How To Argue the Existence of Purgatory by Jason Evert

1. What good are prayers for the dead? If a person is in heaven, he doesn’t need prayers, and if he is damned, then no amount of prayers will help him.

Catholics and Protestants can agree on two things regarding the afterlife: Souls in hell will not grow close to God, and those in heaven cannot draw any nearer to him. If purgatory does not exist, prayers for the dead are useless. But if a state of purification exists for some after death, and if prayers can help others in their process of sanctification in this life (Job 1:5: 1 Thess. 5:23), it seems reasonable that prayers would be beneficial to those who are being sanctified after this life. This narrows down the essential question: Does purgatory exist?

If sin still clings to Christians (Heb 12:1), but there is no sin in heaven (Rev. 21:27), there must be a purification that takes place after ones death and before one enters heaven. Even if it were "in the blink of an eye," this final stage of sanctification must take place, so those who die in God's favor may be cleansed if any affection for sin remains in them.

Paul mentions this in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15: "Each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work, which any man has built on the foundation, survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

Paul's thought calls to mind the image of God as the refiner's fire and fuller's soap mentioned in Malachi 3:2. Fuller's soap removed stains from clothing. A refiners fire was an oven of intense heat where precious metals were placed in order to purify them of their corrosion and dross. In the same way, purgatory is when a soul is immersed into the fire of God's love and lifted out of the residue of its imperfections.

2. The only reason the Catholic Church invented this unbiblical idea of purgatory is to make money off the faithful who think that they can save their unrepentant deceased relatives by paying for Masses.

Does the Church amass wealth off of the doctrine of purgatory? The average Mass stipend (which is optional) is around five dollars. Say a parish had two daily Masses offered for the dead, it would amount to 70 dollars a week. Considering that the five-dollar stipend typically goes to pay for the church's electricity, maintenance, furnishings, salaries, Mass wine and bread, etc., it is apparent how silly this objection about "wealth" is.

Can Masses said after a person's death save his soul? No. Purgatory is only for those who have repented and have died in God's grace but still have some attachment to sin. While the Church cannot judge souls, we can be certain that if a person dies in a state of mortal sin without asking God's forgiveness, purgatory does not await him as if it were a second chance.

3. Weren't prayers for the dead an invention of the medieval Church?

Prayers for the dead are not only older than the Middle Ages, they predate Christianity. In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee and his companions pray for the souls of departed soldiers: "It was a holy and pious thought. Therefore, he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (2 Macc. 12:45). While Protestants do not accept this as an inspired book, it is worthwhile to point out that even today Jews have a prayer called the Mourner's Kaddish that is offered for the purification of the deceased.

This practice of praying for the dead is also recorded throughout ancient Christian documents, such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and in the writings of Perpetua, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Salamis, John Chrysostom, and Augustine. Since all of these men wrote between A.D. 160 and 421, prayers for the souls in purgatory can hardly be considered a medieval invention. On the contrary, refusing to pray for the dead is a novel idea in light of historic Judaism and Christianity.

4. The idea of souls needing prayers in purgatory seems so contrary to the gospel that no Bible-believing Christian could believe it.

Actually, since roughly 50 percent of all Christians are Catholics and 25 percent are Orthodox, about three-quarters of all Christians believe it. Certain Protestants, such as C.S. Lewis, have also held to the truth of the doctrine. In his Letters to Malcom, he said, "Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?

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

5. But purgatory implies that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient, that he didn't finish the work of redemption on Calvary. Why do Catholics feel the need to add to it by doing more work in purgatory?

This objection is based on a pair of erroneous presumptions: That progressive sanctification and suffering take away from Christ's work on Calvary and that the Church teaches that purgatory is work.

To address the second objection first, purgatory is not a place for those bad Catholics who didn't finish working their way to heaven while on earth. "For by grace you have been saved by faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). The purification that takes place in purgatory is purely a work of God's grace, since there is no chance for merit after death, and the judgment of each individual is based solely upon their earthly life. But regardless of where Christ purifies men, it is precisely because his sacrifice was sufficient that each believer can be perfected.

Though Christ paid the infinite debt of man's sins 2,000 years ago, the sanctification process in the life each Christian continues. In 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Paul tells the faithful, "May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." According to Scripture, sanctification is a thing of the past (1 Cor. 6:11), present (1 Thess. 4:3), and future (1 Thess. 5:23) in the Christian life.

This process often involves suffering, as Paul indicates: "Let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus as the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross… 'My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. For the Lord disciplines whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. [God] disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Heb. 12:1-12).

Therefore, the presence of suffering does not detract from Christ's sacrifice. In fact, there is only one mention in all of Scripture of something "lacking in Christ's afflictions," and that missing link is the suffering of his mystical body, the Church (Col. 1:24).

6. I can accept that suffering happens to each believer, but Christ paid all punishments for sin. If purgatory is a punishment, then it means Christ left some part of the debt unpaid.

Some Christians maintain that all temporal punishments for sin are taken away if the person has repented. But the Bible indicates that although God takes away the eternal punishment, some temporal punishments may remain.

In the Old Testament, God forgave David, but still took the life of his son (2 Sam. 12:13-14). In the New Testament, Christ reiterates this principle, "Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny" (Matt. 5:25-26). It can also be mentioned that women still experience the temporal punishment of birthpangs (Gen. 3:16), although Christ paid the infinite debt of man's original sin (Rom. 5:12—21).

The sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice is not lessened by the fact that God's work of perfecting his children is a process that often involves suffering and even temporal punishment. While "for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant" (Heb 12:11), it is all a part of God’s promise made through Paul, "that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6), even if it should be "as through fire" (1 Cor. 3:15).

© This Rock, Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17490, San Diego, CA 92177, (619) 541-1131.

This item 3302 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org

Online Debate

DEBATE: Faith and Works in Justification

John Martignoni v Joe Mizzi

Debate

The debate begins with John giving evidence that Joe misrepresents the
Catholic teaching on justification and works; whereas Joe starts by answering
John’s question on salvation. This is followed by rebuttals and final
conclusions. A maximum of 600 words are allowed for each person per
round. The debate is published on both John’s and Joe’s websites. We hope
to finish the debate in about 3 weeks.

Participants

Bio of John Martignoni

Born Catholic. Saved by Baptism (1 Ptr 3:20-21) as an infant. Teaches
Catholic and non-Catholic alike, using the Bible, that the Catholic Faith is the
faith of the Bible; the faith of the Apostles; the faith of the early Christians.
Prays that we all may be one (John 17:20-21).

Website: Bible Christian Society
www.biblechristiansociety.com

Bio of Joe Mizzi

A former Roman Catholic; lives in Malta of Acts 28:1; a paediatrician.
Converted to Christ when he was convinced that salvation is by grace through
faith, not of works. Desires to share the gospel of grace with all people,
especially with Catholics whom he knows and loves dearly.

Website: Just for Catholics
www.justforcatholics.org

SOURCE: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/page/FaithAndWorksInJustification

Round One - Martignoni

Round 1

To show that Dr. Mizzi has misrepresented Catholic teaching on salvation, I wish to start by quoting his website:

“So then, what is required for a person to be justified at the end [according to Catholic teaching], that is, to be accounted to have fully satisfied divine law, and therefore to merit eternal life? Trent answers: THEIR GOOD WORKS!”

I have read through the Council of Trent’s “Decree on Justification,” and nowhere do I find it saying what Dr. Mizzi claims it says. So, first I would ask him to give me the exact quotes that he uses to come to the conclusion he has stated on his website. Where does the Council of Trent say that men are accounted as having fully satisfied divine law by “THEIR GOOD WORKS!”?

Next, I will give the actual words of the Council of Trent regarding justification (as found in: “The Sources of Catholic Dogma,” by Denzinger):

“...so unless [men] were born again in Christ, they never would be justified, since in that new birth through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just, is bestowed upon them.” (Denzinger, p. 249)

“...man himself receiving that inspiration [of the Holy Spirit] does nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he, of his own free will, without the grace of God, move himself to justice before Him.” (Denzinger, p. 250)

“...the meritorious cause [of man’s justification] is His most beloved only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who…merited justification for us by His most holy passion on the wood of the Cross, and made satisfaction for us to God the Father…” (Denzinger, p. 251)

“...no one can be just but he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated…” (Denzinger, p. 251)

“...we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because ‘faith is the beginning of human salvation,’ the foundation and root of all justification, ‘without which it is impossible to please God’ [Heb 11:6] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and are, therefore, said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification; for, ‘if it is a grace, it is not now by reason of works…’” (Denzinger, p. 252)

“Canon 1: If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.” (Denzinger, p.258)

Again, Dr. Mizzi has misrepresented the Catholic Faith by giving visitors to his website the impression that the Church teaches that our works, in and of themselves, “merit eternal life.” That our works, in and of themselves, “fully satisfy divine law.” Yet, I have shown that the Council of Trent, which he claimed as the source for his misrepresentations, clearly teaches that we can do nothing pleasing to God in and of ourselves. That without the merits of Jesus’ death on the cross, we are lost.

Dr. Mizzi’s position on justification is actually very close to the Catholic position on justification. The difference is that he believes we cannot “merit” anything. But, instead of focusing on that aspect of our differences on his website, he has instead distorted the whole of Catholic teaching in this area by claiming Trent teaches we are saved by our good works…period! The quotes above show that he is indeed distorting Catholic teaching.

Round One - Mizzi

Round 1

Is whether or not we have faith, God’s sole criteria for judging us worthy of salvation?

John, your question is designed to re-word my belief in ‘salvation by faith alone’, and you expect me to answer ‘yes’. I cannot! Your question reflects a serious misunderstanding of the Protestant doctrine of ‘faith alone’. You confuse the biblical doctrine of justification by faith with the eternal foe of the gospel – antinomianism. There are heretics (not least in evangelical circles) who say: ‘I believe in Jesus for salvation; I will go to heaven whether or not I do good works.’ Sadly they are deceived with a false gospel. It does not take some gross sin to keep someone out of heaven—it is enough to do nothing. Christ calls such a person ‘wicked and lazy’. The last words he will ever hear from the mouth of Christ are horrible: ‘Cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matthew 25:14-30).

What then do we mean by ‘faith alone’? Simply this: ‘to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness’ (Romans 4:5). God justifies him who ‘believes’ and ‘does not work’! That is what ‘alone’ implies. The sinner relies by faith in Christ for justification and not on account of his works. I turn to God and say, ‘Lord God, I am not worthy of salvation. I am a guilty; I deserve wrath and hell. Please do not judge me according to my sins. Have mercy on me. I have no confidence in myself; I do not present my merits. By faith I rely on Jesus Christ your Son. Cover me with his righteousness, cleanse me with his blood.’ ‘Faith alone’ is a complete and exclusive dependence on the Lord Jesus Christ for justification.

What is the place for good works in the Christian experience? Christians are eager to do good works because God has already declared us just. He freed us from sin; we now have the liberty to live for God who loved us so much!

In Ephesians 2:8-10, the Bible teaches that we are not saved because of our good deeds (‘not of works, lest anyone should boast’). But that is only half the story. The same passage also teaches that we are saved for a very specific purpose, namely, to do good works (‘created in Christ Jesus to do good works’). Works are not the cause, but rather the result (the purpose, the fruit) of salvation. Thus good works must always accompany true faith; if they are absent there is neither living faith nor salvation.

Believers will not stand before God to be decided whether he will be ‘justified’ (declared just) or ‘condemned’ (declared guilty). ‘Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Romans 5:1). ‘Having been justified’ – God has already declared every believer ‘justified’. We ‘shall not come into judgment’ (John 5:24).

So why should we stand before the judgment seat of Christ at all? Principally to be rewarded for our deeds. On that Day we will not be charged before a criminal court; rather it is our graduation day! ‘Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work’ (Revelation 22:12).

I am motivated by God’s love to do the works that please him that I may become more and more like his Son. I do not perform works to merit justification – for justification is God’s gratuitous gift, purchased for us with the infinite price of the blood of Jesus, and received by faith alone.

Round Two - Mizzi

Round 2

John you have demonstrated that the Council of Trent ‘clearly teaches that we can do nothing pleasing to God in and of ourselves.’ I fully agree. Catholicism opposes the Pelagian heresy that we can merit eternal life by our natural ability.

Now if I wrote that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by our works ‘in and of themselves’, or if I taught that ‘Trent teaches we are saved by our good works… period!’, then I would have indeed misrepresented the Catholic position. But I wrote nothing of the sort! Not even did I give the impression that Catholicism teaches salvation by works ‘in and of themselves’, as I will presently show by asking you to read my words in context.

I quote at length from my article to which you referred (emphasis added). Trent’s decree on Justification can be read online (different translation).

In other words, Rome teaches that God helps man to do good works and hence to fully satisfy the Law. Only then is a person qualified to enter heaven. The Council of Trent elaborates this idea in chapter 16:

“For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, – as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches, – and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God, – we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace…”

To be fair, we should acknowledge that a great emphasis is placed on Jesus Christ and the grace of God. Good works do not originate in man’s natural ability but can only be performed through Jesus Christ. Yet, it is also true that these works do not cease to be the good works of the Christian; personal works give him the right to heaven.

So then, what is required for a person to be justified at the end, that is, to be accounted to have fully satisfied divine law, and therefore to merit eternal life? Trent answers: THEIR GOOD WORKS! Their good works fully satisfy the divine law. Their works merit eternal life.

John, did I really state or imply that Catholicism teaches salvation by works ‘in and of themselves’? Did I not clarify that good works are done by God’s help; that Catholicism emphasizes God’s grace; that the works are performed through Jesus Christ? Did I not specifically refuse the false idea that Catholicism teaches that our works originate in our natural ability?

John, your allegation is false. You have falsely accused me of the very thing that I took pains to refute!

Moreover my assertion on the Catholic teaching on justification (that personal good works satisfy divine law and merit eternal life) is correct; it is deduced from Trent chapter 16 quoted above. For notwithstanding the grace of God and the merits of Jesus Christ, ultimately, your personal works are in a very real sense your own. Canon 32 places a curse on your head if you deny that your good works are not your own good merits.

Lord willing, next week we’ll compare the Catholic doctrine with the evangelical message of justification by faith apart from our merits.

Round Two - Martignoni

Round 2

Well, I would never want to be so impertinent as to tell a man he doesn’t believe what he says he believes. So, if my question to Dr. Mizzi about the criteria for salvation is based on a misunderstanding of what Dr. Mizzi believes in regards to the doctrine of Sola Fide…salvation by faith alone…then I apologize. I give him his belief as he defines it. I challenge him to do the same towards Catholics.

The problem is, though, that while Dr. Mizzi claims his interpretation of “salvation by faith alone” is THE accurate understanding of the doctrine, I deal with many Protestants who would disagree 100% with his assertion regarding the definition of “salvation by faith alone.” These people say that works have no role in salvation whatsoever. And, all of these folks point to the Bible as the sole source of their beliefs and claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

So, I hope Dr. Mizzi will understand the nature of my confusion regarding his belief on the doctrine of Sola Fide. Now, he will undoubtedly claim that all Protestants (or anyone else for that matter) who disagree with him are, of course, wrong. Just as these other Protestants would tell me he is wrong. So, my question is, who do I, as a Catholic, turn to for a definitive ruling on the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, when different Protestants tell me different things, and they all point to the Bible as the source for their beliefs?

Dr. Mizzi will not only use the Bible, though, he will also use history – which is a legitimate and logical thing to do. I believe Dr. Mizzi will claim that his understanding of this doctrine of Sola Fide represents the “historical Protestant doctrine on Justification.” But, exactly where does one go to find out the “historical Protestant doctrine on Justification?” And, who exactly is it that decided the “historical Protestant doctrine on Justification?” There aren’t any Protestant councils one can point to for authentic Protestant teaching. No Protestant catechism.

Could we say that the beliefs of Martin Luther and John Calvin represent the “historical Protestant doctrine on Justification?” That would make sense, wouldn’t it? The beliefs on Justification of the two main founders of Protestantism would indeed represent the “historical Protestant doctrine on Justification,” right?

But, that would present a problem to Dr. Mizzi. If the beliefs of Martin Luther and John Calvin can be said to represent the “historical Protestant doctrine on Justification,” then why does he believe in some historical Protestant doctrines, but not others? For example, both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, yet Dr. Mizzi does not.

So, if the beliefs of Martin Luther and John Calvin can be said to represent historical Protestant doctrine, then Dr. Mizzi is, in a sense, talking out of both sides of his mouth. He believes historical Protestant doctrine in one area (because it fits with his beliefs), but he doesn’t believe historical Protestant doctrine in another area (because it doesn’t fit with his beliefs).

So, Dr. Mizzi, please tell us how you know what historical Protestant doctrine is? Is it the teaching of Luther and Calvin? If it is, then why don’t you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, like they did? If it’s not, then what is it?

Now, to close, at the end of Dr. Mizzi’s comments he stated: “I do not perform works to merit justification – for justification is God’s gratuitous gift…” As I pointed out in my first round comments, the Council of Trent states that very thing. Dr. Mizzi is perilously close to Catholic teaching.

Round Three - Martignoni

Round 3

I disagree strongly when Joe says that his website does not even give the “impression” that Catholicism teaches salvation by works “in and of themselves.” I got that impression, as have others.

One gets that impression because he states that we believe our “personal works” give us the “right” to Heaven. That is not even a wrong impression, that is a flat out MISREPRESENTATION. Where does the Council of Trent teach that? It doesn’t. So, Joe, please remove that FALSE STATEMENT from your site.

One also gets that impression when he states: “So then, what is required for a person to be justified at the end…Trent answers: THEIR GOOD WORKS.” Why don’t you instead say: “Trent answers: JESUS’ DEATH ON THE CROSS (Decree on Justification – chapter 7), FAITH (chapter 8), BEING BORN AGAIN (chapter 3), AND GOOD WORKS (chapter 10)?” Why do you just say “GOOD WORKS” ALONE and LEAVE OUT all the rest? You’re not trying to create an impression of Catholic teaching as a “works alone” salvation? Then include the full answer from Trent.

We believe almost the same thing about faith and works with the following exception: Catholics believe good works do indeed merit an INCREASE in justification, AFTER we are justified; whereas, you do not. Why not focus on that? Why state it the way you have if your intent is not to mislead?

We can merit an increase in justification, because after we are justified gratuitously by God, we are then members of the Body of Christ. Before justification, we cannot merit anything. But, after justification, we can merit an increase. Does Christ merit? Of course He does. If the Head merits, does not the body also merit? Of course it does. It would be foolish to say that the Head merits but the hand or the foot does not.

2 Cor 3:18, “And we all…are being changed from one degree of glory to another…” So, we can increase in justification…in glory. But, do we merit anything in this increase in glory?

Heb 13:16, “Do not neglect to do good…for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” How can our sacrifices be “pleasing to God,” if we don’t merit anything? Shouldn’t it say that Jesus’ sacrifice is the only sacrifice pleasing to God?

Heb 13:20-21, “Now may the God of peace…equip you with everything good that YOU may do His will, working in YOU that which is pleasing in His sight…” We can merit because it is Christ working through us. Christ is crowning His own merits manifested in us.

Heb 10:35, “Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.”
Matt 5:11-12, “Blessed are you when men revile you…Rejoice and be glad for your reward is great in heaven.”
1 Cor 3:14, “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.”

There are many other passages that speak of a reward for what we do. How can we receive a reward for our works, if our works do not merit anything? A reward is something given in return for something we do.

Matt 25:14-30…the two good servants increase what their Master has given them, and they merit a reward for it. The bad servant does not, and he is cast into the outer darkness.

As members of the Body of Christ, we can merit and do merit increases in grace, after our justification…just as the Church and the Bible teach. By producing good fruit (John 15:1-6) we, the branches, abide in Christ and merit, by Christ the vine working through us, increases in grace. Very biblical. Very Catholic.

Round Three - Mizzi

Round 3

John I accept your apology. Your misunderstanding of sola fide gives me great hope. You are not opposing the biblical gospel but the antinomian pseudo-gospel. In this fight, I am on your side. Moreover, I am hopeful that one day you will understand and receive the evangelical message for your salvation.

Your rebuttal deviates from our subject, Justification, to the field of epistemology. Important as that is, we must keep to our topic. I will not attempt to give a full answer; suffice it to say that the historic Protestant doctrine is recorded in the historical confessions (Thirty-nine Articles; Belgic, Augsburg, 1689 Baptist, Westminster, etc). Protestants do not agree on everything (do you?), but it is gloriously true that God granted us perfect agreement on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, as the Protestant confessions testify.

Back to our subject. I must emphasize that sola fide is not:

Faith = Justification minus Works

That’s antinomianism, making works unnecessary or optional in the Christian experience. Heretical!

Sola fide includes works as a necessary aspect of God’s salvivic purpose. Sola fide is:

Faith = Justification plus Works

We believe that a person is justified by faith alone, apart from the merits of personal works, on account of the righteousness and blood of Jesus. We come to God empty-handed, without merits, and appeal for mercy and grace, asking God to give us what we do not deserve. By faith we rely on Jesus Christ alone for our justification, being convinced that his sacrifice on the cross is sufficient to cleanse us from all sin.

Now God’s purpose is not only our liberation from guilt and condemnation; he also determined that his people should be zealous for good works. The same faith that justifies, uniting us to Christ, also results in a godly and holy life. Good works follow justification – as one historic Protestant confession states: good works ‘do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.’

Yet we do not dream on relying on those works for our justification. For justification we believe in Christ – in Christ alone!

How does this compare with the Catholic doctrine? Catholicism also has works as a necessary factor in the formula, but there is a fundamental difference. Catholicism teaches:

Faith plus Works = Justification

Faith is important; Catholicism does not teach justification by works alone. Yet faith is insufficient to secure a right standing before God according to Catholic teaching. The merits of personal works performed throughout the Catholic’s life, must be added so that at the end he will be accounted to have fully satisfied the divine law and merited eternal life. I hope you can appreciate the difference between the Catholic and evangelical message.

Good works, like a kiss, could be the sign of opposite things. Good works are the Christian’s kiss of love and gratitude to the Saviour. But good works could also be a Judas kiss betraying the grace of Christ. For pretending to believe in Jesus, many religious people will not completely trust in him for justification, but work and toil to merit what God gives freely for Christ’s sake alone.

John I appeal to you, and to the readers of this debate, to examine your deepest motives. Do I trust completely in Jesus Christ alone for my justification? Is there concrete evidence in my life, good works, that my faith is real? And finally, am I doing works out of love for Christ, or for the purpose of meriting justification?

I have an Evangelical friend at work who claims that the Catholic belief in Purgatory is not scriptural. What should I say to him?

SOURCE:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#15

2 Sam 12:13-18, “David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ And Nathan said to David, ‘The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.’ And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became sick…On the seventh day the child died.” Catholic Scriptural Principle #1 – there is punishment for sin even after one has received forgiveness.

Rev 21:27, “But nothing unclean shall enter it…” The New Jerusalem – Heaven. Catholic Scriptural Principle #2 – nothing unclean, nothing with the stain of sin, will enter Heaven.

Mt 5:48, “You, therefore, must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” That’s because of Principle #2 – nothing unclean will get into Heaven.

Heb 12:22-23, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living god, the heavenly Jerusalem...and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect…” The spirits of just men, made perfect. Catholic Scriptural Principle #3 – there is a way, a process, through which the spirits of the “just” are “made perfect.”

1 Cor 3:13-15, “…each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day [judgment day] will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” Where is this place that a man, after he dies, suffers loss, as through fire, but is still saved. Hell? No, once you’re in Hell, you don’t get out. Heaven? No, you don’t suffer loss in Heaven.

Mt 12:32, “And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Implies forgiveness in the age to come. Where can you go to be forgiven in the age to come? Heaven? You don’t need forgiveness. Hell? There is no forgiveness. Catholic Scriptural Principle #4 – there is a place, or state of being, other than Heaven or Hell.

Now, let’s summarize these four scriptural principles: There is punishment for sin even after one has received forgiveness. We have to be perfect as the Father is perfect, because nothing unclean will enter Heaven. There is some way, or process, by which the spirits of the just are made perfect. There is a place besides Heaven or Hell where you can suffer loss, yet be saved, but only as through fire; and where you can be forgiven of sins from a previous age. It all adds up to one inevitable conclusion - the Catholic teaching on Purgatory is indeed scriptural.

Question to All Protestants....

Source: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter_details.php?id=166

1) Where in the Bible does it say that we should go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? Scripture verse?

2) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?

3) Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Scripture verse?

4) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?

5) If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

6) Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

7) If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

8) Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was? Scripture verse?

9) Is keeping someone from profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord an act of charity? Yes or no?

10) By using musical instruments in your worship services, even though you know folks in the Churches of Christ believe that musical instruments should not be used in worship services, are you being “exclusive” in your worship service? Yes or no?

11) Do you interpret the Bible? Yes or no?

12) If the answer to #11 is yes, is your interpretation infallible? Yes or no?

13) If the answer to #12 is no, then will you admit that your interpretations of the Bible could be wrong in one or more places? Yes or no?

14) If the answer to #11 is yes, then does anyone have the authority to tell you, Matt Johnson, that your interpretations of the Bible are wrong? Yes or no?

15) If the answer to #14 is yes, then who? Just one name please.

16) Do you believe that participating at the Lord’s Table in an “unworthy manner” and “profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord” would cause grave peril to someone...either physically or spiritually? Yes or no?

17) If the answer to #16 is yes, then shouldn’t pastors continually warn their congregations about participating unworthily at the Lord’s Table? Yes or no?

18) Do you believe that profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord is a serious sin? Yes or no?

19) Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?

20) Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?

21) Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?

22) Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?

23) Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

24) Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?

25) Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?

26) In your church, can two walk together if they are not in agreement? Yes or no?

27) Did Jesus give his real flesh or his symbolic flesh for the life of the world? Real or symbolic?

28) Did Jesus say that the bread he would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no?

29) Did Jesus say that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life? Yes or no?

30) Did Jesus say that His flesh was food indeed and that His blood was drink indeed? Yes or no?

31) Do you believe the Body of Christ, the church, with Jesus as its head, can teach error in the areas of faith and morals? Yes or no?

32) If all scholars disagree as to what constitutes exegesis and eisegesis, then do you know with 100% certainty what constitutes exegesis and eisegesis? Yes or no?

33) Can God appear to you under any form He chooses? Yes or no?

34) Is the correlation I am drawing between the flesh that Jesus shall give for the life of the world and the bread that Jesus shall give us to eat, found in John 6:51? Yes or no?

35) Do we need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life? Yes or no?

36) If the answer to #35 is yes, then can we say that His flesh does indeed profit us? Yes or no?

37) If the answer to #36 is yes, then does verse 62 of John 6 mean that it counts as nothing to eat Jesus’ flesh and to drink His blood? Yes or no?

38) Does Jesus’ flesh “count for nothing?” Yes or no?

39) Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?

40) If #39 is yes, is your interpretation of Scripture infallible? Yes or no?

41) Am I an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?

42) If you are not an authentic interpreter of Scripture, then who is?