Is There A Purgatory?

The Bible never speaks of a place where one can go to be purified of his sin. Rather, it always speaks of a Person to whom we can go to be purified: Jesus Christ. God tells us that those who refuse to trust Christ to cleanse them from their sins are condemned: Whoever believes in Him avoids condemnation, but whoever does not believe is already condemned for not believing in the name of God's only Son (John 3:18). There are only two choices: Whoever believes in the Son has life eternal. Whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure the wrath of God (John 3:36; See also Revelation 20:15; Luke 16:19-31, especially verse 26). Anyone who accepts Christ is completely saved: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Saying that there is no condemnation, certainly eliminates the flames of purgatory.

Another passage which clearly excludes the idea of purgatory is, their sins and transgressions I will remember no more (Hebrews 10:17). If, as the Bible says, God no longer remembers the sins of those who are in Christ, He does not punish them for these sins. To do so would be saying that Christ had not made full payment for them and that God the Father still remembered them. (See also Romans 5:8-11; Hebrews 10:14-18; Psalm 103:12).

Anyone who does not believe that Christ has completely saved him, has not completely trusted Christ to save him. That is, he does not believe that Christ's sacrifice has paid for all of his sins, and thinks he must pay for some of them himself. However, we are saved when we stop trusting what we can do, and start trusting Christ to save us.

The idea that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to cleanse us from all of our sins would condemn a great sinner such as the thief who was crucified with Jesus to suffer a long time in purgatory if not for all eternity in hell! Instead, there was nothing left over that Christ's death on the Cross did not cover. When the thief placed his trust in Christ, Jesus said to him, I assure you: this day you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).

If purgatory existed, and the mass helped people to get out, the rich would have a tremendous advantage by being able to pay for masses to shorten their suffering. The poor instead, would be left to the mercy of the occasional priest who might say an unpaid mass for them. One ex-priest wrote, "If we really believed that the mass would save people from the flames of purgatory, would we make them pay for it? I would even save a dog if I saw one in a fire, and I would never even think of asking to be paid!"

Purgatory was evidently a pagan idea. Virgil, the pagan Latin poet who lived 70 - 19 B.C. divided the departed souls into three different places in his writings: One for the good, one for the damned, and a third where the less bad could pay for their sins. Since the idea of purgatory existed outside of the church before it came into the church, it is probable that it was brought in by contact with pagans like Virgil. There was a great influx of non-Biblical ideas into the church around 300 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Constantine took many unsaved people in as members of the church.

In any event, there is no mention of purgatory in the Bible. Some would try, however, to make the idea sound somewhat Biblical by referring to 2 Maccabees 12:41-45, a passage in one of the apocryphal books written between the times of the Old and New Testaments. These books were never accepted as part of the Hebrew Old Testament, nor quoted in the New Testament, but they are included in the Catholic Bible, though usually with an explanation that they are of a less inspired category. Apart from this passage in 2 Maccabees, the apocrypha is little used by the Catholic church to support a doctrinal position.

It is important to notice that this passage does not speak of purgatory at all, but actually condemns idolatry, particularly the practice of wearing little images on a necklace or such. Hebrew soldiers were found wearing this sort of thing after a battle, and their buddies, on making this discovery, realized that they had died in the sin of idolatry. They then counseled prayer for their souls. The Roman Catholic position is that prayer for them would have been unnecessary if they were in heaven and useless if they were in hell, so there must be another place. The logic seems good, but the result contradicts the clear teaching of the inspired Scripture. Contradicting inspired Scripture with a philosophical response based on an apparent inference from the Apocrypha is a very weak argument indeed. The very word "Apocrypha," which comes from the Greek word for hidden, has come to mean "false," or "of doubtful authorship."

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.

Which means that the gospel of Rome (EOs tend to differ on this) teaches that souls are finally saved by becoming actually, practically, good enough - first via baptism and then (usually) thru suffering purifying torments in purgatory.

Which is salvation by works except with more grace provided, that by the grace of God souls become good enough to be with God. Which is contradicted by multitudes of Scriptures, while actually being a contradiction in Rome's own theology.

For while the newly baptized is said to be rendered good enough to be good due to being washed from sins and infused with holiness, this is not perfection of character, which required condition is is what purgatory is provided for in RC theology.

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." (Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224 )

In addition is the premise that imperfect souls must suffer postmortem "purifying torments" potentially for eons for sins that God did not exact satisfaction for in earth.

The justification for all this is based on texts which teach that Christians are to be perfect, and that holiness is required to see God, and some which warn of postmortem judgment and suffering.

However, while Christians are to seek to be practically what they are positionally, and that which seeking and characteristic holiness, in relation to light and grace given, is evidence of salvation, (Heb. 6:9,10) yet souls are not justified as enabling them to be with God because they actually, practically have attained perfection of character, but because God purifies hearts by faith, and counts them as just, holy, righteous on Christ's account.

But which faith, if it is faith, will be evidenced by fruit, by obedience to its Object, the Lord Jesus, in accordance with His revealed word and will. This obedience, manifested in holiness and works, justifies one as being saved, and fit to be rewarded under grace, though the saved soul owes everything to God, without whose drawing, enabling, and motivation he could not and would not have sought and turned and believed on the Lord Christ, not followed Him. Whose "wage" is really eternal damnation apart from justifying faith.

In Scripture, Peter taught that God purified hearts by faith before baptism, (Acts 10:43, 47; 15:7-9) as well as promising souls forgiveness and the Spirit if they would repent and believe (which infants, whom the Spirit never manifests as being baptized, cannot and need not do), since baptism both requires and expresses faith.

Thus to confess the Lord Jesus in baptism in identification with Christ, signifies faith in Him, and thus the promise that whosoever believes and confesses/calls upon/is baptized shall be saved, (Rm. 10:9-13; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38) as such requires and confesses faith, which is counted for righteousness. (Rm. 4:1-7)

For what Scripture teaches is that souls come to Christ as damned and destitute sinners, but by faith in Christ they are declared righteous.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)

Contrary to Catholicism, Abraham was not declared just due to becoming holy thru regeneration, by because his faith was counted as, imputed for righteousness.

And since believers are forgiven on account of Christ, on His merit, and all true believers presently are “accepted in the Beloved,” and made to sit together with Christ in the heavenly, (Eph. 1:6;2:6) then whenever and wherever NT Scriptures clearly speak about the next spiritual place of man after death then it is always with the Lord. Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3;2)

And the only suffering is that of losing of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ, which awaits the Lord's coming, and this loss does not enable going to Heaven, but one is saved despite building material being burnt up. (1Co. 3:8ff).

I thought a moratorium was called on these anti-Catholic attack threads.

It was the daily nature of the (counter) pointed attacks on Catholics that was manifestly censured, as well as the constant attacking of fellow conservatives over religious doctrinally issues. The spirit of which would still be enforced i am sure, while certain RCs seem to have seen this as making them a specially protected class, in which they alone could post provocative threads, which they promptly resumed (and which see far more interaction than most others).

I submitted that to prohibit all such debate, or only allow one side to do so, would be contrary to a pro-God, pro-traditional America forum and would render many of the RM rules to be superfluous, which acknowledge debate can heated and wisely regulated it, versus banning all such. And which are superior to most other forums that I know of, as are the RMs .

But as we are only guests, and on a forum that has been overall gracious to both sides, i do not think there should be a daily flow of provocative threads, and the quality of any should be conducive to reasoned debate, and it remains to management to further define what valid religious discussion is or is not, if needed.

Enough said.

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.