Staples White debate on Purgatory

[Byzman]

The problem that I have is that If you read 1 Corinthians 3, you will never find purgatory in there unless you literally bring the idea to the text. That’s why I don’t believe in it. Keep in mind belief is a matter of the intellect, and not the will so there is no need to become angry with me.

If Purgatory were some where in the Bible then I think it would be taught a little better than having to reach, and reach, and reach into some metaphorical language about building genuine works upon Christ. I think it would say, “you won’t go immediately to heaven but you will be burned for a while and purged of your remaining sin…etc”. Instead we are sitting here searching for some clue that points to this Purgatory.

If you’re going to refer to Paul, he does say that “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”.

Now I do have two questions, 1) where do you guys look stuff up to determine THE exact and current RCC stance on things. I’ve seen a lot of different references on here and since Roman Catholics are left with no choice but to accept whatever the church tells you, I just assume we look there and there only.

1. Is this evil or sin stuck to us after we die like an actual thing like mud, or is it a privation, an absence of good? In other words are we missing perfect goodness or do we need to be cleansed to reveal this underlying perfect goodness that is being hidden by some evil moral slime that floats around the universe?

I ask this because I was under the impression that when we see Him, we shall be like Him because we will see Him as He is. It is the beholding of the Lord Jesus that transforms us from morally imperfect to moral perfection.

Ok…here is where the problem lies. You specificially want the Bible to say what Purgatory is, but the Bible doesn’t. It only offers clues as to the purging or cleansing of sins. 1 Corinthians 3 doesnt alone prove the existence of a state of purification after death. The text along with insight from others shows that there is a process of cleansing that takes place in all of us until that cleansing is finished. From what I have now said does this prove Purgatory(place or state of existing temporarily after death)? That would be “No.” It just proves that there is a cleansing that needs to be taken place.

Now we use what is called “Theology” to understand the nature of God. So too, do we use theology to underdstand the nature of things that are to take place. The Church did not make up Purgatory, but instead it has always believed that doing things such as penances, praying for the dead, etc. are good things for ourselves and for others for they benefit us. How do they benefit us? Well that is where theology comes into play.

Does the Bible say that “God is Three Persons in One Substance?” Does the Bible say that God is “One and Undivided?” Does the Bible say anything explicity as the the nature of the Trinity? The answer to all these questions is “No.” In fact it takes Theology to understand, or rather, since we cannot fully grasp God, seek a meaning to that which is true.

The Bible w/o theology is a inspired book w/o understanding.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you should increase your number, because if you think that any two men will die with the exact same doctrine or understanding or feelings or core convictions, you are making quite an amazing assumption.

On the one hand, I agree with you: the number is probably much, much higher than 40,000 Christian denominations. :bigyikes:

On the other hand, you make the mistake of thinking differing “core convictions” (where’s that in the Bible, anyway?) makes a different denomination.

As stated on the site: a denomination is defined “as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition.”

Now, I can see how your paradigm of “the Holy Spirit will guide me to read the Scriptures and determine for myself doctrine” will lead you to declare yourself able to form your own denomination, should you feel that your pastor is wrong.

And, I can see how your paradigm of “there is no such thing as an infallible church” will also lead you to form your own denomination…for you always have in the back of your mind: my pastor is fallible. That means he’s, by definition, going to be wrong at some point in his interpretation of Scriptures. Going. To. Be. Wrong. Yikes. This paradigm keeps you on your toes, doesn’t it! :sad_yes: Sad that you can’t trust your church’s judgment on Scripture.

 

[cfrancis]

If you’re going to refer to Paul, he does say that “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”

I’ve heard this line as an argument against purgatory. I can’t seem to find it in the Bible, though.

2 Corinthians 5:8

KJV: We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

NASB: we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.

NIV: We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

ESV: Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

I can understand how many read into this verse the popular paraphrase “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”
But actually reading the verse as it is written does not eliminate the idea of purgatory. Those who sit in the NE can say that they’d prefer/are willing to be absent from the 6 ft of snow and present in Miami, but there is an intermediate state in that statement.

 

[MarcoPolo]

where do you guys look stuff up to determine THE exact and current RCC stance on things. I’ve seen a lot of different references on here and since Roman Catholics are left with no choice but to accept whatever the church tells you, I just assume we look there and there only.

Yes, you should consult documents written by the Church hierarchy, particularly in councils are of value. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) wrote on this subject in Eschatology. That’s a good source for something recent.

I’m sure you mean “whatever the church tells you” in a negative sense, but since we believe the Church to be the means by which the Spirit continues to teach, we say that we accept “whatever the Holy Spirit tells us.” You would not describe the source of what you believe to “what a few ancient men tell me.”

The Catechism is the simplest, quickest reference to what we believe. There are abundant cross references to Scripture, or certain wording carried through from ECFs, or Councils from which the Church has identified these teachings. Regarding Purgatory, the bare bones crux of the matter is simply the final purification after death of the elect. This purification has been consistently likened to punishment, as it is something that needs to be done to correct sin. Other characteristics about Purgatory that members of the Church have posited at times, such as “time” or “place” of Purgatory, are peripheral details that do not change the crux of the dogma and have not been defined as part of it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I can understand how many read into this verse the popular paraphrase “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”
But actually reading the verse as it is written does not eliminate the idea of purgatory. Those who sit in the NE can say that they’d prefer/are willing to be absent from the 6 ft of snow and present in Miami, but there is an intermediate state in that statement.

I agree with you. In fact, to absolutize the idea of absent from body=present with Lord would suggest no one is in hell either.

Also, I think Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote from Eschatology here would reconcile even a Protestant understanding of 2 Cor 5:8:The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter (Purgatory) cannot be quantified by the measurements of earthly time. It is, indeed, not eternal but a transition, and yet trying to qualify it as of ‘short’ or ‘long’ duration on the basis of temporal measurements derived from physics would be naive and unproductive. The ‘temporal measure’ of this encounter lies in the unsoundable depths of existence, in a passing-over where we are burned ere we are transformed. To measure such Existenzzeit, such an ‘existential time,’ in terms of the time of this world would be to ignore the specificity of the human spirit in its simultaneous relationship with, and differentation from, the worldCardinal Ratzinger posited that the soul still has certain attachments to the world. Thus, if his understanding of Purgatory was correct, one could not cite 2 Cor 5:8 as a counter-proof because the soul still has a certain degree of attachment to the world of sin.

 

[Redrum]

I’ve heard this line as an argument against purgatory. I can’t seem to find it in the Bible, though.

2 Corinthians 5:8

KJV: We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

NASB: we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.

NIV: We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

ESV: Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

I can understand how many read into this verse the popular paraphrase “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”
But actually reading the verse as it is written does not eliminate the idea of purgatory. Those who sit in the NE can say that they’d prefer/are willing to be absent from the 6 ft of snow and present in Miami, but there is an intermediate state in that statement.

You’re right it doesn’t eliminate it and I think we agree that no text totally affirm or eliminate purgatory. My point is (though I did misquote and thank you) that when Paul talks about the after life Purgatory seems quite absent.

 

[Redrum]

On the one hand, I agree with you: the number is probably much, much higher than 40,000 Christian denominations. :bigyikes:

Yes, as you are obsessed with this little cliché. And here is a little lesson for the playground, to repeat something over and over doesn’t make it true.

On the other hand, you make the mistake of thinking differing “core convictions” (where’s that in the Bible, anyway?) makes a different denomination.

Let me help you, a core conviction is something a person really believes whether they know it or not. Keep up with me here.

As stated on the site: a denomination is defined “as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition.”

Yes, now you finally begin hit on my statement. So according to your definition the RCC is a denomination right?

Now, I can see how your paradigm of “the Holy Spirit will guide me to read the Scriptures and determine for myself doctrine” will lead you to declare yourself able to form your own denomination, should you feel that your pastor is wrong.

All over the place as usual here.

And, I can see how your paradigm of “there is no such thing as an infallible church” will also lead you to form your own denomination…for you always have in the back of your mind: my pastor is fallible. That means he’s, by definition, going to be wrong at some point in his interpretation of Scriptures. Going. To. Be. Wrong. Yikes. This paradigm keeps you on your toes, doesn’t it! :sad_yes: Sad that you can’t trust your church’s judgment on Scripture.

 

[Pete_Holter]

That is definitely a good verse to go along with the 1 Corinthians 3 text. It adds more light to what we Catholics have been saying for a long time.

Tim tried to make this point when James demanded to know which verb in the passage meant anything like “purification.” You’ll see I thought the same thing was significant back in post 39. Both your posts were very good and well done.

Thanks for the encouragement, brothers! I love the quotes from the Church Fathers, MarcoPolo!

No other cry have I, than to know You more and lift You high!

 

[cfrancis]

You’re right it doesn’t eliminate it and I think we agree that no text totally affirm or eliminate purgatory. My point is (though I did misquote and thank you) that when Paul talks about the after life Purgatory seems quite absent.

I don’t see it as a misquote, but a paraphrase; and from your belief, it is an acceptable paraphrase.

As for Paul and his mention or allusion to Purgatory, that’s why we’re in this thread

I do think there is an underlying issue at work: does the Bible have to address, explicitly, all that a Christian needs to/should believe about Christianity (and I am not including such items as, should Christians use cars, computers, etc…).

• I don’t know your thoughts on this, so I won’t speak for you
• Catholics believe, no; there are even some issues/beliefs that aren’t even alluded to in Scripture. Our basic point of defense for this is, of course, the canon of Scripture and the inspiration of such texts as Matthew, Mark, 1 Cor, etc…

The way Catholics see it, the Bible is not a catechism, nor was it meant to be. Take Baptism, for example. Nowhere in the NT do the authors provide the rite of Baptism (i.e., how to do it).
In all the issues Paul addresses in his epistles (we possess; we know he wrote others, which is an issue in light of 2 Pt 3:16) to the churches, no one apparently had any problems with Purgatory (if you accept the Catholic view of certain passages re: Purgatory), how to baptize, meeting on Sunday, etc…

 

[po18guy]

I think you should increase your number, because if you think that any two men will die with the exact same doctrine or understanding or feelings or core convictions, you are making quite an amazing assumption.

Certainly, men will differ. But, we are talking about the dissemination of God’s revealed truth here. There are not 40,000 versions of it - or even two. His truth is One, as He is One. He founded a church, whose teachings are hard to accept, just as the crowd grumbled in John 6. The easier a body of teaching is to accept, the more clearly false it is.

 

[Redrum]

Certainly, men will differ. But, we are talking about the dissemination of God’s revealed truth here. There are not 40,000 versions of it - or even two. His truth is One, as He is One. He founded a church, whose teachings are hard to accept, just as the crowd grumbled in John 6. The easier a body of teaching is to accept, the more clearly false it is.

I agree with you. There is an objective truth, and all truth is God’s truth. Does one have an exhaustive knowledge here on Earth?

My only point is to make sure when we say 40,000 different denominations we are applying the same standard to the CC. For instance what would you say if I questioned the RCC and Eastern Orthodox? How can these two both be right?

I’m guessing you would say that you both beleive in the essentials (I could be wrong here).

 

[Churchmouse]

Thank you for the answer, CM.

I like the answer, for it’s probably the same a Catholic would give. Note you didn’t use Scripture for the answer. You could have, as you said earlier, find Scripture that alludes to or implies what the Creeds state:

This is precisely why I didn’t want to give an answer, but it’s also the reason why I answered it the way I did. Yet, what did the councils used to formulate these creeds? And that is where we come back to Scripture and Scripture alone. Now, it is also common to say that the Arians did too but, yet, the fact remains, it was Scripture and Scripture alone by which the formulas used to define the nature of God were derived. Therefore, to bring this back to purgatory, the Trinity is a logical extension of Scripture, defined by what Scripture fluidly gives, purgatory is not.

But the Creeds provide a much fuller understanding of the relationship and nature of the relationship. This knowledge is obviously important as the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon were called to deal with the various heresies regarding the Trinity’s relationship and its nature. We should all remember that Arius, Nestorius, and others who promulgated heretical ideas ***were not ***doing so out of malice, but because they pondered Scripture and truly believed what they taught.

Yet, as I stated before, the Creeds were based on Scripture. This was the common ground. THIS is where the formulas were derived. Does the fact that the Arians and their heresy were culled from Scripture as well, compromise the Trinity in regards to what is said about purgatory? A big resounding NO. One can’t look at one and compare the other as a result.

The word of the Councils are not found in Scripture, yet, as you say, they used Scripture to build the formulation of the Trinity we now use: Three distinct Divine Persons in One Divine Being sharing the same Divine Nature.

Exactly, they used Scripture to define what Scripture gives about the nature. I can go through Scripture and, with complete clarity, show that God is considered one, that each member of the Godhead is called or implied directly as “God”, and that each is referred to as person. Again, the formula is derived FROM Scripture of which purgatory isn’t comparable.

You have just done as you ask above: the formulation of the understanding of the Trinity isn’t just a series of Scripture quotations, because, as you stated, Scripture doesn’t give us this. Yes, it “implies” many things, and “calls” each Divine Person, God, but does not explain their relationship to each other as we now understand it (as much as our finite rational mind can understand this infinte Mystery) given to us by the Councils.

You understand then, given these statements of yours, I truly expected an answer from only Scripture.

Well, again, to bring it back to the comparison with purgatory, Scripture is definitive in regards to the Trinity and it was Scripture alone that was used to define the formula. Purgatory remains something which cannot --in any way, form, or manner-- be culled in the same manner. It remains a man-made concept. Scripture provides the answer, but considering you were insistent on your formulaic approach, what you think to be a point doesn’t really prove anything.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

I didn’t think that you would dare use the “H” word, but, now that you’ve opened the door…

So, does that mean he’s wrong on purgatory? How does such a theological misfit arrive at purgatory using only the bible?

Well, please acknowledge that you mistakenly called him a “Protestant.” The guy is all over the place. Just the fact that he adheres to Armstrongism, which denies the deity of Christ, what do you think I should call him…my *brother *??? Can you remind me why Paul wrote the book of Galatians again?

 

[Churchmouse]

Hi, Friend!

No, I did not realize that Carthage was a local council.

It was, therefore, it didn’t speak for the entire church. History itself attests to the fact that others held various views, even after Carthage.

Again, how is it that you know that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired, but the Gospel of Mark is? Whose authority do you submit to for this?

IOW, you mentioned “criteria” for determining what’s canonical. What criteria did you use?

Well, smarter men than I have written books which show why some books were other’s weren’t. In particular, Bruce, Metzger, and Pelikan. There is nothing wrong with that. They are all uniform regarding their lack of evidence.

Oh, and come visit my Profile Page. I have a private photo album that I’ve set up–I think it makes it easier to chat with friends if we can actually see whom it is we’re conversing with, and see that they’re actual living, breathing children of God.

Well, I can say with all certitude that I am not a 'bot . And some folks will actually say that I am living and breathing. I’ll go when I have time. As it stands I am typing during one of my breaks. I teach at a private school and, if you know teachers, the work doesn’t stop at school. There are lesson plans, grading, reviewing students, etc. We’ll see as we go along.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

The Cross purges us of all pre-conversion sins [original & actual]. And, yes, the Cross is the source of all later purgings which we receive in our Post-Baptismal lives.

Well, I can agree to an extent, but I don’t want to pull our more issues that lead to more pros and cons.

Nevertheless, we MUST confess and receive forgiveness to be periodically purged in this life. However, if one goes several months w/o confessing … we would not be ‘spiritually fit’ for meeting our maker. Provided we didn’t commit a Mortal sin … upon death we would need ‘purging’ of the venial sins. As scriptures teach, ‘W/O holiness, no man will see God’.

You lost me on the “upon death” part. Remember, I don’t believe that one can be forgiven after death.

As Tim Staples told White in that debate … purgatory is a ‘process’ by which we are ‘refined’ by holy fire. It’s not a physical locale we are sent to to ‘work off’ our sins by saying Hail Mary’s. It could be purely mental anguish we experience for our commission of all unconfessed, Post-Baptismal venial sins – [a ‘spiritual’ fire which purifies our souls] … perhaps.

If Tim said that then I believe he was laboring on a straw man. White doesn’t claim that Catholics working it off in purgatory. He denies that there is a purgatory to begin with. What White does say is that the RCC, in its past, has taught that purgatory is a place and one would be hardpressed to claim otherwise.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross was both a propitiation and purification for our sins. Don’t make it seem like it is one and not the other.

Hebrews 1:3

Hebrews 9:13-14

In one sense we can say Christ is our Purgatory. He purges our sins.

No one has claim or implied otherwise. Amen to the Scriptures. If Christ is our “purgatory” then we need no other.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

You obviously do not realize that the Council of Carthage was sent to the Pope to be approved by him, and yes the Pope speaks for all Christendom.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html

It doesn’t matter. They did not infallibly declare a canon that was to be followed by all, regardless of popes. And, as history shows, no one was required to follow their list.

Boniface was the Bishop of Rome during this African Code.

CM

 

[cfrancis]

This is precisely why I didn’t want to give an answer, but it’s also the reason why I answered it the way I did. Yet, what did the councils used to formulate these creeds? And that is where we come back to Scripture and Scripture alone…the fact remains, it was Scripture and Scripture alone by which the formulas used to define the nature of God were derived…

You make this assertion several times, that Scripture alone was used. I’d like to see your evidence for this.

Yet, as I stated before, the Creeds were based on Scripture. This was the common ground. THIS is where the formulas were derived. Does the fact that the Arians and their heresy were culled from Scripture as well, compromise the Trinity in regards to what is said about purgatory? A big resounding NO. One can’t look at one and compare the other as a result.

We agree that Scripture was used - but you claim - without providing the evidence - it was just Scripture, Scripture alone. However, your comment here is interesting: you say Arius also used Scripture, which then brings us to two sources using Scripture to arrive at different conclusions.
You gloss over the obvious: by what authority and on what basis was a decision made that the Council’s use of Scripture was better, more right, orthodox, as compared to Arius’?
As they both used Scripture, there had to be an extra-Scriptural “tie-breaker” so to speak.

Exactly, they used Scripture to define what Scripture gives about the nature. I can go through Scripture and, with complete clarity, show that God is considered one, that each member of the Godhead is called or implied directly as “God”, and that each is referred to as person.

You can do this only because of what you know from Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon; as each of these councils prove, a different conclusion can be reached using Scripture. That is, you’re taking the definition of Trinity we now accept and going to the evidence; you are not building the definition yourself.

…Scripture is definitive in regards to the Trinity and it was Scripture alone that was used to define the formula…Scripture provides the answer, but considering you were insistent on your formulaic approach, what you think to be a point doesn’t really prove anything.CM

Again, you are looking back with the answer, not attempting to come up with the answer; and you still have not provided the evidence that Nicea (or any of the Councils) relied on Scripture alone. Your assertion in that regard remains just that: an empty assertion.

 

[cfrancis]

Here is an excerpt from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. III , taken from Chapter VI.-General Council of Nicaea:

"The bishops convened in council being desirous of refuting the impious assertions invented by the Arians, that the Son was created out of that which was non-existent1 09, that He is a creature and created being 110 , that there was a period in which He was not111 , and that He is mutable by nature, and being all agreed in propounding the following declarations, which are in accordance with the holy Scriptures; namely, that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, Power, and sole Wisdom of the Father; that He is, as John said, the true God 112 ,' and, as Paul has written, the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father 113 ,’ the followers of Eusebius, drawn aside by their own vile doctrine, then began to say one to another, Let us agree, for we are also of God; There is but one God, by whom are all things 114 ; Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God’ 115 .’ They also dwelt particularly upon what is contained in The Shepherd 116 :' Believe above all that there is one God, who created and fashioned all things, and making them to be out of that which is not.'

"But the bishops saw through their evil design and impious artifice, and gave a clearer elucidation of the words `of God,’ and wrote, that the Son is of the substance of God; in order that while the creatures, which do not in any way derive their existence of or from themselves, are said to be of God, the Son alone is said to be of the substance of the Father; this being peculiar to the only-begotten Son, the true Word of the Father. This is the reason why the bishops wrote, that He is of the substance of the Father.

"But when the Arians, who seemed few in number, were again interrogated by the Bishops as to whether they admitted that the Son is not a creature, but Power, and sole Wisdom, and eternal unchangeable117 Image of the Father; and that He is very God,' the Eusebians were noticed making signs to one another to shew that these declarations were equally applicable to us. For it is said, that we are the image and glory of God118 ;’ and for always we who live119 :' there are, also, they said, many powers; for it is written-All the power of God went out of the land of Egypt120 .’ The canker-worm and the locust are said to be a great power121 .' And elsewhere it is written,The God of powers is with us, the God of Jacob helper122 .' To which may be added that we are God's own not simply, but because the Son called us brethren123 .’ The declaration that Christ is `the true God’ does not distress us, for, having come into being, He is true.

“Such was the corrupt opinion of the Arians; but on this the bishops, having detected their deceitfulness in this matter, collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person; and they quoted the following words: In thy light we shall see light124 ;' and likewise, I and the Father are one125 .’ They then, with still greater clearness, briefly declared that the Son is of one substance with the Father; for this, indeed, is the signification of the passages which have been quoted. The complaint of the Arians, that these precise words are not to be found in Scripture, is proved groundless by their own practice, for their own impious assertions are not taken from Scripture; for it is not written that the Son is of the non-existent, and that there was a time when He was not: and yet they complain of having been condemned by expressions which, though not actually in Scripture, are in accordance with true religion. They themselves, on the other hand, as though they had found their words on a dunghill, uttered things verily of earth. The bishops, on the contrary, did not find their expressions for themselves; but, received their testimony from the fathers, and wrote accordingly. Indeed, there were bishops of old time, nearly one hundred and thirty years ago, both of the great city of Rome and of our own city126 , who condemned those who asserted that the Son is a creature, and that He is not of one substance with the Father. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, was acquainted with these facts; he, at one time, favoured the Arian heresy, but he afterwards signed the confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea. He wrote to the people of his diocese, maintaining that the word consubstantial' was used by illustrious bishops and learned writers as a term for expressing the divinity of the Father and of the Son127 .’”

You’ll note that it was not Scripture alone that was used to defeat the Arians.

 

[Churchmouse]

Just so I am clear as to what you believe: you believe that Satan is in heaven. Is this a correct understanding of your belief?

I am only stating what Scripture gives. In both instances, Scripture indicates that Satan has access. I gave you the verses.

Again, so I am clear as to what you believe: before the general judgment, before Rev 21:27, unclean things are in heaven. Is this a correct understanding of your belief?

Again, I gave you the verses. Satan accuses us before God and meets with God. Revelation 12:3 states clearly “in heaven.” He accused them before “our God day and night.” Now, unless you’re going to say that Satan was accusing us before he fell, I don’t see your point.

I’m not sure I understand what you believe here. It appears that you are saying that Rev 12:7-12 does not describe Lucifer being expelled from heaven. Is this a correct understanding of your belief?

No, Satan is being expelled. But its qualified within the other passages.

At what can Satan not enter heaven, according to your belief?

• Was Satan in heaven from Gen 1 to Rev 12?
• Can Satan enter heaven b/n Rev 12 and Rev 20?

Look, I can only tell you what Scripture states. Lucifer, when he rebelled, was cast down to earth. Yet, Scripture seems to indicate that he is allowed access to God and that this is in heaven. Take it for what you want but this is what it teaches. Does it mean that he is enjoying the blessings of God as a result? I don’t think Scripture teaches that at all. Now, getting this back to the verses used to support purgatory, I don’t believe that Hebrews 12:14 is evidence that purgation must happen in the afterlife, to make one holy. Holiness is attained in this life through Christ.

Yes, we have Satan in heaven in Rev 12 - when is then kicked out of heaven. I’d buy your argument if Rev 12 said God allowed a defeated and rebellious Satan to remain in heaven.
As for Job 1 - please tell me where it states Satan is in heaven.

I don’t believe that Scripture needs to be that exhaustive. Hebrews 12:14 tells us that without holiness, no one will “see” (<–correct context) the Lord. Well, we’d be hardpressed to say that Satan is not “seeing the Lord” in Job 1. We can argue jots and tittles all day and, yet, this is what Scripture implies. After all, where is the Lord?

CM