However the
majority of 'good people' are not completely sinless (ie un-repented
sin), and may find that having the last vestiges of such spiritual
disease painful, but necessary. I certainly don't see that as salvation
by works, for we are only SAVED by faith - and that faith is in Jesus
Christ the Saviour.

>> I'm not talking about 'second chances'; Salvation is a free gift, but
>> it has to be received.
>
> Agreed - but once received, salvation is assured.

*Only* if we never sin again after we receive it. (Remember Constantine,
baptised on his death bed because he thought that if he sinned after
being baptised he would be damned?)

>> My point is that (the doctrine of) 'Purgatory' IS the "first years of
>> eternity", and that the process of abandoning all 'self-ish-ness" is
>> what we are being stripped of.
>
> I repeat the question I asked above, as I think it is crucial. When
> Jesus comes, there are those still living who are translated. Do you
> believe that in fact they don't make it through the pearly gates but are
> instead side-tracked off to Purgatory for several thousand years?

I've answered that above. But this is ALL speculation, based upon the
Bible, certainly, but still speculation! ;-) [Don't tell the Pope I
said that!!]

>
>> That's so when the FINAL judgement occurs, we are free to enter God's
>> presence - an experience that would destroy us if we had any stain of
>> sin still present. (Think of a black object exposed to the fullness of
>> sunlight - it would be destroyed.)
>
> So you do belive that "sin cannot exist in the presence of a holy God".

Look - you keep saying that!! You must be clearer what you mean by *sin*.

Sin is an action, in mind or body, which occurs in time. The DAMAGE
caused by that sin to an individual ("stain of sin") and the tendency of
that individual to deny it, is what lasts.

Sin cannot be 'cancelled' (it happens in time) - the consequences of sin
are what we have to shed. Through our *admission* to God, our
willingness to reform, and our letting go, to accept God's forgiveness.
That gets rid of the "stain of sin" by 'nailing it to the Cross'. Then
we can come into God's presence.

>
>> I agree, but He also understand that, unless we are told the Good
>> News, and have examples set, we may not understand the purpose of
>> righteousness and therefore the culpability of one may be different
>> from another who behaves in exactly the same way.
>
> True.
>
>> Yes, it made me smile, but the full relevance was lost on me.
>
> It was the mad woman during King Louis' final crusade.

Ah! Context is everything!!

[Mike Davis]

I do appreciate that. I can't help but think that's putting the cart
before the horse. ;-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/04/2022 13:21, Mike Davis wrote:

>>> Now THAT seems to me *exactly* what the RCC means by 'purgatory'

>> Hmmm. Are those in Purgatory enjoying the beatific vision?

> Not yet.

In which case it is not exactly what the RCC means by purgatory.

> I refer you once again to the words of Gerontius  (by St John
> H Newman) "Take me away!" as the existence of 'sinfulness' in God's
> presence is painful.

Gerontius is not part of Scripture, however exactly it mirrors Catholic
teaching.

> - One reason for repenting fully of our sins
> *before* we die. As I've said elsewhere, we have to release our sins
> onto the Cross, for full forgiveness in this life, but those
> imperfections we carry through the grave need purgation (cleaning),
> which, of course, we want to enter freely into the beatific vision.

I completely agree about the necessity for repentance in this life
before death. I also agree that we will need further learning after the
resurrection. I disagree that that bars us from heaven.

>> Do you believe that those translated at the Second Coming are, in
>> fact, shoved into Purgatory?

> I'm unable to say. My reading of Revelation suggests that the earthly
> upheaval at that time may strip away the sins we cling on to. (Probably
> painfully!)

You mean earthquakes and great hailstones and moons turning to blood? I
never knew that any of those things were effective in reforming a person
spiritually. Still, that is probably why I am so close to perfection; we
spent a couple of years in Assam when I was young and had a couple of
earthquakes every week. (Probably aftershocks of the Assam earthquake:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Assam%E2%80%93Tibet_earthquake )

> Why do you say that? Let's look at the corollary:- 'Damned by works' -
> ie. our sins of the flesh (*all* - money, greed, avarice, even pride,
> etc. not just lust & other sexual sin), are committed in the body. So
> these need to be a) repented of, and action taken to ensure that our
> lives are free of them. - And for the record, I'm not free of them all
> yet. So those works damn us, compensating for them may not 'save us' but
> they help us not to fall back into perdition. OK?

Yes, I would certainly agree that while works cannot save us, the
absence of good works and the presence of evil ones can damn us.

> So my answer to your question, is that there may be some people who are
> totally (I used the word 'fully' above) sin free when they die, in which
> case they enter the beatific vision upon their death. However the
> majority of 'good people' are not completely sinless (ie un-repented
> sin), and may find that having the last vestiges of such spiritual
> disease painful, but necessary. I certainly don't see that as salvation
> by works, for we are only SAVED by faith - and that faith is in Jesus
> Christ the Saviour.

I agree that the resurrected will require improvement - but there is
nothing in Scripture to indicate that the resurrected will not
immediately enter into heaven and into the presence of God.

>> Agreed - but once received, salvation is assured.

> *Only* if we never sin again after we receive it.

Rubbish. It's like some people we used to know who constantly complained
about the noise of their neighbour's children playing outside while
their own children were twice as noisy and incomparably worse behaved!

I won't say that you can get away with murder if you are a child of God
(though David came pretty close!) but the mistakes and even sins of
God's children are not held against them whereas exactly the same things
count heavily against those who are not children of God.

> I've answered that above. But this is ALL speculation, based upon the
> Bible, certainly, but still speculation! ;-)  [Don't tell the Pope I
> said that!!]

I agree that we are speculating. As I remarked to Madhu, let us make
sure we are in the first resurrection and then we can regard with
equanimity whatever arrangements God has for both us and the wicked.

> Sin cannot be 'cancelled' (it happens in time) - the consequences of sin
> are what we have to shed. Through our *admission* to God, our
> willingness to reform, and our letting go, to accept God's forgiveness.
> That gets rid of the "stain of sin" by 'nailing it to the Cross'. Then
> we can come into God's presence.

Hmmmm. The penalties for sin are remitted because of our faith in
Christ. The consequences of sin, hmmmm. I think it obvious that any
physical consequences are wiped out by the resurrection. For example,
someone who committed adultery and got syphillis in consequence will not
have syphillis in heaven nor will his glorified body bear the scars of
that disease.

Mental and spiritual consequences will, I think, be present in the
resurrection and will have to be removed by education and training.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/04/2022 13:33, Mike Davis wrote:

> I do appreciate that. I can't help but think that's putting the cart
> before the horse. ;-)

Hmmmm. If a doctrinal query was the only reason for rejecting the book,
perhaps. But Maccabees is rejected by the Jews themselves on the basis
that its author is either not known or was not a prophet. The doctrinal
quibble merely demonstrates that that rejection is well-founded.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/04/2022 12:42, Mike Davis wrote:

> I highly recommend Nicholas King's version (NT); he's a reputable Greek
> scholar so his commentaries are scholarly, but also mainstream Christian
> thought. (His OT commentaries are confined to footnotes, and nothing
> like so stimulating.)

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll keep an eye open.

[Mike Davis]

I'm not sure why we seem to be going round in circles, but I'm going to
restrict this discussion otherwise I'll just be repeating what I've
already said. So just a few comments on specific points:-

On 11/04/2022 21:02, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 13:21, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>>> Now THAT seems to me *exactly* what the RCC means by 'purgatory'
>
>>> Hmmm. Are those in Purgatory enjoying the beatific vision?
>
>> Not yet.
>
> In which case it is not exactly what the RCC means by purgatory.

I don't know where you get that from. in RCC theology Purgatory is en
route to heaven - a pause to get one's dirty clothes cleaned or removed.
(Purge- ation - geddit?). If they are sticking to oneskin, it can be
painful. (metaphor!)

>
>> I refer you once again to the words of Gerontius  (by St John H
>> Newman) "Take me away!" as the existence of 'sinfulness' in God's
>> presence is painful.
>
> Gerontius is not part of Scripture, however exactly it mirrors Catholic
> teaching.

It just helps to clarify the point.

>> - One reason for repenting fully of our sins *before* we die. As I've
>> said elsewhere, we have to release our sins onto the Cross, for full
>> forgiveness in this life, but those imperfections we carry through the
>> grave need purgation (cleaning), which, of course, we want to enter
>> freely into the beatific vision.
>
> I completely agree about the necessity for repentance in this life
> before death. I also agree that we will need further learning after the
> resurrection. I disagree that that bars us from heaven.

OK - further learning (& loving) is what I hope to spend eternity doing
with God.

>
>>> Do you believe that those translated at the Second Coming are, in
>>> fact, shoved into Purgatory?
>
>> I'm unable to say. My reading of Revelation suggests that the earthly
>> upheaval at that time may strip away the sins we cling on to.
>> (Probably painfully!)
>
> You mean earthquakes and great hailstones and moons turning to blood? I
> never knew that any of those things were effective in reforming a person
> spiritually. Still, that is probably why I am so close to perfection; we
> spent a couple of years in Assam when I was young and had a couple of
> earthquakes every week. (Probably aftershocks of the Assam earthquake:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Assam%E2%80%93Tibet_earthquake )

But you don't disagree that the PHYSICAL pain of Jesus' passion &
crucifixion was instrumental in bearing our sins?

>> Why do you say that? Let's look at the corollary:- 'Damned by works' -
>> ie. our sins of the flesh (*all* - money, greed, avarice, even pride,
>> etc. not just lust & other sexual sin), are committed in the body. So
>> these need to be a) repented of, and action taken to ensure that our
>> lives are free of them. - And for the record, I'm not free of them all
>> yet. So those works damn us, compensating for them may not 'save us'
>> but they help us not to fall back into perdition. OK?
>
> Yes, I would certainly agree that while works cannot save us, the
> absence of good works and the presence of evil ones can damn us.

OK.

>
>> So my answer to your question, is that there may be some people who
>> are totally (I used the word 'fully' above) sin free when they die, in
>> which case they enter the beatific vision upon their death. However
>> the majority of 'good people' are not completely sinless (ie
>> un-repented sin), and may find that having the last vestiges of such
>> spiritual disease painful, but necessary. I certainly don't see that
>> as salvation by works, for we are only SAVED by faith - and that faith
>> is in Jesus Christ the Saviour.
>
> I agree that the resurrected will require improvement - but there is
> nothing in Scripture to indicate that the resurrected will not
> immediately enter into heaven and into the presence of God.

Exactly! - the point of purgatory is that it's borne BEFORE the
resurrection.

>
>>> Agreed - but once received, salvation is assured.
>
>> *Only* if we never sin again after we receive it.
>
> Rubbish. It's like some people we used to know who constantly complained
> about the noise of their neighbour's children playing outside while
> their own children were twice as noisy and incomparably worse behaved!

I do see one thing where we differ.
When asked "Are you saved, brother?" I reply,
"I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved!"

For I need God's Grace continually, and although I do wrong things (we
call them 'venial sins' in the RCC), I still need to put them before God
for forgiveness, if not that's what we see purgatory for.
(You DO understand that 'Mortal sin' cuts us off from God? Unless
repented, of course!)

> I won't say that you can get away with murder if you are a child of God
> (though David came pretty close!) but the mistakes and even sins of
> God's children are not held against them whereas exactly the same things
> count heavily against those who are not children of God.

I would argue just the opposite - a child of God committing murder or
adultery is far more serious, than someone who lives an immoral or
violent life but doesn't see it as 'wrong'.

>> I've answered that above. But this is ALL speculation, based upon the
>> Bible, certainly, but still speculation! ;-)  [Don't tell the Pope I
>> said that!!]
>
> I agree that we are speculating. As I remarked to Madhu, let us make
> sure we are in the first resurrection and then we can regard with
> equanimity whatever arrangements God has for both us and the wicked.
>
>> Sin cannot be 'cancelled' (it happens in time) - the consequences of
>> sin are what we have to shed. Through our *admission* to God, our
>> willingness to reform, and our letting go, to accept God's
>> forgiveness. That gets rid of the "stain of sin" by 'nailing it to the
>> Cross'. Then we can come into God's presence.
>
> Hmmmm. The penalties for sin are remitted because of our faith in
> Christ. The consequences of sin, hmmmm. I think it obvious that any
> physical consequences are wiped out by the resurrection. For example,
> someone who committed adultery and got syphillis in consequence will not
> have syphillis in heaven nor will his glorified body bear the scars of
> that disease.

That argument doesn't work! We we talking about the spiritual
consequences of sin - the reduction of the spiritual personality that
God gave us. Syphilis is not a spiritual condition - it's a physical
one - as you say.

>
> Mental and spiritual consequences will, I think, be present in the
> resurrection and will have to be removed by education and training.

So you think we become perfect through heavenly training? (is that
Biblical?) Whereas I see our perfection becoming complete AT the
resurrection of the dead!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

1 & 2 Macc were quoted by many of the Church Fathers, as far back as
Clement of Alexandria, Origen & Tertullian, but are NOT used to derive
doctrine. The CCC quote was merely used to demonstrate earlier Jewish
belief.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 08/04/2022 20:05, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 08/04/2022 18:31, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Indulgences are 'grace' freely given (from God) in response to acts of
>> veneration/prayer.
>
> Really? I thought it was a bishop (and primarily the Bishop of Rome) who
> handed out indulgences.

I think the term is 'Authorises' them. As in any ecclesiastical leader
saying, "It is a good thing to do..." (But not directly for money!)

>> Attempting to purchase God's grace most certainly IS 'Simony' as in
>> Acts 8:18-19  "When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying
>> on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me
>> also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive
>> the Holy Spirit.”
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony
> Simony is the act of selling church offices and roles or sacred things.
>
>> The abuse practised by Tetzel & colleagues at that time, was promising
>> time off purgatory for (and in proportion to) their donations. And
>> that IS simony.
>
> As no church office was involved, it is not simony.

The sale of Church Offices is also simony, but *anything* that sells
Spiritual benefits is simony. (As the verse I quoted above is - from
which the name comes.)

>> Yes, but such souls are 'outside time' at this point. Or do you mean
>> they are 'hanging around'?
>
> Certainly they are unconscious of the passing of time - as of all else -
> but time is certainly passing as far as Earth is concerned (and, I
> suspect, as far as all of God's creation is concerned). It is only God
> Himself Who is "outside time" - I'm not even sure that angels have that
> privilege.
>
>> We don't share it, we accept our own.
>
> I have heard enough Catholics going on about "sharing in the suffering
> of Christ" to take your words as polemic, not fact.

Sure, ignore St Paul, then! (Sorry if he's too Catholic for you!)

"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained
access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in
the hope of the glory of God.
"Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that
suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character,
hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been
poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given
to us." (Rom 5:1-4)

"Now if we are children, then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs
with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may
also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not
worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us."
(Rom 8:17-18)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

eh?

M
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/04/2022 12:06, Mike Davis wrote:

> I don't know where you get that from. in RCC theology Purgatory is en
> route to heaven - a pause to get one's dirty clothes cleaned or removed.
> (Purge- ation - geddit?). If they are sticking to oneskin, it can be
> painful. (metaphor!)

Whereas in my understanding, the training takes place *in* heaven. There
is no half-way house.

>> I completely agree about the necessity for repentance in this life
>> before death. I also agree that we will need further learning after
>> the resurrection. I disagree that that bars us from heaven.

> OK - further learning (& loving) is what I hope to spend eternity doing
> with God.

And it seems from that comment that you agree with me.

> But you don't disagree that the PHYSICAL pain of Jesus' passion &
> crucifixion was instrumental in bearing our sins?

Actually I do disagree.

Let us consider what would have happened if the Jews had accepted Jesus
as the Messiah. I believe He would still have borne our sins and laid
down His life, but He would have done so surrounded by praise and honour
- possibly even in the temple at some great festival. Any suffering
would have been purely mental and spiritual.

In the garden Jesus "sweat great drops of blood", a clear sign of mental
anguish. He was then strengthened by an angelic visitation. I believe
that *that* was the suffering necessary for our salvation. The physical
suffering which followed was just nastiness on the devil's part (aided
by the Jews).

> Exactly! - the point of purgatory is that it's borne BEFORE the
> resurrection.

A statement which accords with Catholic doctrine, but with neither
Scripture nor common sense. What about those who are translated without
seeing death? Do they have to stand outside the pearly gates while the
righteous dead are ushered through and are then carted off for several
million years in purgatory? Indeed, what about those resurrected who
only died a day or a week before the Second Coming? Hardly long enough
to fit in the necessary masses to ensure that they get out of purgatory
in time for the Resurrection.

> For I need God's Grace continually, and although I do wrong things (we
> call them 'venial sins' in the RCC), I still need to put them before God
> for forgiveness, if not that's what we see purgatory for.
> (You DO understand that 'Mortal sin' cuts us off from God? Unless
> repented, of course!)

Yes. Although I am not in a position to define either, I do accept that
some sins are more serious than others. It is the venial ones which, I
believe, God overlooks (repentance still required) and which do not bar
you from entry into heaven, contrary to what you asserted about having
to refrain from sin from the moment of baptism.

> I would argue just the opposite - a child of God committing murder or
> adultery is far more serious, than someone who lives an immoral or
> violent life but doesn't see it as 'wrong'.

In that I would agree with you - but then, they are both mortal sins,
are they not?

> That argument doesn't work! We we talking about the spiritual
> consequences of sin - the reduction of the spiritual personality that
> God gave us.  Syphilis is not a spiritual condition - it's a physical
> one - as you say.

In which case I presume you agree with my comments about those physical
results of sin being oblitered by the resurrection.

> So you think we become perfect through heavenly training? (is that
> Biblical?)  Whereas I see our perfection becoming complete AT the
> resurrection of the dead!

In answer to your first sentence, Yes.

Instant, magical perfection at death or the resurrection was held by
Wesley, but if true, then it means that purgatory is not necessary and
if it exists, is evidence of God's sadism.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/04/2022 12:34, Mike Davis wrote:

> I think the term is 'Authorises' them. As in any ecclesiastical leader
> saying, "It is a good thing to do..." (But not directly for money!)

Whatever term is used, the point is that declaring a certain location or
practice "indulgent" can only be done by a bishop.

> The sale of Church Offices is also simony, but *anything* that sells
> Spiritual benefits is simony. (As the verse I quoted above is - from
> which the name comes.)

Hmmm. A broader definition than I am used to, but let it pass.

> "Now if we are children, then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs
> with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may
> also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not
> worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us."

I understand St Paul to be referring primarily to persecution, but
possibly to any trouble caused by the devil. Voluntary fasting,
scourging oneself, or even - like those people in the Philippines -
getting someone to crucify you, doesn't count.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/04/2022 12:17, Mike Davis wrote:

> 1 & 2 Macc were quoted by many of the Church Fathers, as far back as
> Clement of Alexandria, Origen & Tertullian, but are NOT used to derive
> doctrine. The CCC quote was merely used to demonstrate earlier Jewish
> belief.

Hmmmm. The way the passage was used by the catechism smacked rather
firmly of proof of doctrine, not just historical interest. If it had
been historical interest, as you claim, that is an entirely legitimate
use of any text, whether inspired or not.

However it is interesting that it is not until Greek thought had
infiltrated Judaism that we find that evidence of prayers for the dead.
There is no such evidence earlier - notoriously, David prayed for his
infant son right up until the child breathed his last and then stopped
praying, on the grounds that further fasting and prayer would accomplish
nothing.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/04/2022 12:35, Mike Davis wrote:

>> I presume you were taught to not eat peas with your knife, though I
>> imagine that you did do so while an infanct. Was that teaching "burning"?

> eh?

If teaching and training are not "burning", then neither is the training
we receive in heaven.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <t34j7a$edo$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 12 Apr 2022 20:16:58 +0100:

> On 12/04/2022 12:06, Mike Davis wrote:
>> But you don't disagree that the PHYSICAL pain of Jesus' passion &
>> crucifixion was instrumental in bearing our sins?
>
> Actually I do disagree.
>
> Let us consider what would have happened if the Jews had accepted
> Jesus as the Messiah. I believe He would still have borne our sins and
> laid down His life, but He would have done so surrounded by praise and
> honour - possibly even in the temple at some great festival. Any
> suffering would have been purely mental and spiritual.
>
> In the garden Jesus "sweat great drops of blood", a clear sign of
> mental anguish. He was then strengthened by an angelic visitation. I
> believe that *that* was the suffering necessary for our salvation. The
> physical suffering which followed was just nastiness on the devil's
> part (aided by the Jews).

This idea appeals to me, as I do not find any comfort when reasoning
about "sacrificial atonement" on the pattern of OT ritual sacrifice.

[on another note I also think physical pain (stigmata?) may be a
positive part of the process in some who are in way are
transformed. (thinking of Paul's thorn)]

>
>> So you think we become perfect through heavenly training? (is that
>> Biblical?)  Whereas I see our perfection becoming complete AT the
>> resurrection of the dead!
>
> In answer to your first sentence, Yes.
>
> Instant, magical perfection at death or the resurrection was held by
> Wesley, but

To me this seems to be the only logical conclusion from the statements
in the bible (as perhaps understood by my own preconceptions/influences)

> if true, then it means that purgatory is not necessary and
> if it exists, is evidence of God's sadism.

I wouldn't go down that road of speculation/reasoning

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/04/2022 04:39, Madhu wrote:

> This idea appeals to me, as I do not find any comfort when reasoning
> about "sacrificial atonement" on the pattern of OT ritual sacrifice.

Indeed - and remember that Jesus said, "I lay down My life ... no man
taketh it from Me".

> [on another note I also think physical pain (stigmata?) may be a
> positive part of the process in some who are in way are
> transformed. (thinking of Paul's thorn)]

Pain can be a discipline, but only when it is from without and
unavoidable. Someone who fasts or scourges himself does not improve
spiritually and likewise someone who refuses to take an aspirin when he
has a headache.

> To me this seems to be the only logical conclusion from the statements
> in the bible (as perhaps understood by my own preconceptions/influences)

The statements in the Bible regarding the transformation at the
resurrection refer only to the physical change from mortal to immortal,
corruptible to incorruptible. The Greeks rejected the idea of
resurrection of a body simply because they regarded the body as
something corrupt. Paul seeks to counter that prejudice by pointing out
that our bodies are changed at the resurrection.

Although many great and good Christians have believed in instant moral
change at the resurrection, I do not accept it myself.

>> if true, then it means that purgatory is not necessary and
>> if it exists, is evidence of God's sadism.

> I wouldn't go down that road of speculation/reasoning

It seems the only possible conclusion, because if someone who died the
day before the Resurrection can be made morally perfect 24 hours later,
why was it necessary for someone who died 5,000 years before the
Resurrection to suffer the pains of Purgatory? Given the years off
Purgatory promised by the shrine at St Asaph, it is clear that the
Catholics expect the average person to spent thousands of days in
Purgatory - but why, if everything supposed to be done in Purgatory can
be accomplished in an instant at the Resurrection?

[Mike Davis]

On 12/04/2022 20:19, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 12:17, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> 1 & 2 Macc were quoted by many of the Church Fathers, as far back as
>> Clement of Alexandria, Origen & Tertullian, but are NOT used to derive
>> doctrine. The CCC quote was merely used to demonstrate earlier Jewish
>> belief.
>
> Hmmmm. The way the passage was used by the catechism smacked rather
> firmly of proof of doctrine, not just historical interest. If it had
> been historical interest, as you claim, that is an entirely legitimate
> use of any text, whether inspired or not.

I cannot speak for the *intentions* of those who compiled the CCC. all I
was doing was to show some of the cross-references.

>
> However it is interesting that it is not until Greek thought had
> infiltrated Judaism that we find that evidence of prayers for the dead.
> There is no such evidence earlier - notoriously, David prayed for his
> infant son right up until the child breathed his last and then stopped
> praying, on the grounds that further fasting and prayer would accomplish
> nothing.

Nobody is suggesting that David's prayer was for the son to go to
heaven, he was praying for the lad to live. Clearly once the child died,
he had God's answer. So your comment is entirely irrelevant in so far as
prayers for the dead are concerned (and thus for our current discussion).

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 12/04/2022 20:23, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 12:34, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> I think the term is 'Authorises' them. As in any ecclesiastical leader
>> saying, "It is a good thing to do..." (But not directly for money!)
>
> Whatever term is used, the point is that declaring a certain location or
> practice "indulgent" can only be done by a bishop.

So?

>
>> The sale of Church Offices is also simony, but *anything* that sells
>> Spiritual benefits is simony. (As the verse I quoted above is - from
>> which the name comes.)
>
> Hmmm. A broader definition than I am used to, but let it pass.

OK, but it is the origin of the term...

>
>> "Now if we are children, then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs
>> with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may
>> also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are
>> not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us."
>
> I understand St Paul to be referring primarily to persecution, but
> possibly to any trouble caused by the devil.

.. and all his travels and - remember - the "thorn in the flesh". I see
no reason why all his sufferings shouldn't have been intended.

> Voluntary fasting,

Why not? I'll be doing that tomorrow.

> scourging oneself, or even - like those people in the Philippines -
> getting someone to crucify you, doesn't count.

I may have reservations about some of these practises, but if they are
done *for God* and not for 'personal fame', why not.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

Sorry you've completely lost me. I presume you are suggesting that
purgatory and learning God's (further) ways are the same thing.

I see them as completely different.
Purgatory is 'having one's residual earthly sinfulness wrenched away',
while our life in the Divine presence is (or may be), God's long term
plan for which our earthly experience is merely the starting point.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/04/2022 17:10, Mike Davis wrote:

> .. and all his travels and - remember - the "thorn in the flesh". I see
> no reason why all his sufferings shouldn't have been intended.

I don't know about his travels, inconvenient though it may have been to
walk all those distances, but the troubles and persecutions he
experienced as a result of preaching the gospel, certainly.

>> Voluntary fasting,

> Why not? I'll be doing that tomorrow.

> I may have reservations about some of these practises, but if they are
> done *for God* and not for 'personal fame', why not.

So when your little golden-haired daughter came in to you and said,
"Daddy, I love you" and you said, "That's nice," she said, "And to show
you how much I love you, I'm going to hit myself on the head with this
hammer and stab myself with this broken bottle." And you, being eager to
imitate your conception of God, said, "That's nice dearie. Do it harder
and cut deeper so that I can know how much you love me."

Serious question: do you *really* think that God is pleased when you
harm yourself with the intention of pleasing Him?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/04/2022 17:15, Mike Davis wrote:

> Sorry you've completely lost me. I presume you are suggesting that
> purgatory and learning God's (further) ways are the same thing.

We are both agreed that "purgatory" is, in fact, the process of learning
to do right and unlearning wrong reactions and responses. I think - not
sure, but think - that you agree with me that "burning" is not a correct
description of the learning process.

> I see them as completely different.
> Purgatory is 'having one's residual earthly sinfulness wrenched away',

Why "wrenched away"? Are you not eager to forsake it? Do you not welcome
the guidance of God's Spirit in developing a Christ-like character in
this life? And would you not welcome that same guidance in the life to come?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/04/2022 17:03, Mike Davis wrote:

>>> The CCC quote was merely used to demonstrate earlier
>>> Jewish belief.

> I cannot speak for the *intentions* of those who compiled the CCC. all I
> was doing was to show some of the cross-references.

Ah. So your initial statement was polemic, not fact.

> Nobody is suggesting that David's prayer was for the son to go to
> heaven, he was praying for the lad to live. Clearly once the child died,
> he had God's answer. So your comment is entirely irrelevant in so far as
> prayers for the dead are concerned (and thus for our current discussion).

Given David's concern for the child, I am surprised that you should
think that David would not pay for masses to be said for the child's
soul. After all, the infant lived for a full week! That's seven days of
original sin - I wonder how many years in Purgatory that merits?

[Mike Davis]

On 12/04/2022 20:16, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 12:06, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> I don't know where you get that from. in RCC theology Purgatory is en
>> route to heaven - a pause to get one's dirty clothes cleaned or
>> removed. (Purge- ation - geddit?). If they are sticking to oneskin, it
>> can be painful. (metaphor!)
>
> Whereas in my understanding, the training takes place *in* heaven. There
> is no half-way house.

I still think we are dealing with two different 'experiences'.
1) That of having one's sins (or perhaps 'sinfulness') removed (think of
removing a bee sting, or thorn embedded deeply in one's skin), which is
dealt with at (or in the 'period following') death. That's 'purgatory'.

2) Our resurrected heavenly experience when we discover the full job
that we are made for. (Upon which we can only speculate - but there seem
to be a lot of planets our there in the universe!)

>
>>> I completely agree about the necessity for repentance in this life
>>> before death. I also agree that we will need further learning after
>>> the resurrection. I disagree that that bars us from heaven.
>
>> OK - further learning (& loving) is what I hope to spend eternity
>> doing with God.
>
> And it seems from that comment that you agree with me.

Insofar as our resurrection is concerned.

>
>> But you don't disagree that the PHYSICAL pain of Jesus' passion &
>> crucifixion was instrumental in bearing our sins?
>
> Actually I do disagree.

OK.

> Let us consider what would have happened if the Jews had accepted Jesus
> as the Messiah. I believe He would still have borne our sins and laid
> down His life, but He would have done so surrounded by praise and honour
> - possibly even in the temple at some great festival. Any suffering
> would have been purely mental and spiritual.

Since that is further speculation, I really can't comment.

>
> In the garden Jesus "sweat great drops of blood", a clear sign of mental
> anguish. He was then strengthened by an angelic visitation. I believe
> that *that* was the suffering necessary for our salvation. The physical
> suffering which followed was just nastiness on the devil's part (aided
> by the Jews).

I just don't see that mental anguish can be separated from physical
pain. Both are parts of the human existence, Jesus bore both to free us.

>
>> Exactly! - the point of purgatory is that it's borne BEFORE the
>> resurrection.
>
> A statement which accords with Catholic doctrine, but with neither
> Scripture nor common sense. What about those who are translated without
> seeing death? Do they have to stand outside the pearly gates while the
> righteous dead are ushered through and are then carted off for several
> million years in purgatory? Indeed, what about those resurrected who
> only died a day or a week before the Second Coming? Hardly long enough
> to fit in the necessary masses to ensure that they get out of purgatory
> in time for the Resurrection.

I think there are two things wrong with your thinking there:
a) Any thoughts about either the intensity or duration of purgatory for
each individual are unsubstantiated (the concept of 'months or years' in
purgatory were metaphors introduced by the RCC to emphasise the
importance of repentance from even minor ('venial') sins.

b) In any case, we have absolutely NO information in the Bible about the
time between the end of the world and the resurrection & Last Judgement.
(Sure, Paul talks about 'those still alive'), but there's no reason why
we shouldn't assume that the pains associated with the end of the world
should not be sufficient a time for those alive to experience full
'purgation'.

>> For I need God's Grace continually, and although I do wrong things (we
>> call them 'venial sins' in the RCC), I still need to put them before
>> God for forgiveness, if not that's what we see purgatory for.
>> (You DO understand that 'Mortal sin' cuts us off from God? Unless
>> repented, of course!)
>
> Yes. Although I am not in a position to define either, I do accept that
> some sins are more serious than others. It is the venial ones which, I
> believe, God overlooks (repentance still required) and which do not bar
> you from entry into heaven, contrary to what you asserted about having
> to refrain from sin from the moment of baptism.

I didn't assert that (except that's our ideal, isn't it?). That was
Constantine's reason for being baptised on his deathbed (or so it is
claimed).

>> I would argue just the opposite - a child of God committing murder or
>> adultery is far more serious, than someone who lives an immoral or
>> violent life but doesn't see it as 'wrong'.
>
> In that I would agree with you - but then, they are both mortal sins,
> are they not?

Possibly not if the person didn't know they were wrong. (Think Islamic
suicide bombers!)

>> That argument doesn't work! We we talking about the spiritual
>> consequences of sin - the reduction of the spiritual personality that
>> God gave us.  Syphilis is not a spiritual condition - it's a physical
>> one - as you say.
>
> In which case I presume you agree with my comments about those physical
> results of sin being oblitered by the resurrection.

We will all have new bodies.

>> So you think we become perfect through heavenly training? (is that
>> Biblical?)  Whereas I see our perfection becoming complete AT the
>> resurrection of the dead!
>
> In answer to your first sentence, Yes.
>
> Instant, magical perfection at death or the resurrection was held by
> Wesley, but if true, then it means that purgatory is not necessary and
> if it exists, is evidence of God's sadism.

Not sadism, just that any imperfection cannot stand in the presence/
majesty of God.

[Mike Davis]

I don't think OS is a personal sin, and thus not directly attributable.
So now you are just stirring rather than discussing. (That's probably
around six months!!*) ;-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

* I hope you paid attention to my earlier post about 'time in purgatory'
not being literal.

[Mike Davis]

On 14/04/2022 19:44, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 17:10, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> .. and all his travels and - remember - the "thorn in the flesh". I
>> see no reason why all his sufferings shouldn't have been intended.
>
> I don't know about his travels, inconvenient though it may have been to
> walk all those distances, but the troubles and persecutions he
> experienced as a result of preaching the gospel, certainly.
>
>>> Voluntary fasting,
>
>> Why not? I'll be doing that tomorrow.
>> I may have reservations about some of these practises, but if they are
>> done *for God* and not for 'personal fame', why not.
>
> So when your little golden-haired daughter came in to you and said,
> "Daddy, I love you" and you said, "That's nice," she said, "And to show
> you how much I love you, I'm going to hit myself on the head with this
> hammer and stab myself with this broken bottle." And you, being eager to
> imitate your conception of God, said, "That's nice dearie. Do it harder
> and cut deeper so that I can know how much you love me."

You are just being silly. Put it like this, if my daughter (sadly I
haven't got one) fell into a river, I hope I'd show my love by diving in
to rescue her. That's how I might show my love.

> Serious question: do you *really* think that God is pleased when you
> harm yourself with the intention of pleasing Him?

I went without food yesterday until after our 3pm service. I did not
'harm myself' - I may have felt slight discomfort. As far as I'm
concerned I don't think Jesus had breakfast the day He was crucified -
so all I was doing was reminding myself what Jesus has done for me.

If you don't get it, you don't get it!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 14/04/2022 19:48, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 17:15, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Sorry you've completely lost me. I presume you are suggesting that
>> purgatory and learning God's (further) ways are the same thing.
>
> We are both agreed that "purgatory" is, in fact, the process of learning
> to do right and unlearning wrong reactions and responses. I think - not
> sure, but think - that you agree with me that "burning" is not a correct
> description of the learning process.

No 'Purgatory' is the painful extraction (think dentist) of things we
cling onto that we should have let go of. Learning is what we do when
reunited in to God's presence. We cannot go into God's presence with the
wrong clothing (Think 'wedding feast')

>
>> I see them as completely different.
>> Purgatory is 'having one's residual earthly sinfulness wrenched away',
>
> Why "wrenched away"? Are you not eager to forsake it? Do you not welcome
> the guidance of God's Spirit in developing a Christ-like character in
> this life? And would you not welcome that same guidance in the life to
> come?

I hope to reach perfection before I die, yes. But sadly there are many
things that I like to do that may not be God's perfect plan for me.
(Like winning arguments because of my residual pride!)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <t39q2b$j6a$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:44:26 +0100:

> Serious question: do you *really* think that God is pleased when you
> harm yourself with the intention of pleasing Him?

Why the presumption of harm? fasting can be healthy. (You've said you
do it every day and break it at breakfast)

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <t35jln$8e2$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 13 Apr 2022 05:30:46 +0100:

> On 13/04/2022 04:39, Madhu wrote:
>> To me this seems to be the only logical conclusion from the
>> statements in the bible (as perhaps understood by my own
>> preconceptions/influences)
>
> The statements in the Bible regarding the transformation at the
> resurrection refer only to the physical change from mortal to
> immortal, corruptible to incorruptible. The Greeks rejected the idea
> of resurrection of a body simply because they regarded the body as
> something corrupt. Paul seeks to counter that prejudice by pointing
> out that our bodies are changed at the resurrection.
>
> Although many great and good Christians have believed in instant moral
> change at the resurrection, I do not accept it myself.

Possibly the obligatory rejection of the Greeks' rejection constrains
you to not accept it.

I don't presume Paul is restricting himself to debunking Greek
philosophical position here. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't
see the scriptural objection to the view of instant moral
transformation. The coal got Isaiah's tongue, Paul and Zacchaeus were
transformed when they came in contact with Jesus, the mechanics could
continue in he resurrection. The world and body even though they are
God's creation *are* imperfect, and perfection can only come from above.

>>> if true, then it means that purgatory is not necessary and
>>> if it exists, is evidence of God's sadism.
>
>> I wouldn't go down that road of speculation/reasoning
>
> It seems the only possible conclusion,

This line of reasoning works for things other than purgatory and I've
seen "atheist types" use it to prove conclusively that God *is* a
sadist. There is no refuting this argument, (and the argument is hence
flawed)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/04/2022 13:48, Mike Davis wrote:

> No 'Purgatory' is the painful extraction (think dentist) of things we
> cling onto that we should have let go of. Learning is what we do when
> reunited in to God's presence. We cannot go into God's presence with the
> wrong clothing (Think 'wedding feast')

Personally, I think that if we are holding onto our sins so firmly that
their removal is painful, we won't be saved. Likewise with the wedding
garment; if we have rejected it, we won't be saved. There is nothing in
Jesus' condemnation of the man to be "cast into outer darkness where
there is weeping and gnashing of teeth" that that fate is temporary.

> I hope to reach perfection before I die, yes. But sadly there are many
> things that I like to do that may not be God's perfect plan for me.
> (Like winning arguments because of my residual pride!)

I fear that your hope is doomed to failure. If you think that you are
within reach of perfection, then I suggest that you have no real
conception of what being perfect as God is perfect really is.

[Mike Davis]

On 16/04/2022 20:52, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 16/04/2022 13:48, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> No 'Purgatory' is the painful extraction (think dentist) of things we
>> cling onto that we should have let go of. Learning is what we do when
>> reunited in to God's presence. We cannot go into God's presence with
>> the wrong clothing (Think 'wedding feast')
>
> Personally, I think that if we are holding onto our sins so firmly that
> their removal is painful, we won't be saved.

I wasn't talking serious sins, just times when I put my selfish desires
above God's work.

> Likewise with the wedding
> garment; if we have rejected it, we won't be saved. There is nothing in
> Jesus' condemnation of the man to be "cast into outer darkness where
> there is weeping and gnashing of teeth" that that fate is temporary.

Indeed.

>
>> I hope to reach perfection before I die, yes. But sadly there are many
>> things that I like to do that may not be God's perfect plan for me.
>> (Like winning arguments because of my residual pride!)
>
> I fear that your hope is doomed to failure. If you think that you are
> within reach of perfection, then I suggest that you have no real
> conception of what being perfect as God is perfect really is.

The trouble is - I have! ;-(

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/04/2022 23:17, Mike Davis wrote:

>> Personally, I think that if we are holding onto our sins so firmly
>> that their removal is painful, we won't be saved.

> I wasn't talking serious sins, just times when I put my selfish desires
> above God's work.

Yet when convicted by the Spirit that they are sins, do you cling onto
them or gladly let them go?

I don't believe that our eternal destiny is determined by the
seriousness of our sins - if it were, King David would be in dire
straits. Rather it is our willingness to give up sin that counts,
whether the sin is big or little. Even with a little sin, it is the
refusal to give it up that is the major sin.

>> I fear that your hope is doomed to failure. If you think that you are
>> within reach of perfection, then I suggest that you have no real
>> conception of what being perfect as God is perfect really is.

> The trouble is - I have! ;-(

Ditto - though I am sure that neither of us has done more than glimpse
the very edges of God's perfection! It just underlines the point that
our only hope for salvation is to be covered with the robe of Christ's
righteousness.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/04/2022 15:11, Madhu wrote:

> Possibly the obligatory rejection of the Greeks' rejection constrains
> you to not accept it.

No, I am taking everything Paul said into account, not just one verse.
Read the earlier verses in 1 Corinthians 15; Paul is talking
specifically about bodies from v.35 onwards and even in v.50 he refers
to "flesh and blood" - not to some sort of moral corruption.

> I don't presume Paul is restricting himself to debunking Greek
> philosophical position here. Maybe I'm missing something

Yes, you're missing v.35 onwards.

> but I don't
> see the scriptural objection to the view of instant moral
> transformation.

I think you are getting confused. Christians believe in instant moral
transformation at conversion, when your world-view is turned around and
the things of God become desirable instead of being rejected with
indifference or hostility.

However Christians also recognise that conversion does not make one
morally perfect - life experience is sufficient argument on that score!
The question we are considering in this part of the thread is whether we
are made morally perfect at death or at the resurrection.

So far as I am aware, Scripture does not specifically address that
question at all, one way or the other. My main objection to the idea is
the question: If God is willing to "do violence" to our minds by making
it impossible for us to sin at death, why would He not do so at conversion?

> This line of reasoning works for things other than purgatory and I've
> seen "atheist types" use it to prove conclusively that God *is* a
> sadist. There is no refuting this argument, (and the argument is hence
> flawed)

No, it's not the argument which is flawed by the premises on which it is
based.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/04/2022 13:28, Mike Davis wrote:

> I still think we are dealing with two different 'experiences'.
> 1) That of having one's sins (or perhaps 'sinfulness') removed (think of
> removing a bee sting, or thorn embedded deeply in one's skin), which is
> dealt with at (or in the 'period following') death. That's 'purgatory'.

As I said in reply to Madhu, if someone who dies 24 hours before the
resurrection can be instantly made perfect and admitted to heaven, it is
hardly fair that someone who died 24 centuries before the resurrection
had to spend the majority of that time suffering the pains of Purgatory.

It seems to me that either everyone is made perfect on the instant of
death (assuming they are friends with God) or no one is made perfect and
the process of becoming perfect continues in heaven.

> 2) Our resurrected heavenly experience when we discover the full job
> that we are made for. (Upon which we can only speculate - but there seem
> to be a lot of planets our there in the universe!)

Indeed, we can only speculate. I see no reason to believe that God did
not create those planets (or some of them) complete with their own Adams
and Eves (and not necessarily humanoid Adams and Eves; what price
Douglas Adam's intelligent shade of the colour blue?)

> Since that is further speculation, I really can't comment.

No, but it is an interesting thought experiment.

> I just don't see that mental anguish can be separated from physical
> pain. Both are parts of the human existence, Jesus bore both to free us.

I agree. Nevertheless, I believe that it was the mental anguish which
was the greater pain and was the crucial pain as far as salvation was
concerned.

> I think there are two things wrong with your thinking there:
> a) Any thoughts about either the intensity or duration of purgatory for
> each individual are unsubstantiated (the concept of 'months or years' in
> purgatory were metaphors introduced by the RCC to emphasise the
> importance of repentance from even minor ('venial') sins.

No, the concept of months or years (thousands of them) was introduced to
justify demanding payment for prayers and masses for the dead.

> b) In any case, we have absolutely NO information in the Bible about the
> time between the end of the world and the resurrection & Last Judgement.
> (Sure, Paul talks about 'those still alive'), but there's no reason why
> we shouldn't assume that the pains associated with the end of the world
> should not be sufficient a time for those alive to experience full
> 'purgation'.

1. Resurrection and Translation both occur when Jesus comes again -
there is no delay between them, for it is the Second Coming which causes
the Resurrection of the dead righteous and Translation of the living
righteous.

2. I was not aware that Catholic doctrine viewed involuntary suffering
(ie. not pilgrimages or austerities) as contributing to time off in
Purgatory. If it does, I can think of quite a few people who will get no
time in Purgatory because of what they suffered in this life.

> I didn't assert that (except that's our ideal, isn't it?). That was
> Constantine's reason for being baptised on his deathbed (or so it is
> claimed).

Yes, I am aware of the alleged reason for Constantine (and others)
delaying baptism until the death bed, but it did look to me as though
you were asserting that post baptism sinlessness would be necessary.

> Possibly not if the person didn't know they were wrong. (Think Islamic
> suicide bombers!)

Hmmm. There are sufficient passages in the Qur'an condemning attacks on
the innocent, suicide, attacks on Christians, etc, that I am not
convinced that Islamic suicide bombers can be exculpated.

> Not sadism, just that any imperfection cannot stand in the presence/
> majesty of God.

A claim contradicted by the fact that sin had its very origin in the
"covering cherub" - the angel closest to God.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/04/2022 13:36, Mike Davis wrote:

> I don't think OS is a personal sin, and thus not directly attributable.
> So now you are just stirring rather than discussing. (That's probably
> around six months!!*)  ;-)

But if the infant was not baptised, then it would indeed be kept out of
heaven because of original sin. Limbo, anyone?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/04/2022 13:43, Mike Davis wrote:

>> So when your little golden-haired daughter came in to you and said,
>> "Daddy, I love you" and you said, "That's nice," she said, "And to
>> show you how much I love you, I'm going to hit myself on the head with
>> this hammer and stab myself with this broken bottle." And you, being
>> eager to imitate your conception of God, said, "That's nice dearie. Do
>> it harder and cut deeper so that I can know how much you love me."

> You are just being silly.

If I am being silly - which I freely admit - then Catholic doctrine
about fasting and other austerities bringing us closer to God is also silly.

> Put it like this, if my daughter (sadly I
> haven't got one) fell into a river, I hope I'd show my love by diving in
> to rescue her. That's how I might show my love.

Indeed, but doing so would be an unavoidable pain and in no way to be
compared to hitting yourself on the head with a hammer in order to show
your love.

> I went without food yesterday until after our 3pm service. I did not
> 'harm myself' - I may have felt slight discomfort.  As far as I'm
> concerned I don't think Jesus had breakfast the day He was crucified -
> so all I was doing was reminding myself what Jesus has done for me.

Well, each to his own - but if you had fasted for the full 40 days of
Lent you would certainly have done physical harm to your body.

However take
https://www.religionnewsblog.com/11810/an-opus-dei-priest-defends-self-punishment-of-the-body
which defends self-flagellation and the cilice (basically a bit of
barbed wire worn round the leg) as ways of making yourself acceptable to
God. Sounds very much like my bit of silliness at the head of this post.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/04/2022 14:55, Madhu wrote:

> Why the presumption of harm? fasting can be healthy. (You've said you
> do it every day and break it at breakfast)

The fast between lunch and breakfast is indeed healthy, as is fasting
for 24-hours if you have an upset stomach. Fasting for an extended
period of time, however, results in bodily harm - think shipwrecked
sailors or the Dutch people towards the end of WWII. Muscle atrophy is
the least of the harms!

It is interesting that when Daniel fasted for an extended period, he
specified the nature of his fast - he abstained from meat, cake, wine
and perfume. If Mike had sought my advice, I would have recommended that
he abstain from Easter eggs for a suitable length of time. That would
have been a Biblical fast.