Anything I can do to help…

“Some kind of pain.” Wow.

BTW- if it’s not a “place,” then the term “purgatory” should just be replaced with “Final sanctification.” What’s the chance of that?

The story I was told was that when the cord holding the hat broke, that cardinal was sprung from purgatory.

Walls is a philosopher and thus only a hair’s breadth from Rome.  Right? :-)

Funny story.  Seven years ago I went to Spain to meet my then girlfriend’s parents (she’s now my wife).  They took me to Toledo to see some really cool sites like the Alcazar and a Sephardic synogogue from the 1300’s.  We also went into the Catedral de Toledo, a structure from the 1200’s.  Inside the cathedral there are several red hats hanging from the ceiling.  These belong to deceased cardinals.  The story I was told was that when the cord holding the hat broke, that cardinal was sprung from purgatory.  So, the well liked cardinals had very thin cords tied to their hats whilst the unpopular ones had really thick ones.

Thanks for chiming in David. I need a real Catholic around here to temper me. I’m going through a hard time.

I read the list, and I only see one that approaches what I wrote. I hope they are all correct. Nice thing about the internet is the best answer is always a click away, no matter what you’ve heard all your life from both sides.

2 Maccabees. Hooooooha! I can’t teach the books I have to cover in my classes now!

And thanks for this one: The Indulgence controversy was all a misunderstanding.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms-indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences.

Here’s the summary:

Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine: (1) that a purification after death exists, (2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God.

BTW- if it’s not a “place,” then the term “purgatory” should just be replaced with “Final sanctification.” What’s the chance of that?

I think it’s hooey, but if I were God I’d actually invent it.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

Meanwhile, Jimmy Akin deals with myths about indulgences (including some mentioned here):

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb2.asp

Oh, by the way, there was a reference to a Protestant website about a week ago, which claimed that laymen were defending the Catholic Church by writing books because certain bishops didn’t. Something like that. Anyway, two bishops were mentioned by name. The facts are, both Archbishops Wuerl and Chaput have been extensively published, and not just in their diocesan newspapers. And both have defended the papacy.

I could think of more, but I fell asleep at the bar during the conversation. Wake me when it gets interesting.

And pass the corn nuts.

The trouble with highlighting the fact that purgatory has no scriptural basis, is that you are arguing with an entity which recognizes no imperative to provide a scriptural basis for what they teach.

Let’s face it.  Purgatory is a fund raiser.

Bob:  Get a half dozen of each type of pepper.  Go nuts.

Derek Webb vs the Prayer of Jabez. God bless you Derek.

Alan Creech chronicles Asbury Professor Jerry Walls endorsement of the “logic” of purgatory since “salvation is about transformation.”

You should see my mailbox. When the RCs are evangelizing my own family, am I entitled to deal with that a bit?

The current catechism is careful to make purgatory “cleansing.” Unfortunately, a few other things got left in from pre-Vatican II Catholicism.

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. 611

So now here I am, washing my kid before bed. And in the next room, one of his siblings says, “I commend commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of our brother.”

Hmmmm…..what’s wrong with this picture?

You know, I have the utmost respect for my RC mentors (Merton, Nouwen, Manning, etc) who believe this doctrine. There isn’t an ounce of disrespect in me. As has been pointed out, I’m sure I believe some things that others find hard to swallow. But there are some things that have to be honestly addressed.

1) Indulgences, etc are issued by the church to relieve something going on in purgatory. Why not just empty the place if you have the power? This is like Benny Hinn claiming to heal, but never making it to the Children’s Cancer ward.

2) Should I run the verses that say the blood of Jesus does everything that we can comprehend regarding cleansing? How in the hell does a “work of penance” from a Christian do something that the blood of Jesus doesn’t? Or how does an indulgence access the cleansing blood of Jesus in a way that simple faith doesn’t? Why the incompleteness? And how does the action of a Christian make any difference in cleansing after death?

3) Am I the only one who senses a certain amount of “church control” in this doctrine? And again, if that doesn’t bother you, amen. It bothers me. If my pastor says, “I retain some power over when your loved one gets to heaven,” I think I know what’s going on here.

The “fiscal mess” we are in regarding health care is not the politicians fault, nor the drug companies.  It won’t be cured by eliminating the demogogues’ favorite target Waste, Fraud and Abuse.  It is technologically driven.
Specifically, it is a confluence of scientific advance and moral assumption that we’ve not seen before.  Few other technologies carry the automatic moral mandate that Western medicine does: when a new treatment is developed, it MUST be used.  This is not true of advances in engineering, rocketry, or botany.  We can use a new bridge design if we can afford it; if we can’t, we build the old way, which still works.  Not so in medicine.  When a new arthritis medicine is developed, the doctor cannot say “it costs too much.”

Sure, the employer can, or the premium can get too high, but then society begins to say “it is morally wrong to not be able to afford that medicine.”

Since technological advance tends to be exponential,  this means the sum of mandated treatments is tending to an exponential curve.  There is no MORAL argument available to the physician to say “there is a new technique that has a 30% chance of giving grandma one more month.  So it’s not worth it.”

If I’m right, the dynamic in health care costs we are seeing now has never been witnessed before in history, and will not be solved by anything.  In desperation, we WILL socialize the costs, then we will ration, and I hate all of that.

Bill, and any other gardening fanatics, This greenhouse full of hundreds of varies of peppers and tomatoes is 11 miles from my office! I’ll be rototilling under my entire yard and the adjoining yards at this rate….

Any recommendations? I’m going by there next week.

Purgatory is one of those emotional dogmas, born of frustration with the wicked church.  It’s a response to the apparent failure of that last attempt to conquer sin.  We’ve got to get those Christians sanctified somehow and the blood, the water, and the Spirit are evidently not enough.  Maybe if we put weights on their back and whip them while they climb a spiral mountain…worth a try.
I think it’s hooey, but if I were God I’d actually invent it.

So the dissertation (“book report”) is going to get turned in this week. One of the conclusions to my investigation of the quantum measurement problem is this: Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. This has been a wild ride.

Help! I’m trapped in a Pirates 3 screening and I can’t get out! Send help to [message cuts out here]

Here is a solution to our health care issues.  The countries that have big social systems for health care like in Europe and Canada can pay for our health care too.  We already pick up the tab for them when it comes to their national defense. 

That area needs to be attacked vigorously.

There could be such a thing as virtuous capitalism, but I’m too committed to total depravity to get my hopes up.

The misguided war in Iraq, which was based on lies, has cost the US $430 billion and counting. That is money that could have been better spent on a health care program. Of course, where is that money coming from? Just adding to the deficit, while the top 1% (and that’s NOT the upper middle class, folks) got a gift from Dubya in the form of a tax cut.

I saw Obama’s presentation of his health care plan, which lacked detail (but, again, certainly was way oversimplified by those who characterize it as “tax the rich.) I think there are several areas of attack, which Obama mentioned. One thing I would emphasize (which was mentioned, by the way) is the price-gouging of the pharmaceutical companies. There is no excuse for medication to cost us here in America twice, three time, four times what it costs in other countries. That area needs to be attacked vigorously.

Kent outlined exactly what happened with the health-care plan at my company:either an HSA with a high-deductible or a lower-deductible that cuts off your insurance at the $10,000 mark. So we are being asked to gamble with our health-care—gamble that we don’t have something catastrophic happen or pay more. People shouldn’t have to gamble with their health care.

And health care is not a big-screen tv. Let’s be rational, people!

Our insurance is nearly $13,000 a year.  Preachers must be at the bottom of the healthy barrel.

I preach for about 15-20 minutes.

Alex’s explanation of purgatory is what I’ve understood it to be: a purging of sin in order to be spotless when entering heaven.  Some need a little more purging than others, I suppose.  I still think the Scriptural basis for it is non existant.

I tried to listen to Piper’s biography series and found his presentation so overly dramatic I had to quit before I was done.  I also learned that I don’t deserve to be called a Christian.  I was emotionally worn out before I made it halfway through…

Bill, Thanks for that reference for the Ten Commandments. I’ll have to see if it’s any good… (jn)

 New Attititude Messages are free downloads. (C J.Mahaney, John Piper, Joshua Harris, Mark Dever, etc)  This is as it should be.  Good preaching seeking the widest distribution possible.  Here  

High crime rate (in purgatory).

If Purgatory isn’t punishment why are people (evidently) anxious to escape it?

Anyone have recommended resources on this,

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

It seems to me that the deepest moral question that healthcare/insurance faces is whether it is ok that some people die because they can’t afford to pay for care/treatment that would help them live.  We will likely try to answer this moral question by providing universal access to healthcare as a nation.  Essentially this is a natural extrapolation of the utilization of private insurance providers…which is also a ‘banding together’ to mitigate, or spread out risk/threat.  I see no signs that our culture will change direction.

I like the idea of working together as a people, a nation to mitigate our common risks.  This is essentially what a military is, a banding together to mitigate risk/threat.

The part that sucks about this is the cognitive disconnect that takes place in political systems.  It’s the same disconnect that causes a local politician to say; “If we do it this way we won’t have to pay for it, we can get federal funding.”  I truly wonder if another cognitive disconnect our culture faces is the belief that we can afford to spend ‘whatever it costs’ to save everyone.  The fiscal mess we find ourselves in regarding healthcare seems me to be the natural outcome of refusing to deal with this question.

I envy Jack his confidence in becoming filthy rich (I don’t have the same confidence); but am surprised at his surprise regarding the stupidity of the general population.  Bread & Circuses man…Bread & Circuses...

35-45 minutes. Way too long if I do say so myself!

If you appreciate art and the female countenance here’s a treat…

500 years of portraits in 3 minutes. Stunning!

Poll:  How long are the sermons at your churches, and in your opinion how long should they be?   (I’m asking for realities, so use your real context.  We all know Keller and Driscoll could talk for two hours and hold people.) 

I’ll go first.  My sermons are generally 34 minutes.  They should be 28 or less.

Blogger Mark Byron makes an excellent point about spiritual warfare: It’s like judo, not boxing. The point is not to strike at the devil but to get out of the way of his haymakers.

Purgatory is indeed an obnoxious, gospel-crippling doctrine and I can’t explain Lewis’ support of it. I’ll give him a reluctant mulligan on that one. I find it helpful (but not convincing) that Kreeft speaks of it as an ante-chamber of heaven, not hell. IOW purgatory is not hell-like but heaven-like. NTW addresses the subject in his little book For All the Saints: Remembering the Christian Departed. He doesn’t like it. He does point out, however, that Joseph Ratzinger, “who has held high office in the Vatican for many years” is moving towards a more biblical model of these things, namely by “linking purgatory to Jesus Christ himself as the eschatological fire… [separating] the doctrine of purgatory from the idea of an intermediate state, and thus snap[ping] the link that, in the Middle Ages, gave rise to the idea of indulgences.” That Ratzinger guy is still a major suit at the Vatican, I think ;-)

I’m not touching the health care issue, eh!

Let me preface this by saying that I don’t believe that there is such a place as purgatory. I do not think there is sufficient biblical warrant to believe that there is such a place.

That said, I think iMonk might be guilty of kicking at straw men. Roman Catholics are very careful to distinguish between the fires of purification and the fires of punishment. Their Catechism says so: “The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.” (CCC, I.III. 3, art. 12, iii, emphasis added)

Therefore, it seems wrong to say that if the doctrine of purgatory is true, then God taunts us with a promise of eternal salvation, and then throws His people into a thousand years of punishment. He doesn’t punish us, according to the doctrine of purgatory; He rehabilitates us.

Let me emphasize again that I do not believe that the doctrine of purgatory is true. But no informed Roman Catholic would accept the iMonk’s characterization of the doctrine. She too would probably recoil at any doctrine like the one iMonk describes as the Roman view of purgatory.

Michael: I would point out the following:

1) Jesus says that words spoken against the Son of Man will be forgiven.
2) Jesus says that, in contrast, words spoken against the Spirit will not be forgive.
2a) the words spoken against the Spirit will not be forgiven “in this age.”
2b) the words spoken against the Spirit will not be forgiven “in the age to come”

The clear implication is that words spoken against the Son of Man will be forgiven both “in this age” and “in the age to come.”

Now there are a lot of ways to take “age,” of course, and I would probably rather support “the age to come” as having an eschatological sense, but if one accepts that the “age to come” is understood in the sense of “when this life is over, and we are in the afterlife,” or even “when we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and living in the final fulfillment of the Kingdom,” then at least some sins will be forgiven in the afterlife. It makes sense, therefore, that they would have to be forgiven either they are not forgiven in this life, which would only occur because they were not repented of in this life.

There’s considerable maneuvering room there too, because the understanding of what constitutes “repentance” comes into the discussion.

I probably don’t absolutely agree with any of the Catholic understandings of any of the terms in question, and I’ll admit that I’m completely stumped as to what constitutes the difference between “a word against the Son of Man” and “a word against the Holy Spirit.” But I’ve come to the conclusion that since the only reason anyone will be separated from God in the afterlife is their own will to be so separated, it is entirely within the character of God to believe that His offer to restore the relationship and remove that separation is something that He extends eternally.

Of course, it’s Wednesday, so I’m a Universalist. I expect effigies of me will be burned shortly.

 I just laid it on the line to parents who object to not having a separate children’s worship time for 4th-6th graders in our newsletter.  Among other things I wrote this:   fine do it your way, exempt your children from weekly worship, but when their faith is so feeble and their ability to integrate their faith as an adult is non-existent, don’t come crying to me…. (Full article is here)   I just don’t get parents who think having their child sit through worship is unthinkable torture (i.e. Purgatory)

On purgatory, I agree it makes God a liar.  It’s not so much that it is incomprehensible as an article of belief.  I actually think it is easier to believe than grace.  The problem is that it completely contradicts the central message and specific and repeated texts of scripture, and it has no corresponding scriptural support.   The existence of this doctrine should be a huge roadblock to anyone who considers converting to Roman Catholicism.  Lutherans need to work on their marketing to the disenchanted….

Next Sunday I begin a summer series on the Ten Commandments.  Anyone have recommended resources on this, send ideas to me… I ‘ll appreciate it! 

I’m off to the movies, Chinese food, etc. I’ll talk purgatory when I get back if anyone wants.

Jack, I knew you wouldn’t let me down.

Kent and Michael bring up too important terms “entitlement” and “moral obligation”.  Health issues are now couched in moral language and as a moral issue.  It is stated as an absolute truth that people must be given health care, whatever the definition of that is.  Michael asks the right question, why is it so?  It has also been shown over the years that when medical services don’t come with a cash cost, people over consume.  The emergency rooms in the US are now waiting areas that have fallen victim to this situation.

The other side of this is what is “health care” or health “insurance”?  You don’t have insurance again predictable events like vaccinations, annual check-ups, etc.  That is why it is called insurance.  It is for events that might possibly happen.  It is a way to manage risk, not cover all the usual day-to-day stuff.  You don’t collect on your house insurance when you want to paint the bedrooms.  When you add these certain events to an insurance policy, the exact cost (or greater) of all the events get added to the premium.  You lose the whole advantage of buying insurance.  So as long as all this stuff keeps getting covered, premiums will go up and up like people are talking about here.  The funny thing is, that some people want to fix the problem by providing more of the same sort of insurance.  It is strange idea.  I honestly think that emotional appeal alone gets this thinking a place in the public arena.  Bring out a kid and a single parent who are sick and can’t afford a doctor.  Then, if anyone disagrees with your plan, well they really just being mean to the kid.

A God that would taunt us with the promise of a complete salvation and then throw us into the flames for several thousand years of punishment for unconfessed mortal sins would not be worship-worthy. Such a God, who sends Jesus to tell the story of the Prodigal son and John 3:16, and then punishes us in flames for millenia is a liar.

Any number of other belief options are more tolerable. It’s simply monstrous.

There’s a reason the key text for this is in Maccabees. The entire book of Hebrews and the entire Gospel of John are vacated by the idea of Purgatory.

Joel, this isn’t much different from my reaction to the words of recreating the sacrifice on an altar in a church.

About the doctrine of purgatory, Michael said:

If it’s true, count me out.

That may be the most amazing statement I’ve ever read by you. Could you explain why, if you came to discover that the doctrine of purgatory is probably true, that you’d insist on not believing it? We have to believe lots of things that are implausible, that don’t fully make sense to us, but surely one reason we believe them is that in spite of the mystery or paradox, they’re true?

So Obama wants to pay for “health care” by taxing the rich? What a strikingly original idea. Why not make sure everyone has a wide-screen TV as well; The Rich can pay for it. Oh, and how about shiny new cars every three years. And beautiful wives. And smart children. We’ll let The Rich pay for everything since they are obviously the cause of all evil in the world.

(What bugs me most about this is that “The Rich” actually means “The Upper Middle Class”. The truly obscenely wealthy in this world – the Bushes, Kennedys, Rockefellers, Goldmans, DuPonts, DeBeers, Roosevelts etc – are the ones who orchestrate this never-ending nightmare whilst skating above it all, untouched by the suffering they foment and support. )

The sad irony of all this is that we will have “universal” healthcare in the not-too-distant future and it will cost us all a lot more, not less, than we are paying now. Furthermore, the quality of the care will be universally abysmal. The number of Americans providing care will plummet and be offset by foreigners, mostly from southeast Asia, eastern Europe and the Middle East. Rich people will still get better healthcare because they will pay for it anyway. How do I know this? Because that’s the state of healthcare in England and we are rushing pell-mell in the same direction.

Paternalistic socialism is the wave of the future. It will suck. We will all be worse-off than we are now, but at least we’ll have “universal healthcare”. The poverty pimps will still complain because rich people will still get better care – just like they get better manicures, better hairdos, better car washes and better shoe shines: BECAUSE THEY WILL PAY FOR IT – and will agitate for the politicians to continue punishing success and continue subsidizing failure.

It is so depressing and so predictable. We may as well decide to enjoy it because there is no escaping it. Personally, I plan to get disgustingly wealthy so that when I need good medical care, (as opposed to “free” medical care), I can actually get it because I will be able to pay for it.

The stupidity of the general population simply staggers me sometimes.

Health Insurance at OBI has increased 20-40% every year of the past 5. It is our largest single expense. It is more than 20% of our total budget. The insurance situation is truly dire, but I still cannot philosophically find a way to justify the notion that either the employer or the government are morally obligated to pay our costs. I see how all us on our staff use our insurance benefit, and there is a discussion there that needs to go on as well.

Tom, our health plan costs increased 21% this year and now represents upwards of 16% of my employer’s cost of employing me.  If you’d like to test whether you view health insurance as an entitlement I’d suggest you toy around with this question:  If you suddenly found that you made an extra $5,100 per year (the cost of my health insurance), but had no insurance, what would you spend that money on?

Personally I’ve chosen to migrate to a combination plan; a plan that includes an HSA (Health Savings Account) and a high deductable insurance plan; I know that some coworkers feel that this migration is a ‘gutting’ of their health insurance, but I also know that for our agency to maintain solvency we need to cut some of these costs.  A major problem with the medical industry is that sense of entitlement…we are poor consumers when someone else foots the bill.

I believe that movements toward increased involvement and responsibility on the part of medical consumers are positive…our medical system is often over-accessed, patients are often over-prescribed and the lack of fiscal accountability creates terrible abuses.

Turning the patient back into a consumer may be one of the best moves we can make.

Noel H picks up some of my latest IM rant. Check out his new series on Jesus and the Law at Riverview.

Coffee Cup Apologetics 8 is now online. “Won’t any religion get you to heaven as long as you sincerely follow its beliefs and teachings?”

There is nothing I am more grateful for than my health insurance, but why is my employer obligated to pay for any of my health insurance any more than they are obligated to pay for my food or housing? (Which mine does :-)

Work for a company that has basically gutted their insurance plan, like mine has, to the point where I can’t afford my medication now, and you might feel a little different.

Amen, Kent. I’ve stated here before that I am for the most part “conservative” politically. (emerging? conservative? tries to reconcile respect for Lutheran theology with Anglicans and Free Church? what a bundle of contradictions he is!) Still, I try to balance that with a respect for the idea of caring for the less fortunate. But whenever I hear those on the “left” trot out their take from the rich and give to the poor socialism in disguise, my eyes glaze over. I’ve become quite the cynic in recent years when it comes to politics. To my observation, both right and left care for little more than increasing their own power, and damn the consequences. Poop on the lot of them, I say.

Jason, and what also sucks is that the definition of ‘rich’ is ‘those who make between $25-100K/year’. Our ‘insurance package’ as we move forward in adoption comprises 48% of my gross income.

All, are there any C.S. Lewis scholars out there who know whether purgatory was something that he believed or simply something that he wrote about in The Great Divorce? I totally connect with your assessment Michael; and am not trying to defend Lewis, I’m simply curious.

MOD: He believed it, and offered considerable explanation for it. I have a lot of Lewis reference books and could list them, but I’m lazy.

AUTHOR: Thanks for the lazy answer to my lazy question ;-}

The word of the day is “poopslide”

TallSkinnyKiwi posted his review of John MacArthur’s “Truth War” this morning. It seems that those of us who find something of value in the emerging church conversation are heretics, and comparable to skid marks. (insert boyish giggle at scatalogical references here)

With a little bit of humor, Andrew looks at the various accusations leveled against our emerging brethren and shows the arguments for the silliness that they are.

I know many of you don’t really care about the whole emerging “controversy,” but this is another good article to use as a starting point in defense of Christian brothers and sisters who, while flawed like everyone else, are being faithful to Christ as they know how.

Listening to a Catholic Answers bit on purgatory, this is the scripture used.

Matthew 12:32 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.

So, of course, sins are forgiven after death.

crickets

Find me a New Testament scholar who actually believes the phrase “age to come” means “after death, in purgatory.” N.T. Wright, your phone is ringing.

Great sermon, Brian.  You said,

As surely as bread and wine nourish our physical bodies, it is only the flesh and blood and Jesus, of which we partake by believing in him and having a part in his sacrifice that nourishes us spiritually.

So Mr. Obama wants to try something new and exciting, like …

Tax “rich” people and use the cash to pay for poor people.

Yawn. I expect better from younger up-and-comers than that. 40+ year old rhetoric don’t cut it, son.

Some of my thoughts on Luke 8:19-56.  The focus is on the question of ‘Who is Jesus?’ in relation to the Lord’s Supper.

Obama rolls out some ideas on healthcare. I am waiting for Jack to give his hearty approval :)

From BBC: Christian Converts in Malaysia face a difficult life and they are facing some high-profile legal battles .

I dunno about you, but if I were a young boy, I might tell the priest I believed in purgatory if he gave me some more of these hawt holy cards.

Michael: My belief in purgatory is at times the only thing that makes sense of this present life.

Kletos: prayed for Boniface.

Matthew: I saw that blog somewhere before, and I agree, hilarious.

The wife and I were involved in a very minor rear-end collision today, but since she is 38 weeks pregnant, she opted to be taken to the hospital. Since she has a blood condition, her doctor decided to do an amniocentesis tomorrow morning and deliver our son if his lungs are developed. So, tomorrow, Lord willing, I get to hold my son, Jack. My nomination for a middle name is Boniface since St. Boniface’s feast day is next Tuesday (two days before he would have been delivered if not for today’s circumstances). I think my wife has officially vetoed unless she has a moment while on the drugs tomorrow. How cool to have a son named after the guy who said, “So, Thor would be pretty pissed off if I, maybe, hacked down his favorite oak, right?”

MOD: Prayed for you.

What a fantastic blog.  It’s like post secret for a**holes.

On a related note, cat-poo coffee is all the rage in Australia. Can we get a picture of our renowned Aussie (Oi!) theo-bloggers imbibing this treat?

No disrespect to CS Lewis and others who believe it, but purgatory must be the most obnoxious belief I can imagine. The idea of spending my life on the Gospel of Christ’s perfect mediation, atonement and justification….and then spending 10,000 years in flaming punishment (i.e. “purification.”) Christ’s holiness is insufficiently given to the Christian to avoid this? And once you’re in it, Christians can pray and that will help? Gee…what a God.

If it’s true, count me out. What an amazing doctrine. How can you possibly believe it and face death with anything but horror, knowing you are headed for conscious punishment and not the Father’s House?

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. 606 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: 607

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 offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. 608

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.”609 From the beginning the Church has honored 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. 610 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. 611

Uh…isn’t that what the reformation was all about? How can you know your catechism say that and just say, wide eyed, that we all believe the same things?

>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?

The New Covenant maybe? Sufficient work of Jesus? No sinner can offer any sacrifice that forgives another’s sins. Job’s sacrifices were pictures/previews of Jesus.

Toastmaster’s: the Sequel. Hedges debates Christopher Hitchens at Berkeley. Hedges’ moralistic religiosity stands no chance against Hitchens’ analytic clarity. (h/t Macht)

Timmy Brister has written a detailed chronology of the Calvinistic Controversy in the SBC. (pdf warning.) He leaves out a large amount of the early history of things, particularly the connection of the Founder’s Movement to men in the Reformed Baptist movement and the Sovereign Grace movements, but as far as recent controversy goes, it’s a comprehensive resource.

Have you all seen this yet?

It seems the author has really submitted it as a resolution.  The comments are fun, especially the reply to Volfan.

Byron provides a TOC for his “Would Jesus Vote Green?” series.

Clay passed his driver’s license exam. Congratulations, Clay!

Monday Morning Insight summarizes the case against Chuck Swindoll:

Among the bad words Chuck has used since 2000 (yes, they’ve been keeping a tally for 7 years now): buns, heck, crap, balls, and also for mentioning (and encouraging the viewing of) the Lion King.

You’ve probably often wondered what it would be like if philosophers talked about canonicity. “Gee,” you thought, “would they convert to the RCC?” Well, wonder no more. Check out the discussion by some analytic colleagues over at Prosblogion. Tim, iirc, is with Alex at the Golden Dome.

In 1994, while I was waiting for my current church to decide if they wanted me, I worked for about six months as the administrative assistant for a capital campaign at an ELCA camp.  It was here I learned how to talk with liberals.  My boss was then in his 60s, a classic liberal, but a great guy who I learned to love.  By the time our relationship ended we had come to the hard wrought conclusion that the resurrection, if nothing else, was important.

I also remember paging through some denominational magazines, and there I learned that even liberals will don golf shirts and stand behind plexiglass pulpits if it helps attendance.

Mark, the only experience I have with the ELCA (tangentially) is that my parents attend what used to be one, and is now a Word Alone church. Their services have always been more like a typical evangelical church. Other than that, I went to a Tae Kwon Do tournament that was held at an ELCA school (Augsburg college in Minneapolis).

Honestly, though, I’m sure there are some good ones out there, struggling through the denominations foibles, much like The Episcopal Church. I know of at least one seminary student who is choosing to remain with the ELCA to fight the good fight, and I hope the wheels of denominational politics don’t grind him to a pulp. The same arguments have been leveled at Methodists, too, and I’ve known plenty of them who work hard and preach the gospel.

There must be a lurker or two with a good example…

Just wondering.  I always really appreciate the services at my parents’ ELCA church and also the ones at the church where our kids go to school.  I know the denomination has issues, but the services were solid and Gospel-centered.

Just in case you haven’t seen this, Kim Fabricius on why baseball is God’s game

1 Corinthians 14:35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. NAS (Update)

I have to admit to having a real irritation at Christians who say they believe a “Biblical” position, and judge others by that example of “faithfulness” to the Bible, but when you do your homework, they are actually “fudging” on the Biblical position so they can accommodate their own evangelical subculture’s way of interpreting the passage.

We did this with the “head coverings” discussion, but the verse above is the best one.

I Corinthians 14 has more different words for various kinds of speaking and verbal participation than any other chapter in the New Testament. Paul knew what he wanted to say and he knew what word he wanted to use. And the word he wanted to use was “speak,” not preach.

It’s a shameful thing for a woman to speak in gathered worship. If you want to turn that into “speak as a preacher,” help yourself, but it’s clearly not what he means because the example immediately preceding was asking questions!

We have a group of Baptists that come to our campus every year from the far western part of our state. Their churches don’t allow women to speak in church. Ever. No announcements. No mission reports. No testimonies. No intros to songs. No participation in business meetings. No questions. No speaking at all.

This particular group of Baptists, like the head-covered Mennonites I mentioned in the earlier discussion, have the courage to interpret these passages literally and carefully, rather than accomodate their interpretation to some version of evangelical modernity.

I bring this up because Acts 2:18 says that your women will prophesy, but Paul wouldn’t allow it. If God said it would happen, but Paul wouldn’t allow it, was he fully implementing what the Spirit made possible, or was he also accommodating to culture, as he did with the circumcision of some of his associates and his own vows?

I think if you visited the average complementarian church, you wouldn’t see either one of these verses being implemented. You would see something in the middle.

Now that you are irritated at me, cheer up with this cartoon. (HT to Bill Kinnon)

When she reached verse 4 a chorus of voices joined in from various places around the chapel, reading along in Slovakian, Spanish, French, Dutch and Greek, the languages represented in our congregation. The effect of the cacophony was dramatic…

Fantastic. I have seen this happen and it is a wonderful drama. Richard also reminds us that Pentecost and the US Memorial Day does not always coincide—early Easter=early Pentecost. I always have to look up the way that the Calendar comes around, I think that Pentecost can happen as late as the second Sunday in June?

Michael would have given a lot of money to charity if he had attended our church yesterday. Not only did we mention Pentecost, our whole celebration was built around the theme. Our hymnody, all contemporary on this Sunday, focused on themes of light, mission and “the wonders of God” (Acts 2:11). The sermon was an exposition of Acts 2 – 1) The Sprirt Creates an International Fellowship; 2) The Spirit Ushers In the Last Days; 3) The Spirit Empowers the Gospel; 4) The Spirit Joins His People Together In the Fellowship of the Church.

The highlight of the celebration, which people were still talking about at the dinner table, came with the scripture lesson – Acts 2, of course. The lesson was read by my daughter in English. When she reached verse 4 a chorus of voices joined in from various places around the chapel, reading along in Slovakian, Spanish, French, Dutch and Greek, the languages represented in our congregation. The effect of the cacophony was dramatic and, after people got over the shock of what appeared as a disruption, we started to get the point: The Spirit is gathering an international, multi-lingual, multi-racial and multi-cultural people. He is even doing so in our little church. Cool!

Of course being north of 49 we were not hampered by Memorial Day. I don’t know how you might get around it but it does seem to me that a patriotic holiday is the last thing that could be combined with the deliberate internationality of Pentecost. The question is what gives when the two commemorations happen on the same day? It seems like a lot of churches have decided that the Spirit would have to give.

Thanks everyone for the discipline advice. If his dad and I weren’t such cripples right now it would have been easier to deal with.

Angry Boy is with his sister in SC for a couple of days. When he gets back he’ll see his room cleaned and painted. He’ll also see the mountains of theology books to pack and closets fulls of china to wrap. He will be busy till Jesus comes.

Alex, I certainly wasn’t commending Hedges to the bar as a defender of orthodoxy (Jewish, Christian or Muslim). I probably agree on all your points of fiskness. I linked it because I thought it an interesting exchange between militant atheism and moralistic religiosity. I thought Hedges provided some helpful hooks on which to hang his quasi-natural-law argument, and so it wasn’t the typical squishy spirituality (which, ironically enough is espoused by Harris, the militant atheist). Also, he seems to have a better grasp than Harris of the facts regarding sociological effects of monotheism, effects which are a common bit of evidence used in Christian apologetics, too. There are a couple other Romans 1 type reasons I commended it, but enough for now…

It all depends. How bad was the poetry? (sw) I think I hear your concern as more about the defiance than the actual offense, so I’m with Tim.

However, you could always repaint part of his room with this...all future problems averted.

Theology Unplugged takes a very balanced and sympathetic look at the Beckwith reversion. (The page is messed up in my Firefox. Look to the far right for the link.)

Kevin looks at Mitt Romney’s favorite book: Battlefield Earth.

12 Marks of the New Monasticism.

What a refreshing Sunday we had in NYC. Worshipping at Redeemer PCA. The worship service content is powerfully done, full of the gospel from start to finish. Dr. Keller preached from Deuteronomy 5 with too many brilliant points to enumerate them all, but his application of Deuteronomy 5:24-29 and the Divine Longing for obedience from us so that it would go well with us was particularly powerful. He compared it to Christ’s longing for Jerusalem when He wept over it Luke 19:41 and lamented that the things that would give them peace were hidden from their eyes. Secularism makes us selfish individualistic people, but religion makes us Tribal self righteous sectarians. The gospel gives us a social conscience and concern for our community.

MOD: I’ll assume that Pentecost wasn’t mentioned. True?

Michael, No mention of Pentecost, or Memorial Day.  

Michael—Don’t forget Paul Lynde, who was around at roughly the same time.

Oh, by the way, how far away are you from Ken Ham’s new Creation Science Museum, which is opening to great ridicule (deservedly so).

MOD: I didn’t google it, but if it’s on the Ky side of Cinci, then about 3.5 hours. We anticipate a flood of field trip requests from some of our teachers over this one.

Not The Messiah is coming from the brain of Eric Idle. Heard him interviewed about this on The Hour. Life of Brian performed as an oratorio.

CT’s review of Pirates III.

Larry Osborne writes about spiritual disciplines for the rest of us.

Jim: That’s the kind of generous reading of America The Beautiful I’ve always taken, but as my ministry has come to include more and more internationals, songs like this have started to sound to me quite different than they did before. The song is absent the gospel and replaces the people of God entirely with the entity “America.” Even the prayers are addressed to that entity rather than to God.

Charles Nelson Reilly, the most famous gay man on tv before gay men were on tv, has died.

A small typo in the IM comments: “”Thankfully the church I’m in now doesn’t sing those songs and has fags from all over the world hanging in the sanctuary…”

Oops, I meant Hedges, not Hitchens. Maybe it was an unconscious acknowledgment that there’s not a heck of a lot of difference between them when you