Canon

[Lanakila]

Munari, I am sorry but I have never heard those scriptures interpreted in that way (applied to purgatory). 1 Cor 3:15, my commentary says this is talking about loss of rewards, with our works (wood, hay, stubble) are burned up because of impure motives and attitudes. Luke 12:59 (is a parable talking about the signs the Pharisees did not recognise that Christ was performing then, and is nothing to do with purgatory of any type) Rev 21:27 (wow, thinking we need to get cleaned up after being washed in the blood of the lamb) and Maccabees is Apocraphal literature, so I won't comment on it.  

[Chazn]

Lanakila, thank you for your response.  I was troubled that I had neither the time nor the inclination to respond to Munari.  Perhaps I'm being somewhat simplistic but God gives us only so much time to do so many things and I think that He would rather me argue about more relevant things (like telling unbelievers about the love of Jesus).  Nevertheless, I think that, from the direction that this thread has taken us, we've gone from a discussion of what determines canonicity to the veracity of the doctrine of purgatory.

THE APOSTLE PAUL WRITES:

But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.  (2 Timothy 2:23)

and

nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. (1 Timothy 1:4).

I think that our discussion certainly has led me to the conclusion that Apocryphal literature yields fodder for just such fruitless and conjectural speculations.  They do, indeed, produce quarrels and characterize many cultish practices and doctrines which presume upon things that we mortals not only don't know but are called upon to place trustingly into the hands of God.  

I think that canonicity is indeed discernible but not necessariily agreed upon depending upon the specific herecies one wishes to get behind. e.g. The Apocrypha is canonical for proponents of prayer to the saints and purgatory as well as other such doctrines.  The book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price is canonical for proponents of the heretical notion that God is subject to the creation, temporal and we humans can become like Him.

The Bible seems to allow for footholds for such speculations.  It also provides evidence to the contrary. But it obviously warns against jumping conclusions and violating the above admonissions of Paul.

"By grace are we saved through faith, yet not of ourselves LEST ANY OF US SHOULD BOAST.

Blessings in the name of the one who died so that we might live.

[Guest racer]

Chazn,

I don't think that Scripture is going to tell us something does not exist, if it was never in God's plan.

[Guest racer]

Chazn,

This isn't exactly he exerpt from Iraneaus that I wanted to give to you.  But, I got so engrossed in what I was reading and found something that I think pertains to your question about canon.

Chapter I.-The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth.

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.<footnote/fn73.htm> For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews<footnote/fn73.htm> in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Chapter II.-The Heretics Follow Neither Scripture Nor Tradition.

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. **NOTE: Sound familiar:???: For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viv

[munari]

Munari, I am sorry but I have never heard those scriptures interpreted in that way (applied to purgatory). 1 Cor 3:15, my commentary says this is talking about loss of rewards, with our works (wood, hay, stubble) are burned up because of impure motives and attitudes. Luke 12:59 (is a parable talking about the signs the Pharisees did not recognise that Christ was performing then, and is nothing to do with purgatory of any type) Rev 21:27 (wow, thinking we need to get cleaned up after being washed in the blood of the lamb) and Maccabees is Apocraphal literature, so I won't comment on it.  

I wouldn't suspect you WOULD hear those interpreted that way since the Church (and Churches... I can't remember if you were ever Catholic) you attend do not hold a belief in purgatory...  I'm trying to imagine a chruch saying, "Now, you see verses X, Y, and Z teach about a place called Purgatory, but we don't believe in it!"       Just because you haven't heard that interpretation before does not make it an inaccurate interpretation. Keep an open mind toward the Catholic ideas... you might be surprised at what you find.

[Guest racer]

Chazn,

Finally found the exerpts from Iraneaus that I wanted to post for you.  From Iraneaus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXVIII, Perfect Knowledge Cannot Be Attained in the Present Life:  Many Questions Must Be Submissively Left in the Hands of God

I wish I could post the whole thing, but this is the most telling:

7. But we shall not be wrong if we affirm the same thing also concerning the substance of matter, that God produced it. For we have learned from the Scriptures that God holds the supremacy over all things. But whence or in what way He produced it, neither has Scripture anywhere declared; nor does it become us to conjecture, so as, in accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself. In like manner, also, we must leave the cause why, while all things were made by God, certain of His creatures sinned and revolted from a state of submission to God, and others, indeed the great majority, persevered, and do still persevere, in [willing] subjection to Him who formed them, and also of what nature those are who sinned, and of what nature those who persevere,-[we must, I say, leave the cause of these things] to God and His Word, to whom alone He said, "Sit at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool."241 But as for us, we still dwell upon the earth, and have not yet sat down upon His throne. For although the Spirit of the Saviour that is in Him "searcheth all things, even the deep things of God,"242 yet as to us "there are diversities of gifts, differences of administrations, and diversities of operations; "243 and we, while upon the earth, as Paul also declares, "know in part, and prophesy in part."244 Since, therefore, we know but in part, we ought to leave all sorts of [difficult] questions in the hands of Him who in some measure, [and that only, ] bestows grace on us. That eternal fire, [for instance, ] is prepared for sinners, both the Lord has plainly declared, and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate. And that God fore-knew that this would happen, the Scriptures do in like manner demonstrate, since He prepared eternal fire from the beginning for those who were [afterwards] to transgress [His commandments]; but the cause itself of the nature of such transgressors neither has any Scripture informed us, nor has an apostle told us, nor has the Lord taught us. It becomes us, therefore, to leave the knowledge of this matter to God, even as the Lord does of the day and hour [of judgment], and not to rush to such an extreme of danger, that we will leave nothing in the hands of God, even though we have received only a measure of grace [from Him in this world]. But when we investigate points which are above us, and with respect to which we cannot reach satisfaction, [it is absurd245 ] that we should display such an extreme of presumption as to lay open God, and things which are not yet discovered,246 as if already we had found out, by the vain talk about emissions, God Himself, the Creator of all things, and to assert that He derived His substance from apostasy and ignorance, so as to frame an impious hypothesis in opposition to God.

[Guest astralis]

As an aside I find your quote of Irenaeus very helpful in dealing with other doctrines presented by various cults who dogmatically address issues that scripture seems to leave somewhat open ended.  (But that discussion is fodder for another thread which has already been a toppic of discussion elsewhere).

Chazn and racer,

 St. Irenaeus used the Apocrypha like all other Christians until Protestants cut it out in the Reformation.  Try to find early Christian manuscripts without the deuterocanonical books.

[Guest racer]

astralis,

Chazn and racer,

St. Irenaeus used the Apocrypha like all other Christians until Protestants cut it out in the Reformation.  Try to find early Christian manuscripts without the deuterocanonical books.

OwKAY.   Can you back that up?  Also, I was wondering do you mean he used the Apocrypha or Deuterocanons?

Besides, the Apocrypha is not the issue here, or at least the discussion has not yet turned to the Apocrypha.  Chazn was just asking for biblical support or non-support for Purgatory.  My point with Iraneaus is, "if it ain't covered in Scripture, we don't need to be worryin' our pretty little heads 'bout it."  We need to leave it to God!  

[Guest astralis]

Racer,

OwKAY.    Can you back that up?

Yes.

Irenaeus

"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying

[Guest racer]

astralis,

First you said:

The Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonicals are the same thing.  Catholics call the Apocrypha, Deuterocanonicals.

The two titles may refer to the same texts, but the names are not synonamous.  There are those who draw a very definative line between the two!  Most RCs consistantly refer to them as Deuterocanonicals, and are offended if someone refers to them as Apocrypha.  Then, there are those who simply refer to them as Apocrypha, and give them absolutely no credence whatsoever.  I have never really came to a definative decision on them, other than I know that they are not quoted from in the New Testament.  My question is, "what bearing do they have on us now that we are under Grace?"

Now, as for your evidence of Iraneaus using the Apocypha as Scriptural reference.   This is what you proved to me.  Allow me to post another excerpt from Iraneaus' Against Heresies.  

"1. The following are the transactions which they narrate as having occurred outside of the Pleroma: The enthymesis of that Sophia who dwells above, which they also term Achamoth,57 being removed from the Pleroma, together with her passion, they relate to have, as a matter of course, become violently excited in those places of darkness and vacuity [to which she had been banished]. For she was excluded from light58 and the Pleroma, and was without form or figure, like an untimely birth, because she had received nothing59 [from a male parent]. But the Christ dwelling on high took pity upon her; and having extended himself through and beyond Stauros,60 he imparted a figure to her, but merely as respected substance, and not so as to convey intelligence.61 Having effected this, he withdrew his influence, and returned, leaving Achamoth to herself, in order that she, becoming sensible of her suffering as being severed from the Pleroma, might be influenced by the desire of better things, while she possessed in the meantime a kind of odour of immortality left in her by Christ and the Holy Spirit. Wherefore also she is called by two names-Sophia after her father (for Sophia is spoken of as being her father), and Holy Spirit from that Spirit who is along with Christ. Having then obtained a form, along with intelligence, and being immediately deserted by that Logos who had been invisibly present with her-that is, by Christ-she strained herself to discover that light which had forsaken her, but could not effect her purpose, inasmuch as she was prevented by Horos. And as Horos thus obstructed her further progress, he exclaimed, Iao,62 whence, they say, this name Iao derived its origin. And when she could not pass by Horos on account of that passion in which she had been involved, and because she alone had been left without, she then resigned herself to every sort of that manifold and varied state of passion to which she was subject; and thus she suffered grief on the one hand because she had not obtained the object of her desire, and fear on the other hand, lest life itself should fail her, as light had already done, while, in addition, she was in the greatest perplexity. All these feelings were associated with ignorance. And this ignorance of hers was not like that of her mother, the first Sophia, an Aeon, due to degeneracy by means of passion, but to an [innate] opposition [of nature to knowledge].63 Moreover, another kind of passion fell upon her her (Achamoth), namely, that of desiring to return to him who gave her life." (Against Heresies, 1:7:1)

I don't know how well read you are on Iraneaus.  But, don't you find the above quote just a tad bit deceptive as to what Iraneaus believed?  Oh, it's a genuine quote.  And you can find it in his writings--if you have the time or inclination.  But, this goes to show how important it is to include a quote or point-of-view in as much context as possible so the true meaning and intent can be known.

I'm not saying that I believe that what you posted is deceptive and does not reflect what Iraneaus may or may not have believed.  But, it's not very clear or decisive.  It's vague and with what little citation you provided, I'll will be searching for a while to find the post in complete context.  I've already spent an hour reading and haven't found the direct quote yet.