Why Purgatory Is a Dangerous Doctrine

Some people are taught to deal with their guilt by placing confidence in the doctrine of "purgatory." I suppose you could compare it to a student working on a project to gain "extra credit" to make up for some bad grades. Unfortunately, the doctrine of purgatory provides false hope because it is based not in fact, but in fantasy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," and is for those who are said to be going to heaven but are nevertheless "still imperfectly purified." (CCC 1030) According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, purgatory is "a place or condition of temporal punishment" for a Christian after death. The punishment and purification process in purgatory is said to "purge" away certain sins that still require cleansing.

So what's the problem with this theory? Well, the problem is that this doctrine is not rooted in Scripture. And on top of that, it invites sinners to assume the blood of Jesus and the cross of Christ are not enough to make a believer completely holy in God's sight. Man needs "more" purification, or so goes the misguided line of reasoning.

In reality, every believer is already completely holy in God's sight as a result of the Savior's sacrifice on the cross 2000 years ago. This complete cleansing flows from the miracle of the cross. (1 Peter 2:24,25) Thankfully, every Christian is already "seated with Christ in the heavenly realms." (Eph. 2:6) The complete purification of a sinner's soul occurs the moment the new birth takes place (John 3:6,7) in a person's heart through faith in Christ. (John 1:12; John 3:16)

"We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)

report this ad This astounding declaration is not man's opinion. It is God's Word on the matter, period.

Now either the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross has the power to make a believer completely holy in God's sight, or it doesn't. And if it does, then who do you suppose would be interested in trying to water down the biblical doctrine of justification through faith? (Gal. 2:16) Does that sound like something God would do, or is the doctrine of purgatory more in line with doctrines the devil would likely spout?

Since Satan is "the father of lies," (John 8:44) our invisible adversary tells unbelievers: "You're good enough to get into heaven by your sincerity and your morality." Meanwhile, he uses a different line of deception when accusing believers: "You're not pure enough! You know you're a terrible person. And you call yourself a Christian...ha...what a joke!"

report this ad The devil hopes to take our eyes off Jesus and the cross where our redemption was earned "once for all." (Romans 6:10) If the prince of darkness can't convince you to reject the cross, his minions work overtime trying to get you to "add to the cross." Satan knows that when it comes to a person's approach to salvation, "Jesus plus something equals nothing." Adding to the cross is just as deadly as rejecting the cross, and no one knows this fact better than the devil himself.

Remember, Satan is an individual angel who has been manipulating a team of evil angels (demons) for thousands of years. And so he has had plenty of time to refine his craft. The devil doesn't want you to know the truth, whether you are a believer or an unbeliever. Either way, Lucifer's bag of tricks and seductive lies are lined up and always ready to be unleashed at a moment's notice.

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons....they forbid people to marry, etc." (1 Timothy 4:1,3) And of all the dangerous doctrines that have been conjured up over the centuries, the doctrine of purgatory is a real doozy!

The Holy Spirit certainly did not invent the doctrine of purgatory. The third Person of the Trinity will never guide you to add something to the cross in your quest to be completely purified.

report this ad The reality for the believer is that "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7) so that we are now "holy in God's sight, without blemish and free from accusation." (Colossians 1:22) This is the case regardless of a believer's religious label, be it "Catholic," "Protestant," or something else.

Everyone who has been converted through faith in Jesus is instantly forgiven, saved, justified, born again, and redeemed on the front end of their relationship with God. The miracle of conversion is available to man because of the perfection of Christ's sacrifice 2000 years ago, as well as the power of Christ's holy blood that was shed on the cross for our sins.

Believers don't need any "more" purification in order to be holy in God's sight. And the idea that man could somehow be punished or purified in purgatory as a way of preparing his soul for heaven is foreign to the Bible. In fact, this doctrine stands opposed to the teaching of the Gospel and to the biblical message of grace.

Here is a helpful acronym to remember the meaning of G-R-A-C-E: "God's Riches at Christ's Expense."

report this ad The doctrine of purgatory, on the other hand, could be summed up this way: S-P-A-C-E, or "Special Punishment a Christian Earns."

GRACE or SPACE? Which approach will you rely upon for complete purification before God? Christ being punished unto death in your place, or you being punished after death to merit some extra purification for your sins?

The Bible provides us with the only way a sinner is purified before Almighty God: "By one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14) Could it be any clearer?

The focus in the New Testament is always on the punishment Jesus endured for our sins, and not on some supposed punishment a Christian receives in "purgatory." Such a diabolical doctrine strips the cross of Christ of its glory, while ignoring the full atoning power of the Savior's blood to completely wash away the sins of a believer.

report this ad Isaiah prophesied 700 years before Christ's crucifixion, "The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him." (Isaiah 53:5) Rather than giving us the punishment we deserve, God took the punishment upon Himself in order to redeem us from sin, death, and the devil.

And so today, you either have complete forgiveness through Christ alone, or no forgiveness whatsoever. The forgiveness of sins is not given out in parts. Every converted person is purified completely today; right now; prior to their death. If you are waiting until after you die to have all your sins washed away, you will be waiting a very long time to say the least.

Purgatory is nothing more than a seductive and deceptive myth. If truth be told, this doctrine is "all talk" and "no action," no cleansing, and no purging away of sins.

And where does that leave a person who has gone to their grave while relying upon the false promises of purgatory? When it comes to life, death, and eternity, there are no do-overs.

report this ad "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)

Aside from Scripture, we wouldn't know what happens to a soul the moment a person dies. Only God's Word correctly informs our mind and our conscience on such lofty matters.

One biblical passage that has been used in attempting to defend the doctrine of purgatory is 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. But those who do so misinterpret the true meaning of this text. I wrote about the real meaning of this passage in an article entitled, "The Biblical Distinction Between 'Gift' and 'Reward."

At the end of time, a believer's works will indeed be tested with fire to see if the works were done with the right motives. That is to say, were they done by someone trying to shine the light and focus on himself; or instead, trying to shine the light on Christ and keep the focus on the Savior?

report this ad Regarding the works of a believer on that day..."his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames." (1 Cor. 3:13-15)

Did you catch that? It describes the man who gets into heaven because he received the free gift of eternal life, and so he was saved; and yet, he "suffers loss" of certain rewards that he would have received if his motives had been different in his service for Christ. He will still of course enjoy a fantastic life in heaven forever, and he will not be even slightly jealous in heaven of anyone's else reward. (Jealousy and the like are only found on earth, and not in heaven.) Before the believer enters heaven, however, the work he completed on earth will be tested with fire to see how much of it was noble, selfless, and Christ-centered.

Eternal life in heaven is a free gift and cannot be merited by man's efforts, either in this life, or in the fictional realm of "purgatory." Rewards, on the other hand, are taught in Scripture as a way God has chosen to bless His children for their works on earth. But if you are not in the family of God through faith in Christ, then the promise of heavenly rewards does not apply to you. It only applies to God's children.

The apostle Paul wrote these words to believers reminding them of the way they entered God's eternal family: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8,9)

Once the gift is received through faith, salvation is secure. There is no need for any further purification in order to be justified before God. And this explains why the theory of purgatory is so dangerous. Purgatory is a pernicious man-made doctrine that contradicts Scripture and opposes the cross of Christ.

There is nothing man can do to add to what Christ accomplished on the cross. Any attempt to add to the Savior's sacrifice is doomed to fail, and will lead a person to place a measure of faith in something other than the finished work of Christ on the cross.

When those in Galatia were being goaded by the Judaizers to add circumcision to the basis of their eternal hope of salvation, Paul warned them sternly: "That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 'A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.'" (Gal. 5:8,9)

In other words, the moment you attempt to add something to Christ's sacrifice on the cross as the basis of your justification before God, you are on the verge of losing everything.

Paul went so far as to inform the folks in Galatia: "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:4)

And so the bottom line is this: What am I relying upon in order to be pure in God's eyes? Am I trusting Christ alone and the blood He shed on the cross for my sins? Or am I planning to bear some punishment myself after I die in order to be "purified" to the point of complete perfection?

If so, be careful what you wish for. Those who are determined to receive punishment for their sins should realize that the only people who are punished after death are those who will be punished in hell forever. (Matthew 25:41)

And I know you don't want to receive eternal punishment, correct? So don't dabble with the diabolical doctrine that spews forth the following concept: "A little bit of punishment after death is good for the soul." Yeah right. Don't believe it for a second.

Amidst all of its rotten fruit, perhaps the most offensive aspect of this dangerous doctrine is simply this: The teaching of purgatory is a slap in the Savior's face because it proudly proclaims to do something that only the blood of Jesus has the power to accomplish. (Revelation 1:5)

"Why don’t you learn what Catholic doctrine is on baptism and other theological matters from true Catholic sources before you spew out weak attempts of intellectualism by spewing out opinions of anti-Catholics on what we believe. Catholicism is the equivalent of upper level college while Protestantism is equivalent of grade school. Get curious, learn what truth it not some hodgepodge of blathering originating literally from a lunatic who had no real touch on reality. "

Rather, why do you not read more of what I wrote rather than spewing out weak attempts of intellectualism by spewing out ignorant opinions about what I wrote? As with your lying charge about the absence of an infallible canon until after Luther’s death and his inclusion of apocryphal books in his translation of the Bible, you are have a tendency to engage in railing accusations that lack any substantiation, in contrast to what I provided.

Now you need provide where I taught error on Catholic doctrine is on baptism and other theological matters and did not reference true Catholic sources on this issue. And even where you think I have so that I can show you.

"You obviously did not learn about Catholic doctrine if you are unaware that baptism cleanses us from original sin and confirmation is our born again moment.."

And where did I deny that Catholic doctrine teaches that baptism cleanses us from original sin and confirmation is our born again moment? I actually stated that in Catholicism justification is on the basis of actual righteousness, which is first attained via the act itself [ex opere operato] of baptism (and which for infants means without even having to repent and to believe on the Lord Jesus with all their heart, which is contrary to Acts 2:38; 8:36,37; 10:43–47- 15:7–9) effecting "infused” righteousness [inasmuch as the infusion of sanctifying grace makes the subject holy and inaugurates the state or condition of sanctity], for in RC theology one is formally justified by their own righteousness. (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace)

Of course that is an unscriptural delusion which is abundantly evidenced by the vast multitudes of infant-baptized Catholic children, especially in colleges.

"Heck, Protestants don’t actually believe in an active heaven where spirits interact with earthly spirits...it’s lunacy."

Actually you are the one showing ignorance here of what evangelicals believe, who actually pray to God to send His angels to help, but if you mean praying to created beings in Heaven, then you reprove the Holy Spirit for nowhere testifying to any believers doing this while inspiring over 200 prayers in Scripture. How dare you infer He was negligent or would not include some if this was a practice of the faithful of God!

Put up or shut up.

Supplemental Damasine Decree and Decretum Gelasianum (for the record)

SCHOLARS often refer to the Gelasian Decretal and they sometimes quote it. But it may be questioned whether many have ever read it as a whole. They are content to know (I quote from Westcott On the Canon, 5th ed., p. 453) that 'Credner has examined at great length the triple recension of the famous decretal On Ecclesiastical Books. His conclusion briefly is that (1) In its original form it was drawn up in the time of Gelasius, c. 500 A.D. (2) It was then enlarged in Spain, c. 500-700 A. D. (3) Next published as a decretal of Hormisdas (Pope 514-523 A.D.) in Spain, with additions. (4) And lastly variously altered at later times '. |470

The Decretum Gelasianum consists of five chapters :

I. About Christ and the Spirit.
II. List of Canonical Books.
III. About the three chief Sees : Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.
IV. List of Books to be received.
V. List of Apocryphal Books.

In 1794 F. Arevalo, the editor of Sedulius, started the theory that the first three of these five chapters were really the decrees of a Roman Council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382 A.D. Certain MSS seemed to give this earlier document separately, and Arevalo's conclusions have been widely accepted, notably by Maassen and Zahn. Readers of this JOURNAL will remember that in vol. i pp. 554-560, Mr C. H. Turner edited from four MSS of the eighth and ninth centuries the text of these first three chapters with the title of 'The Roman Council under Damasus'. On this theory the 'Damasine' List is the earliest Conciliar Western List of the Canonical Books, a List, in fact, two years earlier than the publication of the first instalment of the Latin Vulgate. It had been Professor v. Dobschütz's intention to publish the Damasine and Gelasian forms side by side (i. e. I, II, III and III, IV, V, c. III being common to both), but in the course of his investigation he came to very different conclusions. According to v. Dobschütz all five chapters belong to the same original work, which is no genuine decree or letter either of Damasus or Gelasius, but a pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century (between 519 and 553).

There can, I think, be little doubt that v. Dobschütz has made out his case. The really decisive point is that in I 3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).¹ As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value.

The proof that the document is not a real Decretal of Gelasius or any other Pope is almost as decisive, if not quite so startling. In the first place v. Dobschütz makes it clear (p. 213) that the shorter form I-III implies the longer form,² and therefore is derived from it. Further, the short form III-V, which was supposed to contain the genuine decree of Gelasius, turns out to be a recension of the whole work, in which the phrases which refer back to I and II have been carefully suppressed or altered (p. 214). This recension appears to |471 have been made in Gaul in the seventh century (p. 399) : that known as Hormisdas, containing II-V, is a Spanish recension, but the Spaniard Isidor used chap. I, in fact he is the earliest witness to the work. Had it been an official decree of Gelasius it would have been known and used by Dionysius Exiguus and Cassiodorus.

Thus these famous Lists represent no Papal ordinance, but are the production of an anonymous scholar of the sixth century. He must have been a fairly well-read man for that time and shews a good acquaintance with the writings of St Jerome, but v. Dobschütz does not believe that he had read, or even seen, most of. the 'Apocryphal' books which he condemns (pp. 333-334). For various reasons the work can hardly have been compiled in Africa or Spain, and Gaul is on the whole unlikely : 'es bleibt für den Ursprung des Dokuments nur Italien übrig' (p. 350). Certainly the description of the last book in the N. T. as Iudae Zelotis apostoli epistula una makes for N. Italy or Gaul, the only evidence for the apostle Judas Zelotes coming from those regions. In Matt. x 3, in the place of Thaddaeus, Judas Zelotes is found in a b g h q gat^corr mm, and the Mosaics of the great Baptistery at Ravenna (fifth century).³ So far as I know there is no evidence for this name from Africa, Spain, or the British Isles.

A word should be said in conclusion upon the amazing mass of detail collected by Prof. v. Dobschütz and the clearness with which he has presented it. He has used eighty-six manuscripts, besides six (class D') which contain the text in a second recension. To make this vast quantity of material intelligible he has first printed the full original text with only the real variants of the 'Gelasian' recension at the foot of the page. This leaves room for a clear indication of Biblical references and for the incipits and explicits of the several recensions. After this he repeats the text line for line with full apparatus, excluding only the spelling of the Proper Names, which are given separately in alphabetical order. Praise is often bestowed on our German fellow-workers for industry and fault found with their style, but very few Frenchmen or Englishmen would have marshalled the vast and unwieldy army of authorities so skilfully as is done in this book. It is a work that should be studied by all editors of much-copied texts.

F. C. BURKITT.

[Footnotes have been renumbered and placed at the end]

1. ¹ The passage is printed J. T. S. 1 556 f, ll. 23-27 : v. Dobschütz, p. 245 f.

2. ² Chap. II, title, post haec quid uitare debeat implies a list of rejected Books, such as chap. V.

3. ¹ A relic of this confusion no doubt survives in the coupling together of St Simon and St Jude for purposes of commemoration. (Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913) pp. 469-471 THE DECRETUM GELASIANUM. )

Geoffrey Mark Hahneman · 1992
If the Damasine Decree were genuine, then it would represent the earliest known official catalog of canonical books in the Western church. Yet the work is not mentioned in any independent document before the year 840, nor was it named by any of the ecclesiastical historians such as ...The earliest collection of Latin conciliar canons and decretals, namely that of Dionysius Exiguus, began with those of Siricius, the successor of Damasus. The fact that Dionysius began at that particular date with the decretals of an obscure pope implies that Siricius was the first pope who issued decretals. If so, this fact could explain the false attribution to Damasus, in that there would be no means later of verifying it and no appeal to an earlier genuine work on decretals and canons.

There are also difficulties in identifying the Decretum Gelasianum with a suppositious [yes, a real word] Roman synod in 494.59 Dionysius Exiguus, for instance, did not mention the Decree among those of Gelasius in his collection. Consequently it appears that both the decrees were written after the time of Gelasius, and only later attributed to these early bishops of Rome.

Those who sustained the authenticity of the Decree argued that the enlarged Decretals were really later editions of a primitive Damasine text. The treatment of the second and Dobschütz, however, carefully analysed both the Freising and Vatican manuscripts presented by Turner, and clearly included them in the Gelasian family, thus confirming a date for them of no earlier than the sixth century.67 If the Damasine Decree and Decretum Gelasianum are seen as inauthentic, then this Roman catalogue cannot reliably be dated around 400, but is apparently related to much later documents.
Turner, 'Unpublished Stichometrical List', 246—7, 252—3. E. von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelananum (Leipzig, 2), 147, cf. 338—57. Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, 535—6.

(Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, "The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon," pp. 160, 162 . 1992. Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press,

Book texts rendered via https://ocr.space

E. Earle Ellis states
Decretum Gelasianum,82 which is usually attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome from A. D. 492—496, but in some manuscripts is credited to the Roman bishop Damasus (t 384). Its second section contains an Old Testament catalogue including apocryphal books that, in the opinion of some scholars, represents a canon promulgated by Damasus at the coun- cil of Rome in A.D. 382. However, Epiphanius, who participated in the council, had only a few years before endorsed a canon limited to the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible, and he would not likely have joined in commending as divine Scripture 'which the universal catholic church receives'83 books that he had earlier set apart as apocrypha, More significantly, the Decretum is extant only in a later compilation of mixed vintage, and it is impossible to say what the list may have looked like in an original fourth-century document if, in fact, such a document ever existed. The list cannot, therefore, be regarded as a reliable witness to the canon received in the West in the fourth century"" (The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and ... - Page 26 E. Earle Ellis · 2003)

Matthew C. Baldwin:
An Anonymous List of Apocryphal Works Although Gelasius I, pope of Rome, was active in the late fifth century, the Decretum Gelasianum...has been identified as pseudepigraphical and dated to the sixth century...the author adds an incredibly comprehensive catalog of more than sixty works, which, in spite of the author's claim, seems very unlikely to have been generated from memory alone. (Whose Acts of Peter?: Text and Historical Context of the ... - Page 107,110 Matthew C. Baldwin · 2005)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.