[Mr Rogers]

Your post 30 has so much horrible interpretation of scripture that it will take an hour or more to list why each one is wrong. I’ll do so later today.

But just to start: your first quote says we must come to terms with the devil so we can escape the effects of sin. It is embarrassing to see anyone write such.

JESUS defends us from the Accuser.

“25Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” - Hebrews 7

“But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” - 1 John 2

JESUS is our defense attorney, and he pleads his own blood.

Romans 8:

“3Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

There is NO WAY Matthew 5 teaches that we need to come to terms with Satan, and that our failure will keep us in torment until ‘the last penny is paid’!

That isn’t just bad exegesis, it is obscene.

Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

[bdeaner]

I did post a warning that the verses from Scripture Catholic should not be taken for granted, but should be read in context. We can take our time going through those verses, and examining them in some depth, if folks are interested in doing that. I look forward to your exegesis.

[bdeaner]

There is NO WAY Matthew 5 teaches that we need to come to terms with Satan, and that our failure will keep us in torment until ‘the last penny is paid’!

It is important to look at this verse, first, in light of other Scriptures, especially juxtaposed to Matthew 18:34. Clearly, in Chapter 18, Matthew is showing us the parallel between the Christ's teachings on the Sermon of the Mount and the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant. We'll come back to that.

Secondly, it is clear that in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, verses 25-26, Jesus can be initially taken on face value as referring to dealing with a human adversary on the way to a court of law. This is what He is preaching about, literally. And we should of course accept this literal interpretation on face value -- indeed, we should try to resolve things with our adversary on the way to court, otherwise He is likely to take us to the bank! That makes good sense.

BUT, is that all we can take from this passage? Is this literal reading the only possible reading, or are there further implications? If we look to Mattew 18:21-35, it becomes clear that the literal interpretation of Matthew 5:25-26 is not the only meaning we should be taking away from that Scripture.

Clearly the parable of the unmerciful servant is referring to a Master who should be identified with God, our Father. And we are the servants. What happens to the servant who is lacking in charity? He is turned over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed (Matthew 18: 34), and Christ tells us explicitly that this is how His heavenly Father will treat each of us unless we forgive our brother from our hearts (verse 35).

So, going back, it is important to read Matthew 5 in light of Matthew 18, and reading these passages together, there is a clear and powerful case for the doctrine of purgatory. The parable demonstrates that the Master does not condemn the servant to death -- which would have been the parable's narrative if Jesus had meant to tell us we would be cast into Hell for lack of charity. Nor does the Master simply forgive the servant and treat Him the same as always--which it seems would be the implication of Protestant soteriology. No, the servant is placed in jail and must pay back what he owes. This intermediate state -- not condemned but in need of restitution -- is clearly implied by the Parable, and is difficult to account for without the doctrine of purgatory.