--A Ralph Johnson
Rome was one of the cities
where Christianity was established in the first century. Some early writers claimed that the church
there was started by Peter, as head of Christ’s church, and that from him they
the primacy of the Pope has been passed down through the centuries.
The Bible says nothing
either of Peter being head of the church, or that he was ever at Rome.
The papacy developed out of
a change of church government that developed in the second century A.D.. In the Bible, the church was established
with Elders having the oversight of each congregation. In the second century this was changed to
elevating a single Elder to oversight of the church in each city, known as a
“Bishop.”
The Bishop of Rome became
very influential because of Rome’s position as head of the Empire up until the
change to of the capitol to Constantinople.
Constantinople then gained influence, but was always under the control
of the Emperor. When the Western Roman
Empire fell to the Barbarians in 476, this gave Rome an independence enabling
the Bishop of Rome to develop a temporal (earthly political) empire. The influence of the church at
Constantinople was further diminished by the beginning and spread of Mohammadan
control from Arabia over the Middle East and North Africa after 625 A.D..
With the loss of
Constantinople and Greece to the Muslim Turks (1453), the influence of the
Bishop of Constantinople was moved into Russia and greatly diminished. With the rise of atheistic Communism and its
formation of the Soviet Union, the Eastern church’s influence was even more
diminished.
Hierarchical
A.
PRIMACY OF PETER. “Vicar of Christ.”
CATHOLIC CLAIM:
Peter is
the “rock” upon which the church was founded (Matt. 16:18-19).
Jesus
said, “You are Peter (a rock) and upon this rock I will build my church.”
ANSWER:
1. The text does not support such a claim.
4074 Petros
(noun, masculine)
¨
AV
– “Peter” 161 times, “stone” 1 time; 162 total
¨
Peter
= “a rock or a stone,” one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
4073 petra (noun, feminine)
¨
AV
- rock 16 times.
Thus, two different Greek
words are used in the text. The first, petros
[4074], “Peter” (-John 1:42 or “Cephas”
in Aramaic) is masculine gender, meaning, a stone.
The other, petra [4073], a rock, is
feminine, used several times in reference to Christ. It means a ledge of rock.
Peter [4074] is never called petra [4073].
Note:
“Petra” was the name of the city
carved in rock at the south end of the Dead Sea. The Hebrew word for this was,
“Sela.” This was the home of the
Edomites, descendants of Esau, Jacob's twin brother.
Matthew 16:18, “Petra,”
meaning a foundation rock, is the truth that Peter had just spoken, “You are the Christ” (16:16)
2. Christ is several times spoken of as “petra,” the rock [4073 ].
·
Matt. 7:24, 25. Those who hear the words of Christ and do them shall be likened to a
wise man who built his house upon a rock. [4073 petra ].
·
Rom. 9:33 He was a stumbling stone
[3037] and rock [4073 petra
] of offense.
·
1Cor. 10:4 they drank of that spiritual Rock
[4073 petra] that followed
them: and that Rock [4073 petra ] was Christ.
·
1Pet. 2:4-8 He is the chief corner stone (3037 lithos) laid on Zion. He is the rock [4073 petra] of offense.
4. To whom
coming, as unto a living stone [3037 lithos
], disallowed indeed of men, but chosen
of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones [3037 lithos ], are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained
in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone [3037 lithos ], elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be
disobedient, the stone [3037 lithos
] which the builders disallowed, the
same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone [3037 lithos ] of stumbling, and a rock [4073
petra] of offense, even to
them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were
appointed.
1Cor. 3:11 Other foundation
can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Acts 4:11. Jesus Christ of Nazareth is; “the stone [3037 lithos] which was set at nought of you the
builders, which was made the head of the corner.” (ASV)
Eph. 2:20. being built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being
the chief corner [stone]; (ASV)
3. Peter is never called “petra” [4073 ]
Eph. 2:20. Peter was part of the foundation along with the
other apostles, but Jesus is the chief corner stone.
4. Jesus, not Peter, was said to be head over all things in the church (Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:17, 18).
Christ has power over all things in heaven and on earth (Matt.
28:18, 20).
5. Paul indicated Peter was no greater than the other Apostles.
Gal. 2:6-14. Paul said that James, Peter and John were reputed to be pillars but God accepts no man's person. Peter
was even publicly reproved by Paul (Gal. 2:11), which does not sound like he
was regarded as any “Pope.”
2Cor. 11:5; 12:11. Paul declares he was not one whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
6. Jesus warned against those who sought the chief seats and took lordship
over others
(Matt. 20:25-28; 23:1-12).
7. We are not to say we are of Cephas (Peter), Paul or any man (1Cor. 3:3, 4).
1Cor. 1:12; 3:1-11, 20-22. We are not to glory in
men. To do so is carnal (fleshly).
8.
2Thes. 2:1-12. Paul warns
against a falling away with a man being set up in the temple of God, showing himself forth as God.
He said, “the mystery of iniquity does already work”
(2:7). He would continue until destroyed by the manifestation of Christ's
coming. Only the Papacy makes the claim of having authority in the church from
the time of the Apostles. Indeed, the Pope claims to be the “Vicar
[vice-regent] of Christ.” He claims to be the head of the church, on earth
ruling for Him.
OBJECTION:
“Peter was appointed as shepherd over the others.”
Luke
22:31, 32. Peter was told to confirm his brethren.
John 21:15-17. Peter was commissioned to feed the lambs and
sheep.
ANSWER:
Luke 22:31 is speaking of his denial of Christ. Jesus tells him that after he is
converted he should strengthen his brethren.
Rom 1:11, Paul also strengthened the brethren.
John 21:15-17, after Peter’s denial and the crucifixion, Jesus
appears to him and asks if he loves Him “more
than these,” reminding him of his boastful claim that, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended”
(Mat. 26:33). He then, three times, tells him to feed his lambs and sheep – one
for each time he denied.
Jesus was merely trying to
get Peter back on track. Jesus,
not Peter, was the chief shepherd (1Pet. 1:4)
Peter was not the only one
appointed to feed the flock. 1Pet. 5:1-3. Elders are also to feed the flock.
That does not make them Popes. Peter characterizes himself as a “fellow
elder.” Peter gave messages from God, neither he nor any other inspired source
says anything of his being superior. They were all to strengthen each other and
to feed the lambs and sheep (Acts 20:28-30; 1Pet. 5:2).
OBJECTION:
“Peter was given the keys
(Matt. 16:19) and used them to open the church both to the Jews (Acts 2:14) and to the Gentiles (Acts 10, 11. cf. Acts 15:7).
ANSWER:
Peter was not the only one
who was to use the keys to loose and bind (Matt. 18:18). “Keys” indicates
knowledge (Luke 11:52). It appears that Peter began to use them on the day of
Pentecost (Acts 2:14), although he was not the only one to stand and speak.
There is no proof that he was superior, much less passed it down from one Pope
to another through the centuries.
OBJECTION:
“Peter is always mentioned first in the lists of the
Apostles.”
(See Matt. 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:13, 14).
ANSWER:
These are lists. The names
are in this order to make them more easily remembered. Peter, Andrew, James and
John are lumped together. They were called first (Matt. 4:18-22). These are two
pairs of brothers working as fishermen. Peter may have been the leader in the
fishing venture or the oldest of the men. He may have simply been more aggressive
than the others. He certainly stood out for his rashness Matt. 16:22, 23; 17:4;
26:33-35, 40, 74; Jn. 18:10).
Gal. 2:9 we have a different order, “James and Cephas and John.” In that case Peter is only cited as one
of those who were “reputed to be pillars.”
Paul said such meant nothing to him (2:6).
1Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5. Peter (Cephas) is not
mentioned first in other lists.
I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;
and I of Christ.
The mere mention of Peter at
the beginning of a list is slim evidence of superiority. That is like the
foolish argument that because Priscilla was mentioned before her husband that
she was head over him (Acts 18:18; Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19) (cf. Acts 18:2, 26;
1Cor 16:19)
OBJECTION: “Peter presided at the election of
Matthias” (Acts 1:15- 22).
ANSWER:
Peter took the initiative.
Peter often spoke up first, but that does not prove superiority. Peter was
certainly prominent but prominence does not necessarily indicate
preeminence. Peter often spoke first
when he was with Jesus and this sometimes got him into trouble (Mat 15:15-16;
16:22-23; 17:4-5)
Acts
21:18. James lead out when Paul came to Jerusalem.
We also may note that Peter
and John were sent to Samaria by the other apostles (Acts 8:14). Does that make the other apostles superior to them?
OBJECTION: “Peter opened the
first council at Jerusalem (Acts
15:7).”
ANSWER:
Throwing out the first ball
to start the baseball season does not make that person the Coach! Peter did not
even open the meeting. There had already been much questioning. Peter just
reminded them that he had given the first message to the Gentiles (Acts 10).
James summarized and brought the conclusion. All the Apostles participated in
the decision. Nothing suggests that Peter presided.
In fact, there is no basis
for concluding that Acts 15 was a general church Council. The issue was between
two churches. The church at Antioch appealed to the church at Jerusalem
concerning some who had come from them claiming that circumcision was required.
The decision was made by the Apostles and Elders of the church with approval
of the congregation, not by a council of churches, nor by Peter or even the
Apostles alone. Since the Judaizers from Jerusalem were the source of the
problem, that church laid down some rules to restrain their excesses.
OBJECTION: “Peter started the church at Rome and set
up his seat there.”
1Pet. 5:13. Saying he was
writing from “Babylon,” was a pseudonym for Rome (cf. Rev. 17).
ANSWER: There are some early
claims that he was there. He may have been there at some time.
However, Peter was certainly
not there when Paul wrote to the Romans or he would have greeted him.
He does not seem to have
been there before that because he would have provided spiritual gifts to guide
the church, which Paul indicates had not been done when he wrote (Rom. 1:11).
He was not there when Paul
went to Rome the first time at the close of the Book of Acts or Luke would have
mentioned him.
He was not there when Paul
wrote from Rome, down to just before his death under Nero or Paul would have
mentioned him along with others there.
Even if Peter had started
the church and been there at some time, that is not proof that he was Bishop of
Rome, much less that he was Pope over all of the churches and that this
authority was then passed on to others.
B. BOWING TO THE POPE AND CALLING HIM, “MOST HOLY FATHER”
ANSWER: Such conduct is prohibited in
scripture.
Matt. 23:9. Call no man,
Father...for one is your father, who is in heaven.
He said this concerning those who loved the chief
seats and to be called by exalted religious titles.
Acts 10:25. Unlike the Pope, Peter told Cornelius not to bow
to him.
C.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
(formally recognized in the council of 1870 AD)
ANSWER:
Abuses by the Popes through
history are legendary. They contradicted each other and anathematized each
other. At one time there were three popes, each claiming authority over the
others. Some Popes came to power by buying the office or even killing the
reigning Pope. It makes no sense that
God would require us to rely on succession through such wicked men.
There is no scriptural
teaching that some person would be head of the church on earth with infallible
authority to speak for Christ. Apostles and prophets gave inspired revelations
but those powers were confined to the period of giving and confirming the
complete word of God to men.
1.
These
signs were intended to confirm the word.
(Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:3, 4
2.
These
gifts were given by the hands of the
apostles (Acts 8:17-19; 19:6; 2Tim.
1:6; Rom. 1:11 2Cor. 12:11, 12). When those upon whom they laid their hands
died, the gifts came to an end. Apostles had to see Jesus and be personally
commissioned by Him (Acts 1:21, 22;
22:14, 15; 1Cor. 9:1). Paul indicates he was the last --”born out of due time” (1Cor. 15:7-9).
3.
Apostles
and Prophets were only in the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20).
4.
Paul
indicated that the gift of prophecy was to cease when revealing of the will of
God was completed (1Cor. 13:8-13).
5.
Zechariah
indicates that Prophets were to cease. He and relates it to the day of the
Messiah when a fountain was opened to cleanse sin (Zech. 13:1-6).
The pope has demonstrated no
power to do signs and miracles as did Peter and other apostles.
2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs
of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs,
and wonders, and mighty deeds.
“Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible and divine
Tradition contain the word of God, of the two, tradition is to us more clear
and safe.”
-Catholic
Belief, Very Rev. J. Faa Ki Bruno, D.D., p. 33
ANSWER: Except for those
instituted by the apostles (2Thes. 2:15; 3:6), tradition flows from men, not
from God. It is polluted by men's prejudices. It is inconsistent, conflicting
and unreliable.
-1Pet. 1:18. …vain
traditions handed down from the fathers.
-Mark 7:8-9. Traditions of men are not to be
regarded as authority.
These traditions conflict with the scriptures
showing they have no authority.
-Matt. 16:18. God protects the
church.
-Eph. 3:10. Through the church, the
manifold wisdom of God is made known.
ANSWER:
1.
Beware of relying on the wisdom of men (1Cor.
chapters 1 and 2).
2.
It is obvious from the many errors and abuses
of the Roman church that they enjoy no such protection.
3.
The true church is a spiritual fellowship
with its head, Jesus Christ in heaven, not a visible organization with a
headquarters on earth.
-John 18:36. My kingdom is not of this world.
-Luke 17:20, 21. The kingdom comes not with observation; with men saying, Lo, here, or Lo, there. The kingdom of God is within you.
-Rev. 12:6, 14. God protected the
faithful woman in the wilderness areas outside Rome during the great period of
falling away (2Thes. 2:1- 12), not the impure counterfeit that sat at Rome
(Rev. 17).
4.
The Bible was intended to be
understood.
-2Tim. 3:15-17. The scriptures are able to furnish us thoroughly.
-Acts 17:11. The Bereans believed because
they searched the scriptures.
-2Cor. 4:3. The gospel is only hidden from
those who perish.
-John 7:17. He that wills to do his will
shall know whether the teaching is from God.
-2Cor. 11:3. We have simplicity in Christ.
-1John 5:13. John wrote so they could know.
OBJECTION:
1Cor. 7:32-35. Caring for a wife distracts from service.
ANSWER:
Freedom to
choose celibacy is fine. Requiring an oath of celibacy conflicts with
scripture.
-1Tim. 4:1-3. Forbidding to marry is called a
“doctrine of demons.”
-1Tim. 3:1-7. Bishops were to be husbands of
one wife and have faithful children.
-Matt. 8:14. Peter was married. His wife's
mother was healed.
-1Cor. 9:5 Paul said he had the right lead
about a wife like Peter and the other apostles.
OBJECTION:
The ‘woman,’ Paul could lead
about, referred to a holy woman (such as a Nun), to help him.”
ANSWER:
This is the word commonly
used for wife. Peter had one (Matt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:6).
It is the same word used in First Corinthians 7:1-2
that says it is good to have a wife to avoid fornication. Because this warning
has been disregarded, the history of mandatory celibacy is plagued with serious
sexual problems. The Priesthood has a notorious record of becoming involved
with women in the congregation, with the Nuns, with boys and in homosexuality.
Sometimes they have approved of concubinage.
ANSWER:
-1Tim. 2:5. Christ, not a priest, is our
mediator with God.
-James 5:16. We are to confess to each
other and pray for each other.
-Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 1Pet. 2:5, 9; 2Pet. 2:9 All
Christians are priests.
The
pretext for this is John 20:23, “Whosoever's sins ye remit, they shall be
remitted.” and, Matt. 16:19, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven.”
ANSWER: These are speaking about two distinct
things.
a.
The
first is the power of the apostles through inspiration. They were to reveal
God’s will. This revelation would determine what was righteous and what was
not. Only inspired men (those who had Holy Spirit come upon them) could reveal
what God would bind in heaven. The apostles and Prophets did so (Acts 5:1-10).
Those who gave this
revelation were not doing so from personal judgment but by inspiration (1Pet.
1:16-21). They bound on earth only what God revealed to them (14:25-26).
The Greek literally says,
“What you bind on earth IS bound in
heaven.” It was not a case of leaving it up to them to do as they pleased. They
followed what was revealed.
Priests today have no
revelation or signs they can perform. There was no confessional in the early
church.
b.
The
second (Matt. 16:19) has to do with the church deciding disputes between
members. The decision of the church settled the matter. God would hold the
disputants to that decision. This was a matter of deciding laws, not of making
them.
Indulgences are remission of temporal punishment for sins. The
grace for this supposedly comes from the extra merits saved up by Jesus Christ
and the saints.
ANSWER: The Bible says nothing of extra good
works the Saints have laid up to remove temporal punishment. Only God can take
away the consequences of sin. No imperfect person has any righteousness left
over to store up. Our righteousness is imputed by God (Rom. 3:10; 5:19; 10:3;
Phil. 3:9).
The Roman Church, through
the centuries has claimed miracles by touching bones, clothing etc. of the
Saints. They claim to have found the true cross and even the burial shroud of
Christ. In fact they claim that even things that touch relics may themselves be
converted into the same relic. They have mountains of relics of the cross.
To justify this, they cite
the case of the man raised from the dead by touching the bones of Elisha when
cast into his tomb (2Kings 13:21) and that handkerchiefs from Paul were carried
to heal the sick (Acts 19:12).
ANSWER: Those with miraculous gifts did these
things. These gifts ceased with the
death of the Apostles and those on whom they bestowed them. The Bible does not indicate we should seek
healing through contacting some relic of the Saints.
James 5:14-15
“Is
any sick among you? let him call
for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing
him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the
sick, and the Lord shall raise him
up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
The passage in Acts 19:11,
12 says the sending of handkerchiefs was a “special
miracle.”
Except in the case of
Elisha, there is no other case of a dead man’s bones healing anyone.
1Thes. 2. warns of “Lying miracles”
to be used to deceive.
ANSWER: Seeking to contact the dead is prohibited by
God.
Ecc. 9:5 (cf. 3, 6) The dead know nothing of
events under the sun.
Luke 16:19-31. Those who die no longer have access to those on
earth.
John 14:6; I Tim. 2:5. Jesus is the only mediator
between God and man.
(Note: All Christians are Saints, not just a special
class in heaven -Acts 26:10; Eph. 1:1.)
Mary is represented as the “dispenser of all grace”
Luke 1:48 “All nations shall call me blessed.”
ANSWER:
Calling Mary, “blessed”
[makarizo] is not veneration.
James 5:11 Behold, we call them blessed [makarizo] that endured:
She certainly was blessed in having the privilege to
bear Jesus.
Jesus never recognized Mary as being elevated above
others.
-Luke 11:28. Even the
blessing of bearing him was not to be viewed as greater than those who keep His
word. When a woman in the crowd called Mary “blessed” [makarios] for
suckling him, Jesus responded, “Yea, rather, blessed [makarios] are they who hear the word of God and keep it.”
-John 2:4-5. At the
marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, Mary called attention to the need for more
wine. Jesus responded, “Woman, what have I to do with you?”
For readers of all time,
Jesus indicated that it was time for him to become independent. He loved and
took care of his mother (John 19:25-27) but her role was now changed. He turned
water to wine at her request but never again do we find him obeying her.
-Acts 1:14. Mary
received no superior position or veneration. She is only mentioned as among the
women in the upper room ten days before Pentecost. After the church began she
was never again mentioned. She was
given no important role in the church and nothing is said of praying to her.
Luke 1:43. Elizabeth called Mary,
“Mother of my Lord.”
ANSWER:
No scripture ever calls Mary, “Mother of God.” Elizabeth
calling Jesus the “Mother of my Lord” is not the same as calling her, “Mother
of God.” “Mother of my Lord” has to do with his birth as a human. Speaking of Christ as “God” has to do with
his divinity. Mary could not be the
mother of his divine nature because as such he had no mother (Hebrews 7:3). God
eternally exists and had no beginning.
Jesus clearly placed family
relationship secondary to spiritual.
-Matt. 12:47-50. When
he was told that his mother and brothers were outside, wanting to see him,
Jesus pointedly said, “Who is my mother
and brethren? Are not all these who do the will of God...?”
-Luke 8:20. When told
that his mother and brothers were outside wanting to see him he responded, “My mother
and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it”
Thus, Mary was no more the
“mother of God” than anyone who does the will of God. The same “logic” would make Jesus' natural brothers, “Brothers of
God” and his sisters, “sisters of God.”
Jesus is also called the
“son of David” (Mat. 1:1). Does that make David the “father of God”? Mary was mother of the fleshly body of
Jesus. She was not mother of his divine nature. Such statements are misleading.
ANSWER:
This is a tradition with no
scriptural foundation, recognized by the church in 1854. The only “original
sin” we receive is the effect of Adam's fall that brought death on all (Rom.
5:12-21). This brought death on all mankind. Mary, herself, recognized she
needed a savior (Luke 1:46-47).
The sin of the soul is not
inherited. Everyone who dies the second death does so because of his own deeds
(Ezek. 31:29-34; Heb. 8; Rev. 20:12-15).
ANSWER:
-Matt. 1:25 Joseph
had no sexual relations with her “until she brought forth her firstborn son.”
If Mary was to be a perpetual virgin it is strange that nothing is said of it
and that the limit here placed on her virginity was the birth of Jesus.
-Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matt. 12:46, 47; 13:55-56; Mark 3:31-
35; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; Acts 1:14). There is no evidence that this refers
to cousins.
-Psalm
69:8 I am become a stranger unto my
brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.
Psalm
69 is speaking of Jesus and is often quoted in the New Testament. Check
cross-references to verses 4, 9, 21, 22, 23 and 25.
OBJECTION:
If Jesus had natural brothers, why did he entrust the care of his mother
to John? (John 19:27).
ANSWER: Jesus gave no reasons but two good ones
would be:
1.
John’s
caring nature made him a very good choice.
2.
The
brothers of Jesus were not yet believers (John 7:5).
(At
death, Mary was immediately reunited with her body and taken to heaven.)
ANSWER: That is exactly what it is, an assumption. It has no scriptural basis
whatever. The doctrine was not officially validated by the church until 1950.
1Cor. 15:21-23. No one is to receive their
new bodies until Jesus returns.
1.
2Maccabees
teaches praying for the dead
12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise
again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45
But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall
asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made
atonement for the dead, that they
might be delivered from their sin.
ANSWER:
a.
The
Book of Maccabees does not claim to be inspired. The writer himself indicates otherwise:
2Mac 15:38 If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if
it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do.
2Mac 12:44-45 only shows that the Jews had such a practice of praying for the dead
at that time. They had many vain traditions.
b.
Some
of the oldest manuscripts omit the verse.
c.
Nothing
is said in the passage about the dead being in a place of purgatory. This is
speaking of the hope of forgiveness, “concerning
the resurrection” (12:43-45).
2.
Matt. 5:26. The man would not be let out until the last farthing was paid. Is
that not purgatory?
ANSWER: The passage is warning us to try to
resolve disputes so our adversary will not have us thrown in prison. It has
nothing to do with after death.
3.
Matt. 12:47-48. If some are beaten with few stripes while others receive many, does
that not indicate a purgatory?
ANSWER: This says nothing
about prayer, good works, masses or indulgences to shorten punishment. It is teaching severity of punishment will
be greater for those who knew and did not obey over those who did not know. The “stripes” have nothing to do with
purgatory after death but with accountability after the Lord returns. It is a
parable, not intended to describe literal whipping of people when Jesus
returns.
4.
Matt. 12:32. The sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or
the world to come. Does not this suggest a future chance for forgiveness?
ANSWER:
a.
The
Greek word for, “world” (#165 “aion”) does not require it to mean,
after death. Jesus lived under the Old Testament (Gal. 4:4; Heb. 9:15-17). It
may be speaking of forgiveness under the Christian age following the
resurrection of Jesus. In any case it
says nothing about people suffering temporarily in purgatory.