New objections to Purgatory

  • Thread starter Thread starter NormalBeliever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NormalBeliever

Guest
I’ve been thinking about Purgatory lately, and here are a few possible objections to the usual defenses. What do you think of them?:
  1. It’s said that the temporal consequences of sin are like a child breaking the neighbor’s window and the neighbor forgiving him but the child still needing to do some work to either pay for or fix the window. The child is forgiven, but he still needs to pay a debt.
So instead, what if the child refuses to accept the neighbor’s forgiveness and tells him he doesn’t want forgiveness - instead he’ll just pay for the window or help repair it himself, without all of that forgiveness stuff?

What role does forgiveness play here? If it’s to restore a relationship, well the paying or repairing does that by itself - at least the intention of doing so is a likely sign of being sorry and not wanting to do that again. It’s not like the neighbor can continue being angry or refuse to forgive after the child has payed or repaired it. So it seems forgiveness doesn’t really do anything for the child or neighbor here.
  1. If Purgatory is basically temporal punishment for forgiven sin that still has to be undergone because you still have to pay for sin in some way or God still has to punish you - well, consider Nineveh in the book of Jonah.
Nineveh’s inhabitants were guilty of violence to such a degree that God wanted to punish the city and destroy it - but if they repented He would refrain from punishing them. The punishment would have been an actual temporal punishment, yet God cancelled it for them because they sincerely repented and turned away from their evil behaviour for good - at least the generation of Jonah.

If the Ninevites had died shortly after their repentance and after everyone saw that God wouldn’t punish them, it seems unlikely that they would then still have to be punished in the afterlife for their previous sins - God literally just cancelled the temporal punishment that was to befall them had they not repented.

So it seems the case of Nineveh shows that when God forgives He also cancels temporal punishment.
So what do you think of these arguments?
 
Last edited:
I think your first example is questionable. If a kid accidentally breaks my window with a baseball, and I get it fixed and pay for it out of my own pocket, then I am clearly forgiving the kid. But if I make him pay for it, what kind of forgiveness is that? In what sense have I forgiven him? Would it simply mean that I’m not angry with him, that I don’t hold a grudge against him? Doesn’t that seem a rather cheap kind of forgiveness?
 
Last edited:
Well, the first example is a possible response to a defense of temporal punishment in the afterlife that’s often used - that we still need to pay for something.
 
Yes, I’ve heard this analogy before. And I have always thought it’s questionable.
 
I believe I remember learning that purgatory was for purification, not punishment.

In other words, your soul needs to be cleaned before it can go to Heaven.

I don’t believe in purgatory (or dirty souls, for that matter), so neither explanation really holds water with me, but that is what we were taught. Others are free to correct me if I have it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Yep, you’re right. Purification is not pleasant, but yes it’s purpose is not punishment. On that note, there’s an argument that Hell is not meant for punishment either, but the pains experienced there are simply the consequences of removing oneself entirely from God.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
I think your first example is questionable. If a kid accidentally breaks my window with a baseball, and I get it fixed and pay for it out of my own pocket, then I am clearly forgiving the kid. But if I make him pay for it, what kind of forgiveness is that? In what sense have I forgiven him? Would it simply mean that I’m not angry with him, that I don’t hold a grudge against him? Doesn’t that seem a rather cheap kind of forgiveness?
Click to expand...
If someone intentionally damages someone’s property, then that requires reparation; a debt is incurred. In addition to the damage due to the act, that can also incur criminal or civil charges.

Forgiveness could be analogous to the owner not pursuing civil charges, or reporting a crime. Temporal punishment could be analogous to the need to either pay for or repair the damage or item, in full or in part. If the owner further decides to collect only a part of the reparation owed, that’s a partial indulgence. If the owner decides to completely waive it and let the offender go scott free, forgiving even the need for reparation, then that is analogous to a plenary indulgence.

As for the offender not being contrite or accepting forgiveness, and yet making reparation, I’m not sure how that even psychologically jives for a person. Making reparation is usually a sign of contrition. But in any case, if such a weirdo does exist, then that’s pretty much justification by works. It merits nothing, and if the sin is mortal, the offender still goes to hell.
 
To your second paragraph, the reason why civil charges are pursued is in order to settle a payment in court - which would be payment for the window, so the civil charges are just a formal confirmation of the debt of paying a broken window - it’s not a separate damage.

To your third paragraph - I adressed this point in my OP. The problem is that desiring forgiveness and desiring to pay a debt are separate, because forgiveness isn’t about cancelling the debt in this case. So one could refuse asking for forgiveness and instead just pay a debt since the forgiveness doesn’t seem to be accomplishing much.
 
Last edited:
We have to keep in mind the broad perspective IMO. The purpose of purgatory is final purification/perfecting, which can be defined as fully loving God: with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.

That’s how sin is truly overcome in us, because love automatically opposes and excludes sin by its nature. And Scripture tells us that no sinners enter heaven. We probably don’t necessarily truly want to enter heaven yet at that point, because we’re still attracted to lesser, created, things before God first above all else. Our hearts aren’t fully pure IOW-and so we’re not yet even capable of “seeing” God.

I think if we look at it in that light then the reason and need for purgatory becomes clearer.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that’s true. My original two examples are about certain specific defenses of purgatory based on debt, which doesn’t apply to purification.
 
Last edited:
I liken it more to being disciplined than to restoration of damages. If one doesn’t want forgiveness and if one doesn’t want to improve one’s character one’s basically in mortal sin anyway.
 
Yeah, that makes more sense. As Paul says, discipline is to produce a harvest of righteousness and peace.
 
1) In that case, this would make example 1 more understandable since it’s an instance of partial forgiveness where the prison part of the debt is cancelled, but not the whole thing. The problem with this though is that this means God’s forgiveness is only partial or half-hearted, since He refuses to forgive us all of our debts - in contrast to Biblical descriptions where He is often portrayed forgiving all of our debt to Him (cf. Matt 18:21-25, as well as the case of Nineveh in Jonah cited in the introductory post)
  1. Part of this mercy means you give him an opportunity to fix it (by paying for it).
    Click to expand...
Except that’s just wrong - the kid is still in debt to you since you haven’t forgiven all of his debt. Him still having to pay isn’t an act of mercy properly speaking - the forgiveness of the prison part may be, but the kid still having remaining debt means your mercy hasn’t extended to the rest of his debt.
 
Last edited:
NormalBeliever said:
what if the child refuses to accept the neighbor’s forgiveness and tells him he doesn’t want forgiveness - instead he’ll just pay for the window or help repair it himself, without all of that forgiveness stuff?
Click to expand...
You cannot “just pay for the window or help repair it himself, without all of that forgiveness stuff”.

Part of the “payment” is dying to self.

That involves suffering to rearrange those malappropriated priorities.

Begging forgiveness is part of that dying to self and wanting a repaired relationship.
 
Last edited:
NormalBeliever said:
Nineveh’s inhabitants were guilty of violence to such a degree that God wanted to punish the city and destroy it - but if they repented He would refrain from punishing them. The punishment would have been an actual temporal punishment,
Click to expand...
This is part of WHY the Saints and mystics warn us that it is EASIER to pay an account in THIS life instead of the next.

In the next, you will be outside of the realm of time and space as we know it. So you will be dependent upon others fasting and prayer to atone on your behalf.
 
Last edited:
Nothing. I’m only giving some objections I’ve heard here to see what you think. I already have my own responses to these, but I want to see what others think.
 
We err when we look at such theological issues as if they were a spreadsheet, a ledger or a balance beam scale.

It is a relationship, and the purgation process has been offered to us as part of that loving relationship. There are conditions and we must meet those conditions.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that could be a possibility especially if Nineveh fasted for 3 days without water which is dangerously close to death, though it’s also possible they fasted for longer with water.

But there are strong indications against this interpretation - the end of Jonah says God cancelled the punishment out of compassion which is weird if the Ninevites just payed for it with their fasting. And the actual temporal punishment for it was the destruction of Nineveh, so the period of fasting isn’t proportionate to the debt that needs to be payed.
 
Yes, that’s correct. The example often used - of a child breaking a window and having to pay for it or repair it - is awkward because that is a debt that can be forgiven, giving the idea that God doesn’t forgive our whole debt.

The Catholic idea if temporal punishment or debt in this case is really specific and weird since it doesn’t mean what we usually think of them. It’s not us paying a literal debt but being loyal to God by trying to be good.

It’s not God punishing us to pay a debt, but growing in holiness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top