By Tony Gerring [see Facebook page]
If you are a non-Catholic Christian, can you provide some insight on how you understand this story in Scripture? In Acts 9:36-42, Peter raises the disciple Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-42).
Where did Tabitha's soul go after she died?
Did Tabitha's soul leave heaven and return to earth?
What about Hebrews 9:27?: “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.”
How do you understand this story?
In the New Testament, there are several occurrences of the dead being raised to life after Jesus’ resurrection. In Acts 9:36-42, we read about how Peter raised Tabitha from the dead. Note that Tabitha is specifically called a disciple of Jesus who did good works and gave alms. In verse 37, the Bible tells us she died. According to Protestant understanding, after her death, Tabitha's soul must have gone directly to heaven.
Now if Tabitha had received her heavenly reward and her soul was in heaven with God, then God must have stripped Tabitha of her heavenly reward in order to send her soul back to a sinful, bodily existence on earth. But how could this be? This would violate God's own love and justice: “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” Hebrews 9:27.
In Catholic eschatology, there exists another option – that which is called purgatory. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “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. (CCC 1030). Furthermore, the “Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.” (CCC 1031)
If Tabitha was among the elect and her soul was undergoing this final purification in order “to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” her earthly resurrection would not violate God’s eternal justice, for her soul would not yet have entered into the heavenly reward promised by God.
However, if, as non-Catholic Christians assert, there is no purgatory, then immediately after her death her soul would have entered its heavenly reward. And, in order for Tabitha to be raised from the dead, God must have cast her soul out of heaven in order to return to a sinful, bodily existence on earth. The problem with this explanation is that it defies everything that Christians understand about God and his love and justice.
It is simply not possible for a soul once received into heaven to leave heaven and return to a sinful, earthly existence. This is an impossible theological difficulty for non-Catholic Christians.
However, the raising of Tabitha by
Peter as recounted in the book of Acts fits perfectly within Catholic
theology, maintains God's love and justice, and still manifest's God
power over death on earth as a witness to eternal life in heaven. This
story is also one of the strongest and clearest Biblical evidences for
the reality of the final purification of the elect after death and
before entering heaven.
* * * * *
And of course Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:35-43), and other raisings from the dead (that Jesus implied should be not infrequent occurrences of His disciples: Matthew 10:8) also confirm the same thing. These are all instances of people having died and returned to the earth.
ReplyDeleteIn a wholly different connection, I'd point out that no one would use Hebrews 9:27 to argue that these people couldn't really have been raised from the dead. Yet people use Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8 to argue that the Immaculate Conception couldn't have happened. What's the difference?
ReplyDeleteAs best as I can figure, it's because the former things are explicitly in Scripture, whereas the Immaculate Conception is not. But doesn't this reveal a fatal problem in the "argue from what is more clear in Scripture to what is less clear" method? Because in this case one is arguing that a certain thing cannot be implicit in Scripture simply because it isn't explicit. (If it were explicit, however, the allegedly clear passage would suddenly be less clear.) This seems awfully like question-begging. And it points, again, to the necessity of something outside Scripture that indicates how Scripture should be interpreted.
Reuben
Yep. I agree.
ReplyDeleteDoes Hebrews 9:27 really demand that judgment immediately follow death?
ReplyDeleteI have never thought that verse implied immediate judgment after death.
this is a great discussion and defense of our Catholic Doctrine.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this Dave!
If you truly are looking for a non-Catholic reply, I will give you a Lutheran one: we don’t know how God works these miracles and we do not need to know. It is enough to say that whatever God works in and for us is what is good for us. What we have in Acts 9 is the inspiration to record an event proclaiming God’s power over life and death as we read elsewhere in Scripture. To look beyond for revelation decays into conjecture on the part of the reader or to project something outside the event and the obvious proclamation of power and the glorification of God (soli deo Gloria), seems to either miss the point or seek and embellishment which no miracle needs.
ReplyDeleteWe can ask why God wants us to know this, in this instance or even with Lazarus given Christ’s resurrection. At that point, think of God speaking to Job out of the whirlwind – I am God, you are not, you cannot understand Me, so I won’t try explaining myself and, by the way, I don’t have to and won’t explain myself all the time (Job 38-41).
Which brings me to ask what you would know of God’s love and justice? His reasons for this proclamation remain His own.
As to the passage in Hebrews, I would cite 1 Thessalonians 4: 16-18: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.”
Again, this is what will happen. The “how” is not given to us.
But paradox is acceptable to the person of faith:
- Christ is fully God and fully man? Yes
- This is His body and blood and also bread and wine? Yes
- “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21) How does Christ become sin? How can the all-knowing not know something? Why did God choose to die for us? Where did He reveal the why and to whom?
He made His choice out of a wisdom and majesty we cannot grapple with but you want to contend that Tabitha’s soul must have gone to Purgatory or God could not have made this happen because you insist on reading the doctrines of your church into Scripture?
Nor is it necessary to see all the goodness of God in everything. How else to explain the hidden God on the cross? We see the human body, broken, dying, then dead. We do not see triumph, or life, or salvation, goodness, power, love, relief. Only looking at the cross in the light of the resurrection can we see that the Crucifixion has meaning and power. God comes to us in paradox more often than many people wish to accept. At that point, you deal with paradox by receiving it on faith that the paradox is true.
CK, You argue as if the doctrine of purgatory and revelation are mutually exclusive. We Catholics do not deny the paradox, we only give it a name here-purgatory-just as the early fathers of the Church did.
ReplyDeleteGod bless!
Good morning.
ReplyDeleteI only state that purgatory is neither implied or necessary to any story of resurrection. But, rather than read a preconceived teaching into the miracle, I accept the miracle.
The notion of purgatory as a state has ancient sources in Judaic mysticism (but not canon), the notion of it as a place is second millenium Christianity.
There is nothing in Scripture which tells you not to believe in purgatory or anything that tells you to believe in it. We do know from Scripture that our salvation is complete and assured in Christ alone. So that, one who dies in the faith will receive heaven as his reward.
I would add that, whether you see purgatory as a state or condition in eternity (which, I believe, the RC officially does) or as a physical place in time(which, I believe, the RC does not require), that is not paradoxical.
ReplyDeleteParadox might be to say:
- Christ has paid for all my sins and, therefore, I am pure and blameless before God and
- I must still be purified by some process outside Christ's atonement in His death and resurrection.
But I would assume that RC teaching is that purgatory is, somehow, part of Christ's atonement. Maybe you can clarify?
I only know that the Lutheran Confessions do not deny purgatory. Instead, they condemn prayers and masses for the dead because, even assuming purgatory, their destination, heaven, is already assured, and we have no reason to believe that time plays a role (again, that would be in accord with RC teaching, as I understand it.)
Lutherans do pray for the dead. I posted about it once:
ReplyDeletehttp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/11/prayer-for-dead-lutheran-pastor-lcms.html
The Book of Concord specifically states: "Regarding the adversaries’ quoting the Fathers about the offering for the dead, we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not ban. (Ap. XXI:94)"
Martin Luther also accepted the practice:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/03/martin-luther-espouses-prayer-for-dead.html
I have posted about numerous biblical arguments for purgatory:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/02/biblical-evidence-for-purgatory.html
https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/723789367656051?stream_ref=10
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/10/elaboration-upon-one-biblical-argument.html
Here is the direct quote in the Defense of the Augsburg Confession (section 93):
ReplyDeletehttp://bookofconcord.org/defense_23_mass.php
I am well aware of my church history and the development of doctrine. There is a distinction between actual practice according to tradition, personal belief, and doctrine. It is not universally held or practiced that we can or ought to pray for the dead. Remember, what Luther said was no more the final word for us that what we believe and practice than it would be for a Roman Catholic to claim any of final source in Augustine (double predestination?). Aquinas and Bernard denied the Immaculate Conception. Were they retroactively anathematized?
ReplyDeleteThere are some smaller, more obscure Lutheran groups and individually that do pray for the dead, but they cannot commend such practice to us as doctrinally proper or necessary because there is no authority behind the practice.
What you refer to as Scriptural "evidence", I do not see or read the same, nor would anyone I know. All you can say, for certain, is that Scripture does not deny purgatory. None of those passages assert, directly or indirectly, that purgatory exists without a prior acceptance of purgatory on the part of the reader.
So, to the original question of how a non-Catholic reads these things in Scripture, is without a prior acceptance of purgatory as fact. As Lutherans, we are not nuda scriptura as many "Bible" churches and fundamentalists are. Sola Scriptura allows for tradition to be tested against Scripture to determine the value and/ or necessity of the practice and leaves us free to embrace, individually, things which make sense to our personal faith. We do not see the absence of proof as negating your belief but merely challenge the truth of purgatory based on the value it has in proclaiming the Gospel and leading a faithful life of discipleship.
“Nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us concerning the dead. Therefore all this may he safely omitted, even if it were no error and idolatry” (Martin Luther, SA-II II 12)
There is more in the Book of Concord than the AC or the AP.
Further:
ReplyDeleteBut if anyone says: in this way purgatory will also be denied, I answer: if you do not believe in a purgatory, you are not therefore a heretic. The Scriptures know nothing of it. It is better that you disbelieve what is not taught in the Scriptures, than that you reject what is found in the Scriptures. Let the pope and papists be as angry as they will. They have made an article of faith of purgatory because it has brought them the world’s riches—and sent innumerable souls into hell, since they placed their reliance on works and consoled themselves with the thought that works would bring them release. God has given no command concerning purgatory; he has commanded you not to consult the dead nor to believe what they say. Accept God as more reliable and truthful than all angels, and let the pope and his papists keep silence, the more so since their doctrines are lies and deceit which do little to inspire faith in purgatory. I will not stop you if you desire to offer prayers for the dead. In my opinion purgatory is not our common lot, as they teach; I think very few souls get there. Nevertheless, as I said, there is no danger at all for your soul if you do not believe in purgatory. You are not obliged to believe more than what is taught in the Scriptures (LW 52:180).
I am well aware of my church history and the development of doctrine.
ReplyDeleteApparently not as well as you thought you were, since you stated, "the Lutheran Confessions . . . condemn prayers . . . for the dead."
I quickly showed that they do not do so. They expressly deny condemning them.
There is a distinction between actual practice according to tradition, personal belief, and doctrine. It is not universally held or practiced that we can or ought to pray for the dead.
That's a given for any Protestant group. There is always internal division and differential application, and degrees of liberalism and nominalism and ignorance of one's own denominational heritage and traditions, etc.
Remember, what Luther said was no more the final word for us that what we believe and practice . . .
Yep (yawn). That has been pointed out to me (unnecessarily) about 13 trillion times by Lutherans. I already knew it. As always, I bring up Luther because he was: 1) the founder of Lutheranism, and 2) the founder of Protestantism. Therefore, his opinions are important, whether or not they are "confessionally" binding. It's a matter of knowing one's own history.
there is no authority behind the practice.
But indeed there is in the Book of Concord, as I have shown.
You cite Luther regarding purgatory. I cite biblical argumnts (which you quickly dismiss, yet, of course, sans any actual rational argument or interaction.
Which is more authoritative? Granted, interpretation is required, but here I'm just talkin' about the source itself. I have grounded my arguments (agree or disagree with 'em) in Scripture, just as this guest post by my friend did. You see neither of us appealing to Catholic magisterial documents.
You are the one always talking about Lutheran denominational traditions, while I want to have a biblical / exegetical discussion
I also have a real name, and you can learn tons of things about me by reading my materials online. What is your name? I can find out nothing further about you. Are you a pastor or professor? What brand of Lutheran are you?
ReplyDeleteI will concede to your point and back my remarks of condemnation down to masses, allowing a tradition of prayer for the dead (as I conceded in my follow up was permissible and remains so, to a point) and that point does go to ““Nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us concerning the dead. Therefore all this may he safely omitted, even if it were no error and idolatry” (Martin Luther, SA-II II 12)” this is in the Book of Concord (SA = Smallcald Articles)
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther was not the founder of Lutheranism or Protestantism, he was not in his day or after, alone in developing the theology present in the confessions. Nor was he the first to raise many of the objections he raised. I am a layman, so, you’ll have to pardon my slips here and there as knowing all of Luther would require time for extended study – his works fill volumes along with Gerhard, Chemnitz, Pieper, etc. . I am LCMS, although the Ruch family was part of the original Pennsylvania Ministerium which became part of the old ALC – family is from Alsace and has Lutheran roots to the 16th century. If it suits you better, you can call me Charles. I do not have a Facebook page or time to really cultivate one.
That aside, you are claiming an exegesis is possible where a more learned doctor of the Church (Martin Luther) could find no such scriptural support.
Since a theologian could not see in your passages the support for purgatory that you do, let’s look at them:
Psalm 66 is a song of praise and thanksgiving. It recalls the Exodus and the struggles through which the people of God are formed. It ends as a call to worship. The Lord is mighty to save, He tests, He preserves, He rewards. Even taking the water as Baptism, the fire does not imply an unearthly testing and nothing to say that sin is not the fire consuming us without Baptism.
“The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” (Eccl 12:13-14) Faith without works is dead, that what James tells us. There will be a reckoning and all people will be held to account. We will all be exposed.
Isaiah 3-4 has a strong historical context. It was prophecy which came to pass, but I do not have reference from where I am currently. But, again, if we can wipe away Luther on purgatory, we can wipe away Augustine on the same matter. One says there is nothing pointing to purgatory and the other says this does. Neither would convince us.
Isaiah 6:5-7 A Baptism of fire, so to speak. Sins forgiven. I would relate that to the later event of Pentecost. His lips were unlocked and the Spirit moved him to speak. Again, we do not know why the angel did this, in this way, but there is no pointing toward purgatory unless you have a preconception of purgatory as a fire of sorts.
Rather than go on, can you point to a passage you find particularly compelling as a proof? You can say that theses passages, in the right light, offer the possibility of purgatory but not proof. At the end of the day, as I understand RC doctrine, all Christians in purgatory are destined for heaven, their salvation is assured. How, then, does purgatory matter? What good do the dead receive if they have all goodness assured? What part of the saving work of Christ is left unfulfilled?
If we’re talking sanctification, God works through the means of Grace, Word and Sacrament, to justify and sanctify us. We know that the Word has effect to sanctify by creating faith (Acts 26:18) in Baptism ( Eph 5:26) By God's good grace (Gal 5:22–23; Ph 2:13) we’ve been justified (Eph 2:7-10) so we can grow spiritually (1 Cor 3:9, Eph 4:1) and live a life of discipleship (2 Co 6:1) And it’s an adventure, our experience of sanctification varies – sometimes it’s a struggle (Romans 7:14–19) but it keeps happening until we reach heaven – it is finalized in heaven, not before (Psalm 17:15; Rev 7:9-14; Rev 21:4-7; 1 Cor 15:50-55)
ReplyDeleteAfter all, if we have put on Christ (Gal 3:27), we stand at the judgement clothed in His righteousness. Who would say that the righteousness of Christ is merely a fig leaf covering someone that needs to be purged? I think He died for much more than that.
1. Luther stated that purgatory was "quite plain": in 2 Maccabees 12:46. To us that is Scripture, as it was to the early Church, Augustine, etc. So it is a biblical argument that even Luther acknowledged. But he was able to dismiss it by dismissing 2 Maccabees from the canon, which is another discussion entirely. See:
ReplyDeletehttp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/03/martin-luther-asserts-that-purgatory-is.html
2. I think 1 Corinthians 3 is the most explicit single indicator.
3. I never expect to convince a Protestant of purgatory from Scripture because a) they are taught to reject the doctrine as supposedly contrary to Christ's finished work on the cross, and b) they believe falsely that all doctrines must be explicit in Scripture: which Scripture never teaches anyway.
4. Protestants and Catholics agree that one must be actually holy and free from sin to enter heaven: not just imputed justification. The only difference, then, is how and how fast we are purged of the sin that remains with most of us at death. We think it is a process, whereas you guys think it is a zapping in one instant,. The essence remains the same: God must somehow change us.
5. Luther did actually accept purgatory for a time after he was no longer Catholic. He presupposed the existence of purgatory, e.g., in his 95 Theses and allowed that it might be true as late as Feb. 1528:
Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety. (The 95 Theses, #16; 31 October 1517; tr. C. M. Jacobs; in W1)
With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror would grow less and love increase. (Ibid., #17)
I say nothing about the fire and place of purgatory, not because I deny them, but because that discussion is another one which I do not undertake to bring up at this time. . . . I am positive that there is a purgatory, . . . (Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses, Aug. 1518; tr. Carl W. Folkemer; in LW, v. 31)
Some individuals have tasted these punishments in this life, especially those of hell. Therefore we must believe even more that they are imposed upon the dead in purgatory. (Ibid.)
[T]he meaning and force of the term “purgatory” imply a cleansing which can only be understood as pertaining to the remains of the old nature and sin, because of which those persons are unclean who in their affection for earthly things have hindered the purity of faith. (Ibid.)
[P]urgatory also increases that good which is love for God, indeed, increases that most of all. . . . Since the greatest weakness exists in purgatory, therefore purgatory perfects love most of all. (Ibid.)
We ourselves, because we believe that no man goes to purgatory unless he belongs to the number of those who must be saved, are certain about the salvation of those in purgatory just as we are certain about the salvation of the elect. (Ibid.)
[T]his faith, I say, is truly able to do all things in heaven, earth, hell and purgatory, . . . (A Treatise on the Holy Mass, Aug. 1520; tr. J. J. Schindel; in W1)
I have never yet denied that there is a purgatory, and I still hold that there is, as I have many times written and confessed, though I have no way of proving it incontrovertibly, either by Scripture or reason. I find in the Scriptures, indeed, that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think to be purgatory, and it is not incredible that some of the dead suffer in like manner. Tauler has much to say about it, and, in a word, I have decided for myself that there is a purgatory, but cannot force any others to the same decision. . . . It is enough for us to know that they [souls in purgatory] are in great and intolerable pain, and crave our help. (An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull, Dec. 1520; tr. C. M. Jacobs; in W3)
[continued]
ReplyDeleteOn purgatory, I have this opinion: I do not think . . . that it is a certain place, . . . I think purgatory is that punishment which they call a foretaste of hell and under which . . . Moses, Abraham, David, Jacob, Job, Hezekiah, and many others suffered. . . . it is purgatory for me regardless of whether this punishment takes place emotionally or physically, since we attribute such punishment to purgatory. (Letters I, ed. and tr. Gottfried G. Krodel; to Nicholas von Amsdorf, 13 Jan. 1522; in LW, v. 48)
I am of the opinion that purgatory is not so general . . . but that only a few souls will enter it. (Sermon for the Epiphany; Matthew 2:1-12, 1522; in Serm., v. 1)
Not that I, at this late day . . ., deny the existence of purgatory; but it is dangerous to preach it, whatever of truth there may be in the doctrine, because the Word of God, the Scriptures, make no mention of a purgatory. (Sermon for Christmas Eve; Titus 2:11-15, 1522; in Serm., v. 6)
Nor have we anything in Scripture concerning purgatory. . . . Therefore, I maintain it is not necessary to believe in it; although all things are possible to God, and he could very well allow souls to be tormented after their departure from the body. (Confession Concerning Christ's Supper, Feb. 1528, tr. Robert H. Fischer; in LW, v. 37)
See my latest book: The "Catholic" Luther:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2014/11/books-by-dave-armstrong-catholic-luther.html
St. Augustine was a pretty good theologian, too (Luther would agree), and he had no problem with purgatory:
ReplyDeleteFrom these words it more evidently appears that some shall in the last judgment suffer some kind of purgatorial punishments; for what else can be understood by the word, “Who shall abide the day of His entrance, or who shall be able to look upon Him? For He enters as a moulder's fire, and as the herb of fullers: and He shall sit fusing and purifying as if over gold and silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and pour them out like gold and silver?” [Mal 3:2-3] Similarly Isaiah says, “The Lord shall wash the filthiness of the sons and daughters of Zion, and shall cleanse away the blood from their midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning.” [Isaiah 4:4] . . . when he says, “And he shall purify the sons of Levi, and pour them out like gold and silver, and they shall offer to the Lord sacrifices in righteousness; and the sacrifices of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to the Lord,” [Mal 3:3-4] he declares that those who shall be purified shall then please the Lord with sacrifices of righteousness, and consequently they themselves shall be purified from their own unrighteousness which made them displeasing to God. Now they themselves, when they have been purified, shall be sacrifices of complete and perfect righteousness; for what more acceptable offering can such persons make to God than themselves? But this question of purgatorial punishments we must defer to another time, to give it a more adequate treatment. (City of God, xx, 25)
. . . will any man say this time of faith can be placed on an equal footing with that consummation when they who offer sacrifices in righteousness shall be purified by the fire of the last judgment? And consequently, since it must be believed that after such a cleansing the righteous shall retain no sin, assuredly that time, so far as regards its freedom from sin, can be compared to no other period, unless to that during which our first parents lived in paradise in the most innocent happiness before their transgression. . . . after the judgment those who are worthy of such purification shall be purified even by fire, and shall be rendered thoroughly sinless, and shall offer themselves to God in righteousness, and be indeed victims immaculate and free from all blemish whatever . . . (City xx, 26)
For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,— not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. . . . But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come. (City xxi, 13)
And let him not fancy that there are any purgatorial pains except before that final and dreadful judgment. (City xxi, 16)
ReplyDeleteAs also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, “They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.” [Matthew 12:32] (City xxi, 24)
But if it be said that in the interval of time between the death of this body and that last day of judgment and retribution which shall follow the resurrection, the bodies of the dead shall be exposed to a fire of such a nature that it shall not affect those who have not in this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall be consumed like wood, hay, stubble, but shall affect those others who have carried with them structures of that kind [1 Corinthians 3:11-15]; if it be said that such worldliness, being venial, shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation either here only, or here and hereafter both, or here that it may not be hereafter—this I do not contradict, because possibly it is true. (City xxi, 26)
And it is not impossible that something of the same kind [as 1 Cor 3:11-15] may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God, unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven them. (Enchiridion, 69)
Therefore, it is in this life that all the merit or demerit is acquired, which can either relieve or aggravate a man's sufferings after this life. No one, then, need hope that after he is dead he shall obtain merit with God which he has neglected to secure here. (Ench., 110)
It is a given that Luther, particularly in his early protest, was still steeped in church tradition and presupposed the existence of purgatory as having been weighed and found factual by the church. I know that the 95 Theses are grounded in purgatory because they focus particularly on the issue of indulgences.
ReplyDeleteIt was not my intention to dissuade anyone from believing in purgatory but merely to say that the scripture cited does not support it without a presupposition that it does exist. Scripture does not say it doesn't exist, and it doesn't say that it does. that leaves it in the hands of extra-scriptural sources. But no one can contend that the verses you cite are "proof".
Scripture does not negate the possibility of the Assumption and any Lutheran can believe it, personally, but it cannot be made dogma, a requirement of faith, for us because it has not the authority of scripture. So, any Christian can, within the bounds of Christian liberty, adhere to a doctrine not supported in scripture but no Christian may assume a doctrine that is counter to scripture.
But, to your point #3, if all doctrine were explicit in scripture, we would have no difference in any discussion of Christ's atoning work because we would each see the plainness of it in the only record of it that we possess.
It would be more correct to say that all that needs to be grasped for salvation is present in scripture. I know many Catholics hate this passage (2 Tim 3:10-17) and some get hung up on the word "profitable" (v.16) but it finishes with "complete" and "every".
Listen, I am married for 25 years to a Roman Catholic wife and I know where we'll never agree. Just admit, that "proof" is not what's here. If for no other reason than that faith does not require proof. Wasn't it Anselm who said "I believe so that I may understand" - we reason from faith, not toward it? So, you have your faith in purgatory from faith your infallible Magisterium and you cultivate your understanding of scripture from that faith.
I should add that 1 Cor 3 speaks to us of the church and the importance of building it and each other up on a firm foundation. Since we are the church "God's field, God's building", how we build each other up will determine sturdiness of the structure. Not everyone is going to be good stone or square bricks. How do we compensate so that we come through times of testing, the fire? we don't want to see everything destroyed but God assures us that, even if our faith and understanding are weak and are doctrinal houses collapse around us, there will still be salvation , with a little more difficulty, but He will get us there.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the definition of proof. I agree that it is not explicitly proven, but that is no difficulty for us. I do believe it is substantially indicated implicitly or indirectly / deductively.
ReplyDeleteLack of any biblical proof whatever is quite familiar to all Protestants, because they construct two major elements of their belief-system things upon doctrines that have absolutely no explicit biblical proof (and I would argue, not even implicit evidence): sola Scriptura and the canon of Scripture.
The first cannot be shown at all from Scripture, and is often contradicted by it, yet is one of the two "pillars" of the "Reformation" and the substance of the Protestant rule of faith. I wrote two entire books about this:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/07/books-by-dave-armstrong-150-biblical.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2012/09/books-by-dave-armstrong-pillars-of-sola.html
The second has absolutely no biblical proof at all: yet is firmly believed by all Protestants based on Catholic tradition and pronouncements from the 4th century (minus the arbitrary dismissal of seven deuterocanonical books).
Thus it is always at the very least highly ironic -- not to mention a bit humorous -- to see any Protestant argue against a Catholic doctrine such as purgatory based on its alleged lack of support in Scripture.
Meanwhile, there they sit with the huge "millstone" of sola Scriptura and its unbiblical, arbitrary Protestant "binding" tradition around their necks, and the second core belief which is a huge and lone exception to their ostensible / alleged universal rejection of entirely extrabiblical Catholic traditions.
I live in the Northeast and have grown up surrounded by Catholics. The common rejection of sola scriptura (to those who know the term) by the Catholic on the street is that they are told not to accept it. At the same time, I’ve seen poor attempts to apologize for it and I’ve read more that do well. Most are written from non-Lutheran perspective on sola scriptura but the LCMS has some very good apologetics for the principle.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the Catholic defense arguments are geared to fundamentalism and evangelicals who must be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to convert Christians (Catholics) to Christianity. That doesn’t make much sense. But their bend, in my experience, is not sola scriptura in the same sense as we use it. Rather, they operate in terms of what I have discovered referred to as “nuda scriptura” where they are not evaluating doctrines and traditions of the church in historical and theological context but attempting to discover things in a vacuum and at a personal level. These “Bible” churches reject creeds, written prayers, liturgy and liturgical seasons, vestments, sacraments, etc. because the colors are not explicitly written in scripture. They confound the non-scriptural with the unscriptural. That is improper.
While I believe these Christians are missing out on some of God’s greatest gifts and often end up with misguided, poorly stated, and erroneous doctrine, they publish their “statements of faith” which amount to little more than “the Creeds in our own words.” The key, here, is I believe they are Christians in error, not non-Christians. I would say the same of you and you (I should think) the same of me because the Church is established across denominational lines, forgives even grave errors (or Augustine is toast with his double predestination) and it does so because Christ remains at the head and at the center of worship.
To me, that indicates that the essentials of salvation can be found outside of Roman Catholicism. If that I not so or your church denies this, please let me know. Because, if we can agree there are Christians outside the RC, then, I would ask what aspects of necessary faith and practice leading to salvation are not found in scripture? Because, if there is a necessary belief and/ or practice which is unique to the RC and which is required of all who would enter heaven, then, I can see that there is a point in rejecting sola scriptura. I may not agree with it, but I could, at least see it. Give me the positive argument for rejecting sola scriptura.
While you’re at, maybe you can tell me why all the Catholics I grew up with didn’t eat meat on Fridays but now they only “have” to observe that on Friday’s in Lent? I am not being facetious. I have just never gotten any answer other than “we are supposed to” from anyone who practices it.
You say a lot of good things that I and Catholics agree with, and I feel closer to Lutherans theologically (generally speaking) than any other non-Catholic group.
ReplyDeleteI would ask what aspects of necessary faith and practice leading to salvation are not found in scripture? Because, if there is a necessary belief and/ or practice which is unique to the RC and which is required of all who would enter heaven, then, I can see that there is a point in rejecting sola scriptura. I may not agree with it, but I could, at least see it. Give me the positive argument for rejecting sola scriptura.
I believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture and believe that all Catholic doctrines are in harmony with Scripture. I've made *some* sort of biblical argument for every single Catholic doctrine I have defended.
But that is NOT SS. The problem with the latter is the denial of the infallibility of the Church and sacred tradition.
One of the really cool things I discovered in researching the "Catholic" Luther is that he actually referred to an infallible Church: normally thought to be outside the purview of SS:
https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/916868095014843
While you’re at, maybe you can tell me why all the Catholics I grew up with didn’t eat meat on Fridays but now they only “have” to observe that on Friday’s in Lent? I am not being facetious. I have just never gotten any answer other than “we are supposed to” from anyone who practices it.
It's a disciplinary matter, not a dogmatic one; therefore, it can change. The current teaching is that *some* sacrifice ought to be made on Fridays. It just doesn't have to necessarily be abstinence for meat anymore.
I choose to follow the old rule because it is a good one, and I include "fake" vegetarian meat in that, too!
But because most Catholics are ignorant of what their Church teaches, they think (as you seem to, also) that the change was from "no meat" to "no sacrifice AT ALL required." This is untrue.
The fundamental Catholic-Lutheran argument is "are the Fathers closer to Catholicism or Lutheranism?"
ReplyDeleteBoth sides claim to be the true legatees of the fathers. Consequently, I've engaged in many debates on these issues with Lutherans:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/11/lutheranism-catholic-critique-index.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/fathers-of-church-index-page.html
I also respond directly to Martin Chemnitz regarding this central dispute:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/08/critique-of-martin-chemnitz-examination.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/07/martin-chemnitz-is-man-for-lutherans.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/08/critique-of-martin-chemnitz-examination_29.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/08/critique-of-martin-chemnitz-examination_31.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/09/critique-of-martin-chemnitz-examination.html
I don’t bear any ill will toward Catholics. I have many more issues with mainstream Protestants, evangelicals, and fundamentalists and agree that Lutherans have more in common with Catholics than many of these groups. No need to belabor, here, what he Augsburg Confession says concerning what the church actually is. I feel pretty sure of one thing, Luther would be far less accepting of the church existing in places without the sacrament than our theologies now permit.
ReplyDeleteMy reading of Luther has always been that the infallibility of the church was maintained by remaining rooted in scripture, examined and purged through councils. Most of it tends to the what the visible church on Earth must do and be in order to remain part of the infallible church which exists in eternity. In his estimation, the visible church had lost its connection to the Word and that moved him to action. His language toward Rome was pretty harsh compared to his language toward the church. This is one reason that we ordain those properly called with proclaiming the word and administering the sacraments. We need to be sure that the truth is properly proclaimed. I see much of this in the passages you cite from his works. I don’t read in these selections a church separated from the Word and, again, in most of my reading of Luther, particularly the later works is that Word = Scripture.
Our practice of Lenten sacrifice, should we choose to do something, is generally to take the money we would spend on what we gave up and give it to the needy. I have also fasted as a discipline but often get frustrated as I like to do things like a Holy Week fast but get the stink eye when that leaves me not eating the feast at Easter because I’m coming off of it. I don’t broadcast my fasts and I get cornered into talking about it. I don’t like that. This year, we’re studying the parables at our midweek Lenten services. My reading began with The Mystery of the Cross (McGrath) and, aside from my regular devotions, I’ve got Bearing the Cross: Devotions on Albrecht Durer's Small Passion. On the side, I am reading the Third Peacock (Capon) as a lead in to our Sunday studies in theodicy which will resume after Easter.
It’s been a pleasure speaking with you and a rare blessing to have someone with a clue about Lutherans, not many where I come from. I will look in on the page. Understand that I will always aim to be respectful and I enjoy dialog. After all, it is in the dialog on denominational distinctions that we’ll find common ground and truth – either we will become firm in our own doctrines or discover something in the other’s.
I'll be looking over some of the Chemnitz links. Have you engaged any Lutherans of note on these issues? Since the Fathers are foundational to the church, I expect that we'll both find commonalities (many according to our predispostions!)
Peace!
The pleasure of dialogue has been very much mine as well.
ReplyDeleteIt's a joy to be able to talk substance, where honest disagreements exist, without personal offense. You are very articulate and make your case well.
I've dialogued with several (I think) fairly "notable" Lutherans, including a professional historian (going by "CPA") and a few others, as can be seen on my Lutheranism page.
"Purgatory Debunked"....a new video, which I am happy to say, mentions you
ReplyDeletehttps://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/purgatory-refuted/