In this post, I have a couple of challenges to Roman Catholic doctrine. The point of this post is not to piss off my Roman Catholic readers, it’s more to explain why I’m not Roman Catholic. And maybe to explain how Protestants like me think about religion.
Purgatory
Here’s the first article from Cold Case Christianity, by the Master of the Evidence J. Warner Wallace. He writes about the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, and his experience with studying and then rejecting it.
Here is his introduction:
The notion of purgatory assumes many of us die with unforgiven sins that need to be purged from our account; some of us are not good enough to go to heaven, but not bad enough to go to hell. Purgatory, therefore, is a temporary, intermediate place (or state of being) where good deeds and works can be performed in order to purge our impurity prior to our final destiny with God. Although millions of Catholics believe purgatory to be a reality, the idea needs to be tested in light of the Scripture. Is purgatory something we, as Bible believing Christians, should accept as true?
He’s got a stack of Bible verses to make two points against Purgatory: first, that Jesus’ death on the cross is sufficient to atone for all our rebellion against God, and we don’t need to endure any suffering or punishment to supplement it. And second, the teaching about the afterlife in the Bible says that believers are immediately ushered into the presence of God after they die (without resurrection bodies, yet), while unbelievers are separated away from God.
Here’s what he says about the first point:
Our Salvation Isn’t Based On Our Good Works
According to the Biblical doctrine of Salvation, forgiveness is not based on the good works of the believer. For this reason, deeds or works performed for those in purgatory are both unnecessary and ineffectual:Romans 3:21-24, 27-28
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus… Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.Our Salvation Is Based On Jesus’ Work on the Cross
According to the Biblical doctrine of Salvation, Jesus’ work on the cross (His blood) purifies us from allsin. For this reason, there isn’t a lingering sin problem requiring the existence of a place like purgatory:Titus 2:13-14
…we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.1John 1:7b
…the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.1John 1:9b
…he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.1John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.Hebrews 10:14
…because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.Our Salvation Has, Therefore, Already Been Guaranteed
According to the Biblical doctrine of Salvation, Jesus has already purified and purged believers of sin based on our faith in Him. For this reason, there is no need for a place like Purgatory where additional purging must be performed…[…]The Biblical doctrine of Salvation clearly eliminates the need for purgatory.
I was never able to find anything in the Bible to support purgatory. It’s a very very late doctrine that was unknown to the early church until the late 2nd / early 3rd century, where it is spoken about by a handful of people. But lots of weird doctrines were creeping up on the fringe around that time, so we shouldn’t be surprised… the point is that they have no support from the Bible, and not in the community of believers for the first 150 years after the death of Jesus.
The bodily assumption of Mary
Anyway, my turn now. The Roman Catholic church teaches that Mary was “bodily assumed” into Heaven after her death, i.e. – she didn’t just stay in her grave. Let’s see if that is in the Bible or in the early church.
Here’s what I found:
- To be a Roman Catholic, you need to believe in Papal infallibility in matters of dogma.
- In 1950, the Pope pronounced the assumption of Mary to be infallible dogma.
- This pronouncement was solicited by a petition featuring over 8 million signatures.
- There is no historical record of this doctrine in the Bible.
- No early church father mentions the assumption until 590 AD.
- Documents dated 377 AD state that no one knows how Mary died.
- The assumption appears for the first time in an apocryphal gospel dated about 495 AD.
Data
I only cite Roman Catholic sources for my facts.
6. “But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed.,Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
7. “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma(Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).
It should be noted that the apocryphal gospel in which the doctrine of the assumption of Mary first appeared was condemned as heretical by two Popes in the 5th and 6th centuries. However, I was not able to find a CATHOLIC source for this fact, so I deliberately chose not to use it in my case.
Conclusion
The first thing I want to say is that the Bible is not the only place you look to decide these issues. You also look in church history, and you are looking for a clear chain of custody of the doctrine as far back as it can go. Purgatory and the perpetual virginity of Mary have some track record, but the bodily assumption of Mary is just nowhere – not in the Bible, not in the Early Church fathers. So that’s the silver bullet against Roman Catholicism, since they made it “infallible”.
This post is more directed to non-Christians to sort of show you how we do our homework. I am the first Protestant in my family. We have half the family who is Muslim, and the other half mostly Hindu, with some Catholic. I had to debate all these people growing up, and I wiped the floor with them. It was not even close. I simply settled on the beliefs that allowed me to win every argument, every time. That’s how you do religion. If you have to go against your whole family in order to be right, you do it. It’s not good to be wrong about things just because that’s what your family believes. These things were not pushed hard on me by my parents, I studied them on my own in order to win arguments. After a while of winning, I found myself acting consistently with what I was arguing for. Although that might sound really weird to you, that’s probably the right way to do this. Don’t listen to parents and church, find your own way forward by winning arguments, and believing only what the evidence supports.
Although most people think that if I had kids, I’d bully them into my beliefs, I actually would not. Because that’s not what worked on me. What really works is fighting about evidence, welcoming questions, and allowing differences of opinion. Being free to pursue truth is more important in the long run than coercing your kids to act nicely.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
“We have half the family who is Muslim, and the other half mostly Hindu, with some Catholic. I had to debate all these people growing up”
Oh, how I wish we had video of this – it would be as entertaining as a WLC debate!
LikeLike
The concept of Purgatory is supported by the Books of Macabees which were removed from Protestant versions of the Bible around the Protestant Reformation.
I haven’t read Macabees nor the Catholic Church’s catechism on the topic of Purgatory, so I don’t take any hard stand on the concept. I just thought it would be interesting to bring up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Response here:
Source:
http://www.equip.org/article/is-purgatory-a-biblical-concept/
LikeLike
Hmm, firstly I would strongly contest the claim that the OT deuterocanonicals were ‘removed’ from Protestant versions of the Bible, jgecik. The books were always a matter of contention within the church prior to the Council of Trent, as one can see from the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene regarding the books and whether they should be considered inspired. Its rather intriguing that the early Church Fathers who knew the most about Old Testament backgrounds were the least likely to hold to the Apocryphal books (e.g. Origen and Jerome understood Hebrew, and Melito of Sardis was well-versed on such matters).
Regarding the Catholic Church’s official position on Purgatory, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Edition) states the following:
“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.”
Basically, the concept of Purgatory is absolutely essential to Roman Catholic belief and flows naturally from their understanding of sanctification. Almost every Catholic who has ever lived (bar those with mortal sin upon death, for example) will end up there to be purged of their remaining sin. It is also here where prayers for the dead and indulgences come in; further concepts which have sharply divided Protestantism from Catholicism. The dogma is so critical that if one is a serious Catholic, one must take a stance upon the issue, not least because it is asserted to be divinely, infallibly revealed dogma (i.e. not merely a hypothesis which one can take or leave). Hope this helps a bit.
LikeLike
This makes sense. I know some REALLY strong (daily mass) Catholics who not only believe in purgatory but welcome it.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, it goes against the Gospel. 1 John 1:7 makes it clear that Jesus’ sacrifice was enough to cleanse us of ALL our sins. I speak as an ex-RC priest, now an evangelical pastor and evangelist, working with cult groups. If we require purgatory after death, then Christ’s cry ‘Tetelestai’ (it is finished, paid in full, mission accomplished) in John 1930, was either a lie by Jesus Himself or inadequate enough to require further action (works) on our part, which goes against Ephesians 2:8, 9.
LikeLike
I agree 100%.
LikeLike
Jerry Walls is a Protestant who defends the doctrine of purgatory in his book, Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), chap. 2 – he also responds to the very many misconceptions surrounding it.
LikeLike
Jerry Walls, whom I admire, is still wrong, scripturally. Not only does he argue in favour of a type or ‘almost’ form of purgatory, but in a form of universalism, where all, eventually, will be saved – nd not really addressing the problem of evil in the world.
As someone, who believed in and taught purgatory, I found his book assumed, for the most part, that purgatory is true, and so the question is, what type of purgatory fits best with protestant theology. As far as an actual persuasive argument goes, pretty much it’s just a brief argument from free will that is sort of tacked on. In fact, more of an argument is put forth for the idea of post-mortem repentance of the unsaved than for purgatory itself, despite verses like Hebrew 9:27 that speak strongly against this.
LikeLike
As a former RC missionary priest, now an evangelical Christian (pastor & evangelist), with a ministry to the cults, I think this is an excellent piece of apologetics, :)
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike
Wow! Love to hear a snippet of what turned you away from Catholicism, if it is not too personal. Just curious.
LikeLike
In a nutshell, as a Roman Catholic, growing up in the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland, I was an ‘all or nothing’ Catholic.
Many Protestant/Brethern groups tried to convert me through ridicule, cajoling, bullying, sneering, patronising me.
I would say, which is true, that through the Holy Spirit I was saved; but, someone taking the time and showing me what the Bible says FOR the Gospel and not Against the RC church.
It was a series of friendship, walk alongside, be available, type encounters at which Christian are very bad. Christians want to bring potentioan converts to their churches. I’ve had an outreach to the cults for many years – JWs, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Muslims…and I always listen to their stories about where they’re at and why. It’s THEIR story, and I give them the room and space to tell it. Catholics are very difficult to evangelise for many reasons – even harder than Muslims and JWs – becuaes everyone wants to tell them the Gospel, but no-one wants to listen to them. Everyone wants to show them what’s wrong with their theology, and no-one want to find out why they believe what they believe, and get them to explain their faith to them.
I’m speaking, also, as someone who has worked as a Clinical Psychologist (PTSD) with the military (Falklands & 1st Gulf War) as well as women, who have been sexually abused, raped, victims of incest, domestic violence (specialising in depression/self harm & suicide) etc as well as abuser/abused men, addicts, paedophiles etc. Everyone wants and needs to tell their story and to be heard – for good or evil. Christians need to listen more (not just accept or justify) but listen to othersof different faiths in order to walk in their shoes whilst looking for an opportunity to present the Gospel at an opportune time.
Listening is key…if we’re prepared to spend the time, which most Christians refuse to do.
Please feel free to ask further. :)
LikeLike
VERY solid advice – thank you for sharing. I’m one of those Christians who does not listen enough. I will take this to heart.
LikeLike
I know not all Christians will agree with me on this point, but I say it out of concern for all those that claim that the Roman Catholic Church is simply one of the many legitimate Christian denominations. Having studied the doctrines of Rome exstensively, I am absolutely convinced that it is an apostate church in the same camp as LDS and the Watchtower.
I say this because of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification. Per the official teachings of Rome, Jesus death on the cross was not sufficient to atone for sins. Rather, Jesus continues to be sacrificed daily when a Catholic priest calls him down out of heaven and sacrifices him on the altar in the sacrament of the Eucharist.
To be fair, I have met self identifying Catholics who claim they do not believe this, but per official Catholic doctrine, a Catholic must accept all the infallible doctrines of Rome.
There may be self identifying Catholics who are in fact saved, but if they are truly saved, they must reject the church’s official teachings about salvation and are thus not truly Catholic.
LikeLike
I agree completely with you…the Bible speaks about biblical separation – 2 Cor 6:14-17; James 4:4.
LikeLike
I have found that Catholics are some of the most difficult people to speak to about the gospel. It never matters what the Bible actually says, because their final authority is the organization of the Roman Catholic Church.
But then they deny that this is so! It’s so frustrating. If they’d simply say that, admit it, then maybe productive dialogue could occur. But they deny it, while at the same time doing it.
LikeLike
I have a few other serious objections to the Roman Catholic faith.
One is their insistence on celibacy for their church leadership. This is not only unBiblical, but is at least part of the reason that there are so many sexual scandals among Catholic priests. When you teach that your church leaders must remain celibate, even though the Bible teaches that church leaders are to have a wife to help them avoid temptation, you’re likely to end up with a lot of frustrated and tempted church leaders. Forcing people who weren’t given the gift of celibacy to be celibate is very problematic. That doesn’t excuse their immoral actions, of course, but it does mean the church has a problem in what it is doing with its leadership.
The Bible certainly does not mandate celibacy for church leaders. In fact, the Bible has something to say about those who forbid marrying. It says they have departed from the faith and are following doctrines of devils (see I Tim. 4:3). That’s pretty strong.
On the other hand, I Timothy 3 gives the necessary qualifications for a bishop to include being “the husband of one wife.” This is likewise required for deacons in the church. The idea seems to be that you know someone is fit for church office when they have a family they have shown they can lead well before they are given leadership in the church.
Even if you argue that the requirement of being the husband of one wife only means that IF he is married, he should have one wife and rule his household well, it still indicates that most church leaders should be married and that forbidding church leaders to marry is unBiblical.
Another objection to the Catholic church is that they confess their sins to a priest instead of seeking forgiveness directly with God. The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man (I Tim. 2:5). Thus, asking forgiveness of a priest is both unnecessary and unBiblical.
Along the same lines, praying to Mary or to dead saints is not Biblical. They claim they only ask Mary (or the saints) to pray for them, but since Mary (or any other dead human), if she can even hear people on earth praying to her, cannot possibly hear all of them. She isn’t omnipotent or omnipresent like God is. So the idea of millions of people talking to Mary or Peter or some other dead saint and them hearing all those petitions attributes characteristics to those people that belong only to God.
And why would you pray to a dead saint when you can pray directly to God? Unlike mere humans, He can hear every prayer. Christians are His children, whom He always hears when they pray. We don’t need someone “more important” to bring our requests to God. We are just as important to Him as any other Christian, living or dead.
LikeLike
Although I generally agree that a celibate priesthood is unBiblical, I’m going to push back a little bit on this one. As you say, the Biblical case against it is pretty solid – especially from the position that even the first alleged Pope – the Apostle Peter had a wife. A strong reason I have against the teaching of celibacy is its ties to the idea that the priest is an ‘Alter Christus’ – another Christ. Part of the argument for priestly celibacy comes from Christ’s own life, and since the priest is an Alter Christus he is required to model that celibate life. I’m uncomfortable about arguing against celibacy from the position that it causes priestly scandals largely because I am unconvinced that there is genuine causation here (we’ve had our own scandals in the Anglican Communion), the priests are not being forced against their will (they freely chose this way of life, knowing what was required of them) and I’ve seen similar arguments employed by the so-called ‘Gay Christian’ movement to undermine a Christian ethic of sexual self-control. It just makes me somewhat uncomfortable. But that said, a lot of very good points.
LikeLike
I have never understood about praying to saints or to Mary. That prayer you spoke to Mary? You wasted time you could have been praying to God, and a God who can actually hear all of the prayers uttered at the same time and give them each time and attention according to His power, rather than Mary or another saint, who even though glorified and perfect now are still limited and finite in both their understanding and power. I genuinely believe Mary is horrified by what the Catholic Church teaches regarding her and the reverence in which she is held.
With respect to purgatory, the main rebuttal to that doctrine is found in the repentant thief on the cross. Jesus responds to his plea “Today, you will be with me in paradise.” If purgatory is a correct doctrine, then this man, a self-confessed criminal who apparently deserves his death sentence, should wind up there and not in paradise on the day of his death. Instead, Christ speaks to him as though his salvation is fully accomplished in his own concurrent death.
With respect to the apocryphal books, it is my understanding that they were never part of the canon, even in Old Testament days – that the Jews themselves understood them to be useful but not Scripture. Further, that they only became part of the Catholic Canon at the Council of Trent in the 1500s in response to the Reformation.
LikeLike
You’re welcome, WORLDGONECRAZY :)
LikeLike
The Catholic response would be along the lines of: “Well, why bother to ask a Christian friend or your pastor to pray for you? The time you spent asking them to pray for you is time you could have spent praying to God directly!” That would be their attempted reductio ad absurdum–not that I necessarily agree with it, but, as Thad said, it’s important to understand what they are saying.
Along those lines, their view of Purgatory depends on a distinction between eternal and temporal payment for sins. One example would be the death of David and Bathsheba’s first son, as a penalty for that sin, in 2 Sam. 12. Note especially vv. 11-14, where Nathan says that David is forgiven, but will still suffer certain consequences. If a man steals many times, but then truly repents, his theft is paid for by Christ with respect to the Book of Life, but he may still need to go to prison, he may still be distrusted, he may need to labor to learn to work hard and give to others, since his soul has grown so used to desiring and taking from others.
On the other hand, some of their proof texts are dubious: particularly their appeal to the passage on the unforgivable sin, where it refers to sins being forgiven in this life and the life to come. As with the doctrine of transubstantiation, they consider this literal, rather than a figure of speech (in this case, hyperbole). They also misunderstand the Greek word, since aeon is a measurement of time in history, an “age” or “epoch.”
LikeLike
I am Catholic and would like to try to clarify the thinking about Purgatory just a little. The best conversations that I have had with non-Catholics are those where we try to help the other understand what we are trying to say.
I think that the best way to think about Purgatory is that it is there not to forgive sins. Christ’s death and resurrection did that. It is more to help make us perfect on the journey to God. Even very serious Christians have problems that they try to overcome their whole lives: selfishness, tendency towards anger, etc. Purgatory is to help us get past that.
The Catholic Church does not say much about Purgatory. The Orthodox say even less, but they still have the core of the idea. Is it fast, slow, or immediate? Is it like what Dante described? There is a lot of room for private speculation. Frankly, I wish Augustine had not used the word, as it makes things more difficult to explain than they already are.
LikeLike
Hi There, as a former RC priest (Missionary) and now biblical Christian, I can state that the doctrine of Purgatory runs contrary to the teachings of the Bible at every turn.
God bless,
Thad
LikeLike
Hi Thad,
My one point was that purgatory is not a second chance to have you sins forgiven.
Out of curiosity, which type of priest were you?
LikeLike
Hi,
I was a missionary priest (White Fathers) – we were trained by White Fathers, Jesuits & Dominicans.
I would be interested in how you would explain or clarify the concept or doctrine of purgatory, and its purpose?
Thanks
LikeLike
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-purgatory-in-the-bible
LikeLike
I have not read all the comments, so maybe this has already been brought up. If so, I apologize.
The thing that struck me was that the Cold Case Christianity article did not deal with the parts of the Bible that actually suggest a purgatory. Wallace’s rejection of purgatory is completely based on his understanding of salvation. This is seen in his comment “The Biblical doctrine of Salvation clearly eliminates the need for purgatory.” But what if his understanding of the “Biblical doctrine of salvation” is wrong? Wallace summons forth a host of Bible verses that can sort-of-kind-of be made to say what he wants them to say while simultaneously ignoring the Scriptures that say the opposite. So his plethora of verses is just a smoke-screen.
1. Wallace says “Our Salvation Isn’t Based On Our Good Works.” The book of James alone refutes this presupposition.
James 2:14, 17, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? …So faith by itself, if it has no works is dead.” (Is a dead faith a saving faith?)
James 2:22, “You see that his [Abraham] faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works.” (Faith without works is incomplete. Is an incomplete faith a saving faith?)
James 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (This is the only place in Scripture that uses the phrase “faith alone” and it says we are not saved by faith alone.”
James 2:26, “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” (For life we need both a body and spirit. For eternal life we need both faith and works.)
Whenever Scripture gives us a glimpse of our judgement before God, our “works” are the determining factor, not our “faith alone.”
In Matthew 25, those saved and condemned were judged on whether they fed the hungry and clothed the naked, not on whether they “believed.” In fact, those saved almost sound surprised that they are saved. It’s like they weren’t completely confident.
The judgment described in Roman 2:5-10 also uses “works” as the determining factor. “But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.”
Matthew 7:21 Jesus says “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Works is the factor, not “faith alone.”)
John 3:36 Jesus says “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” (Like the book of James, faith and works are shown here to be inseparably linked. The opposite of faith is disobedience.)
2. Wallace says “Our Salvation Is Based On Jesus’ Work on the Cross”
As a Catholic, I agree. This does not preclude purgatory, nor do the verse Wallace appeals to.
3. Wallace says “Our Salvation Has, Therefore, Already Been Guaranteed”
The Bible disagrees.
Philippians 3:12-14 says, “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”
In Galatians 5:16-25, Paul lists sins that will keep us out of heaven and warns fellow Christians not to act is such a way, otherwise they will not enter heaven. “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Why the warning is salvation is “guaranteed”?)
It was only at the end of his life that Paul could say, “For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Tim. 4:7). As seen above in Phil. 3:12-13, Paul could not say this while he was still running the race.
4. Wallace says “Our Reunion Is “Wrathless”
Purgatory does not assume God’s wrath. It is part of salvation which is all about God’s love! He wants us perfect (Matt. 5:48) and to be partakers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). And the verses Wallace uses do not preclude purgatory.
5. Wallace says “Our Reunion is Immediate”
None of the verses Wallace cites say “believers are united with God in Heaven the moment they die.” None of those verses preclude a “middle” stage or a purgatory. Wallace is reading his own theology into Scripture.
So those are some initial thoughts on why Wallace is wrong in his analysis on purgatory.
LikeLike
Okay, let’s eliminate the smoke screen.
We Protestants (actually, Evangelical Protestants) like to use three different tenses and synonyms for salvation:
1. Past tense: Justification – that Christ’s atonement, 2000 years ago, has achieved what I could not procure for myself and my standing is only righteous because of his perfect life. “I have been saved” usually equates to “I am justified/I am declared righteous.” (Much of Romans 3, 4, and 5 is dedicated to this.)
2. Present tense: Sanctification – that God is not done with me while I live; He loves me so much that He accepts me where I am but does not leave me where I am. It is an unequal partnership between myself and God / God the Holy Spirit. “I am being saved” = “I am being sanctified.” All the verses you list, in terms of James / Phil. 2 / etc. falls under this. Orthodox use the term theosis or deification (“transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with God”).
3. Future tense: Glorification: I am not united with God yet. I am not in His full presence i.e., in Heaven. “I will be saved” = “I will be glorified.” Whether this means Jesus comes again or through death, I am united with my Lord…
Now, where do works factor into this?
I put works of obedience under #2. Works of obedience demonstrate that I understand I have been saved (or more specifically, “I have been justified.”) Or put in an analogy that I like (used by Greg Beale), “If you pay the price of admission for a baseball game and you get a ticket, is it the payment that gets you in or the ticket?” He then goes on. “The ticket is the receipt of your payment, and ultimately, the payment for admission is what gets you in. Likewise, Jesus paid the price for justification on the cross [= the price of salvation or admission to Heaven] and your works of obedience are like the receipt of the payment.”
Or put differently, I can deliberately do things that are conducive to my well-being and my holiness.
Some might posit then James 2 is against merely having faith, for clearly James wrote that ‘if someone says he has faith but does not have works’. Maybe we should put such ‘faith’ in quotation marks as I just did, because is this truly biblical faith? In other words, are those being represented in the book of James mistaking their ‘easy-believism’ with true faith? i.e., James’ interlocutor is saying, “Well, I have ‘faith’ and need not have works.”
In effect, Paul and James are saying the same thing: biblical faith always leads to works of obedience.
It is a straw man to paint it that we espouse easy-believism. (I’m not sure I’m allowed to appeal to Hans Küng, since he was stripped of his missio canonica, his licence to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian in 1979, but that’s one rabbit trail to pursue on whether justification is synergistic, which he and Reformers don’t think so.)
It is also a mistake to conflate justification and sanctification.
In any case. WK’s original post noted that certain affirmations are necessary for a Catholic (‘de fide credenda’) including dogmas of Christology (e.g., Chalcedon) or the nature of the Trinity/the Nicene Creed, and *papal dogmas and *Marian dogmas. (Which also made me a horribly bad Catholic/not in communion with Rome/separated brother in my Catholic Ecclesiology [at St. John’s Seminary/Archdiocese of Boston] class as I do not affirm the papal nor the Marian dogmas, nor Purgatory.)
As for Purgatory, there’s a few ways to approach this. First, we could summarize it a bit tongue-in-cheek. Some people will progress enough in life to then be appropriate for Heaven.
But what if you don’t make enough progress for venial sins? Well, you’re in the “penalty box” or serve probation (Purgatory) for some time, until you expurgate enough and then you are fit for Heaven.
But as other commentators have noted, there are plenty of sections of the Bible with which Purgatory doesn’t fit.
Hebrews 9:27: And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment…
Luke 23:43 (To a penitent thief and criminal who committed a capital crime) “And [Jesus] said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.””
Phil. 1:21-23 ” For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” (Paul seems to indicate that death = departure and being with Christ in the parallelism.)
The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16.
Here’s the statement by the Council of Florence (1439):
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
“Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church’s ordinances.
Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”
— end quote
Of course, we (Protestants and Orthodox) don’t recognize this as an ecumenical council, but anyway. (From my papers for Patrology at Holy Cross [Greek Orthodox] Theological School):
The union councils of Lyons and Ferrara-Florence failed to overcome either the theological issues dividing the churches or the cultural animosity that opposed the peoples…
The Council/Synod of Ferrara-Florence was opened at Ferrara (1438-1439) and was transferred to Florence on account of the Plague. Viewed by Rome as ecumenical, the council aimed at the union of the churches. Its convocation was a concession to the Byzantines, since Rome had previously refused to accept their demands for a free and open council in which both parties would be treated as equals. All the same, East-West antagonism remained…
[…]
A session in June [1438] dealt inconclusively with purgatory. In October, the council took up the filioque, at first debating the legitimacy of the addition. It soon became evident there was a problem of mutual understanding. Few delegates on either side had a sound working knowledge of the other. By mid-December, talk of plague in Ferrera gave Pope Eugene IV the opportunity to reconvene the council in Florence. He was bearing the entire costs of the Greek delegation, and the council was rapidly becoming a financial embarrassment. The Greeks feared an Ottoman attack in Constantinople and were sensitive to living on papal subventions. Despite their grand titles, many of the Greeks were poor. The reconvened council moved more rapidly, the emperor browbeating his delegates into agreement, the Latins arguing forcefully and convincing some who, like Bessarion and Isidore of Kiev, were sympathetic to their approach. On 5July 1439, the decree Laetentur Caeli was signed by all the Greek hierarchs except Mark of Ephesus, and then by the Latins. On the sixth it was solemnly read in Latin and Greek in the duomo. By that time the decree was promulgated, Patriarch Joseph II had died.
The decree proclaims that ‘the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son’ (Decree for the Jacobites “The Father is not begotten; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”) though it adds qualifications to make the decree more accomodating to the Greek sensibilities. It confirms that both leavened and unleavened bread can be used in the eucharist and that a priest should follow the custom of his own church in the matter. It taught the doctrine of post-mortem purgation by means of poenis purgatoriis (purifying punishments) of those who have died ‘truly penitent and in the love of God,’ and teaches the value of prayers, masses, and intercessions on their behalf. Using the exact words contained in the profession of faith of Michael VII at Lyons, it affirms that ‘the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or only original sin, forthwith descend to hell, to be punished, however poenis … disparisbus [with unequal punishments].
[…]
Florence left a poisoned legacy. Eastern Orthodox look back with distrust on a council at which their representatives agreed to a diet of what they see as Latin errors. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, who recognize Florence as the seventeeth ecumenical council, have sometimes thought that despite its ultimate failure, Florence offers a possible basis for reunion.
Not surprisingly, the union decree (6July 1439) of this council proved just as ephemeral of the union of Lyons (1274). The Byzantine church officially repudiated it shortly after the collapse of the empire. Both the Memoirs of Sylvester Syropoulos and the acts of the council itself are unofficial compilations, reflecting their authors’ individual views and perspectives. This council only served to widen the separation.
–end quote
Millard Erickson (Christian Theology, pg. 1181) observed:
“The major points in our rejection of the concept of Purgatory are points which distinguished Catholicism and Protestantism in general. The major text appealed to is in the Apocrypha, which Protestants do not accept as canonical Scripture. And the inference from Matthew 12:32 is rather forced; the verse in no way indicates that some sins will be forgiven in the life to come. Further, the concept of purgatory implies a salvation by works. For humans are thought to atone, at least in part, for their sins… to be sure, there is something quite appealing about the doctrine of purgatory. When one thinks about it, it simply does not seem right that we should be allowed to go freely into heaven. Each of us ought to suffer a bit for our sins. Here we have a clear indication of just how difficult it is for most of us to accept the idea of salvation by grace. But it is the teaching of Scripture that must prevail … and on that basis, the concept of purgatory — and indeed any view which posits a period of probation and atonement following death — must be rejected.”
LikeLike
Hi Wintery’s Friend! Thanks for the response!
Since the doctrine of purgatory is tied directly to the doctrine of salvation, I’ll focus on that and not the council stuff, which I’m unclear why you included.
But first, I’ll begin with some comments on the Scripture passages you offered to refute purgatory. I’ll repeat what I said originally; none of those passages preclude purgatory. But let me explain in a little more detail.
Hebrews 9:27: “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment…” How does this exclude purgatory? It does not say judgment comes “immediately” after death. There could still be a purgation in between, as likely seen in 1 Cor. 3:13-15 where people will enter heaven as though through fire.
Luke 23:43 “And [Jesus] said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.’” It’s a little more complicated than that, since we know Christ didn’t go directly to heaven after He died (I Peter 3:18-19). What is paradise here? There’s more going on here under the surface. Also, “today” should not be taken too literalistic-ally, as if time exists in the afterlife or Jesus is saying “In this 24-hour period….” Applying this passage to refuting purgatory seems hasty. There is no obvious refutation here. (Besides, if you’re on a cross next to Jesus and Jesus says something like that to you, consider yourself the exception.)
Phil. 1:21-23 “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” Again, this does not preclude purgatory. Paul simply says he would rather depart the body and be with Christ. That doesn’t mean there is no “middle” stage. When I interned in Washington D.C. I hated it and wanted to be away from D.C. and back home in New Mexico. That desire didn’t remove the travel and distance in between.
I do not understand how the parable of Lazarus and the rich man refutes purgatory. You may need to offer more explanation.
I hope that helps explain my position a little better on those particular verses.
————————————————–
Salvation:
I do like your three-fold breakdown of salvation; past-, present-, and future-tense. That is basically how I also view it but maybe with some modifications. It is also why the Catholic doctrine of salvation makes more sense than the Protestant one to me. We were saved, we are being saved, and we have the future hope to be saved.
Paul used the analogy of running a race. In a race there is 1) a starting line, 2) the race itself, and 3) the finish line. During the course of the race (#2 and the entirety of our lives as Christians) we can drop out or do something that will disqualify us from finishing. Catholics call this mortal sin or losing one’s state of grace. If one dies in that state, the soul is in mortal peril. This middle state is where we work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). It’s the state of acting out our obedience to God’s moral law.
Obtaining state #1 does not guarantee obtaining state #3. State #1 just means we get started; there is an entire life to live and persevere in the faith. Salvation is a life-long journey, not a one-time event.
That’s why Paul says in state #2:
Phil. 3:11-14 “…if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 5:21 “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things [the sins he listed] shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” This is a warning to Christians to not lose their state of grace.
1 Cor. 9:27 “I pommel my body to subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. ” Even Paul could lose his state of grace here on earth and be disqualified from entering heaven.
That’s also why it was only at the end of his life (state #3) that Paul could say, “For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Tim. 4:7). Paul could not say his salvation was guaranteed while he was still running the race because he may be disqualified.
It seems many people equate the starting line with the finish line; “once saved, always saved.” I do not believe this, nor do I believe it’s biblical. I’m not sure where you stand on this.
I disagree with your statement, “It is also a mistake to conflate justification and sanctification.” The Bible seems to use these terms interchangeably. And given the idea that salvation is a life-long process, not a one-time event, it makes sense that these are practically synonymous.
Besides, your distinction between justification and sanctification puts your own position in jeopardy. James 2:24 says we are “justified by works and not by faith alone.” How can justification be #1 for you when it excludes works and you put works of obedience in #2? This seems contradictory to the book of James. According to your distinctions, James ought to read “A man is sanctified by works and not by faith alone.” But that’s not what he said, is it? He said justified.
Therefore, given a more biblical view of salvation, purgatory makes more sense. We were saved (state #1) and made pure. But we now have an entire life to live and we still sin (and we all know we do). Since no sin can enter heaven (Rev. 21:27) there must be a final stage of purgation between death and new life. It may be instantaneous or it may be a long time (whatever “time” means in the afterlife). Regardless, the biblical logic demands purgatory. We still have sin; sin cannot enter into heaven; therefore a purgation of remaining sin must exist.
Even before I became a Catholic, I was a devotee of C.S. Lewis. His belief in purgatory is beautiful. In fact, he says we even ought to ask for it.
“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 cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’—‘Even so, sir.’” (Letters to Malcolm, chapter 20)
Purgatory is the mudroom of heaven, where we are cleaned from our battlefield grime and made ready for the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. I do not want to attend my wedding in dirty clothes. So thank God for Purgatory!
LikeLike