A commenter recently suggested that the idea of purgatory exists among "most Christians" and is supported in Scripture. The suggestion was that to disbelieve in purgatory was to "align yourself against the biblical grain". Now, of course, I wasn't trained in Roman Catholicism; all my training has been in non-Catholic theology. I've only had a smattering of Catholic teaching to examine. So I thought I'd look into purgatory for myself and anyone else who might not have much Catholic teaching under their belts.
First, I need to note a distinction. There is "Roman Catholic", often abbreviated to just "Catholic", which is distinct from "catholic" with a lowercase "c". The uppercase versions refer to a specific group. The lowercase version refers to "catholic," an adjective meaning "including a wide variety of things; universal." Thus, while I don't believe in the Catholic church, I do believe in the catholic Church -- the Church that Christ has made that encompasses all Christians. Just in case you weren't aware of the distinction.
Moving on, what about purgatory? The term is from Latin, purgatorium. I'm sure if you think about it you can easily catch the intent. It is a place to get purged. The doctrine is found in a reference in 2 Maccabees 12 regarding praying for the dead. Now, most Protestants (non-Catholics) would say, "2 Maccabbees? That's not in my Bible." Yes, that's right. It is found in the Apocrypha which Roman Catholics believe to be Scripture but not Protestants (or Jesus). So there's the first rub. The Catholic church regards "Sacred Tradition" to be of equal (greater?) authority to Scripture and hold that Sacred Tradition (some writings from Origen, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Gregory the Great, etc.) established the doctrine of purgatory as well. Purgatory, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is the final purification for "All who die in God's grace and friendship." (Does that strike anyone else as odd?) The catechism lists two Bible references as proof of a fire (1 Cor 3:15; 1 Peter 1:7). It is linked to the Catholic practice of praying for the dead and is also linked to the Catholic practice of giving alms, buying indulgences, and performing acts of penance on behalf of the dead. The idea, then, is that no one (or at least almost no one) gets out of this life "clean" and everyone needs some measure of purification -- "purging" -- which is accomplished through painful but temporary fire. Thus, by prayer and paying off some of their debt, you can speed up this process for dead loved ones. The concept is predicated on three states of being. Non-Catholic Christians see two -- unsaved or saved, in sin or not, guilty or forgiven. Catholic doctrine holds out for a third state -- sort of saved, still tainted by some sin, mostly forgiven. It goes along with their "mortal sins" versus "venial sins", where mortal sins incur eternal punishment and venial sins just temporal punishment. The former is in direct opposition to God and the latter is simply moral disorder.
According to the commenter, "most Christians" believe in purgatory. Let's see if that's true. First, there is a necessary assumption. When John the Baptist said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29) he was wrong. He only partly takes sin away. When Jesus said, "It is finished" (John 19:30), He was wrong. More was required. When John wrote, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," (1 John 1:9) he was wrong. "All unrighteousness" is an overreach. When Paul wrote, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," (Eph 2:8) he was wrong. You will be contributing to your salvation. The requirement for purgatory to be true would be that Christ's death on our behalf was incomplete, that sin was not fully paid for, that, in fact, we pay for our own sin. Peter said that Christ suffered once for sins (1 Peter 3:18), but the doctrine of purgatory says that there is more required. So, what's my point? If purgatory is true -- we need to be further purged after death -- then Scripture in general and Jesus in particular are all wrong. The Gospel is not one of grace and mercy and salvation is earned (with great effort). In other words, the very fundamentals of the Christian Gospel are false. Therefore, the doctrine of purgatory falls under the heading of "another gospel" which Paul declared "anathema" -- accursed (Gal 1:6-10). In other words, if you are placing your faith in purgatory to get you to heaven, it disqualifies you from being a Christian.
I should be clear here. I am not saying that it is impossible to be in a Roman Catholic church and be saved. I am not suggesting that there are no Roman Catholic Christians. What I am saying is that Roman Catholic doctrine, where it deviates (sometimes knowingly) from Scripture, will not produce biblical Christians. The truth is that most Roman Catholics don't follow Roman Catholic doctrine. As such, it is possible, even reasonable, that there would be genuine believers in the Roman Catholic church. In other words, I believe there are catholic Christians in a variety of places, including the Catholic church. But if purgatory is your plan to get to heaven, I'd suggest you think again. Think about the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice (Col 2:13-14; Heb 9:26) and the righteousness of Christ applied to us (2 Cor 5:21). Further, if you have the capacity to pay for your own sin, it's just not that bad, is it? Jesus did it because we lack the capacity. Purgatory, then, diminishes Christ and the Scriptures, and that's not a good thing from a genuinely Christian perspective.
13 comments:
Dan is complaining again that I'm conflating my opinion into God's actual Word when I suggested that Jesus didn't believe the Apocrypha to be Scripture. I wrestled with it myself when I wrote it and opted instead to be brief. I suppose I should have taken into account those who wish to merely disagree with me for disagreement sake. (I would venture to guess that Dan himself doesn't agree with the doctrine of pergatory, but here he is disagreeing with me.)
For those who wondered why I included "Jesus" in the claim that Protestants didn't believe the Apocrypha to be Scripture, here's why. The Bible that Jesus had -- quoted, referred to, taught, expounded, preached, indicated would never pass away -- was the Old Testament that is found in the Protestant version of the Bible. The Jews had the apocryphal texts from the Old Testament, but did not consider them canon. Thus Jesus would have regarded the 39 books of the Old Testament to be Scripture as well and not the non-canonical books. (Note: "Apocrypha" translates to "secret" or "non-canonical".) According to Chabad.org (a Jewish website), "The Apocrypha isn't Divinely inspired." Since Jesus never referred to them either, it is safe to assume He thought so, too.
But, of course, it was a parenthetical statement -- not the main point. Feel free to believe something different.
I wrote this somewhat in response to Anonymous from the other day. I promised I would tell him what led me to believe the Roman Catholics were wrong about purgatory. But I wrote it before I promised him. He also asked another question that I didn't answer there or here.
"Do you think He would have done that for you even if you had been born into a Catholic family?"
I'm always amused when people suggest that the primary reason for believing what we believe is because we're raised that way. I mean, sure, that's often the case, but we're not speaking here about natural things. We're speaking about God. And the notion that God is limited by our heritage or circumstances seems ludicrous to me.
But to answer the question directly, yes, I do. My wife was raised Catholic and no longer believes in purgatory. Martin Luther was raised Catholic and was a Catholic priest and threw out the doctrine. Happens all the time. But it's not a problem if there really is a God who really does interject Himself in real people's lives.
If you actually read Luther’s reasoning for concluding that purgatory is not a thing they are pretty interesting and compelling. Also remember that Luther’s original goal was to spur a discussion about purgatory and indulgences within the RC church, not to split from the RCC.
See, I told you you should write your own catechism, look how much you know.
Yes, Luther was aiming at correction, not division.
Hey, you told me I didn't need to!
I can change my mind. You should share your knowledge in a systematic way.
It's not as easy for me to change my mind when there's so little to work with. :)
Interesting that anonymous is silent to this point. I’m seeing a trend of people who disagree with something simply asking as bunch of loaded questions about the topic, rather than doing their own research and making a positive case against your position or for their position.
It’s certainly a poor comparison to those before us who actually took risks to promote their views. If the future of Christian thought is left in hands such as these, Christianity will be gone before we know it. Thank God for the increased presence of brave, determined Christians in other cultures.
I get what you're saying. It happens a lot, doesn't it? But as for this thought:
"If the future of Christian thought is left in hands such as these, Christianity will be gone before we know it."
I understand the feeling, but I covered this recently. I'm just happy that God is not relying on fallen Man to accomplish His plans.
Oh, I agree completely. It’s definately not that God isn’t still working. It’s why I’m so encouraged by the increasing momentum we’re seeing in the non-western world bringing new vitality to the faith.
Stan,
I was wondering what you thought of this article?:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2020/01/not-by-works-otherwise-grace-is-no.html
I disagree. They claim, "We agree that we're saved by faith alone" but don't practice that belief. That is, we're using one phrase ("faith alone") to mean two different things.
Post a Comment