Why do Protestants object to Purgatory?

[VociMike]

Sorry. The article was perhaps less friendly to Catholicism than it could have been. Apart from the loaded language, I did think it would be helpful.

Thanks, but don’t worry, I wasn’t offended, just bemused.

The reason that the Reformers rejected the notion of Purgatory, pure and simple, is that we believe that we discern from Scripture the doctrine of imputed righteousness rather than a doctrine of infused righteousness. You are mired deeply in the idea that YOU are the one who must be perfect; Protestant theology says you are incapable of such a state and that your ownly hope of Heaven is to be covered by the righteousness of Christ. If you grasp the difference between imputed versus infused righteousness you will see how the Reformation understanding fully negates the idea of Purgatory. It is no longer needful to talk about sin–or the effects of sin, or the remnants of sin, or whatever simile one cares to emply–being ‘burned-away’.

I do want to keep exploring this. Will you sin in heaven? Will you have any desire to sin in heaven? If not, why not, since you do here on earth.

Or to ask in another way, will you actually be perfect in heaven, or will you be imperfect, but God will see you as perfect?

Actually, even Roman Catholic exegetes have pointed out that this passage does not convey the idea of purgatory (the purging of sin) as it does the testing of one’s works. If one has done things in the name of Christ which did not actually forward the Kingdom of God, then those things will as it were be ‘burned away’–they will have no lasting, eternal significance. The passage is simply misapplied by Catholic apologists to the concept of purgatory.

Well, my argument doesn’t stand or fall on this, but it is interesting to read “If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss,** though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire**.” Sounds like something akin to suffering to me. But let’s not get sidetracked on this.

 

[Syele]

There’s nothing about a process (certainly not a supernatural process) that prohibits it from being instantaneous. If you don’t like the word “process” just call purgatory the action (by God) of completing our purification, perfection, sanctification. Could you live with that?

But through the protestant theology of Justification, it is still totally unnecessary.

 

[VociMike]

But through the protestant theology of Justification, it is still totally unnecessary.

So you will continue to sin in heaven, and to desire to sin in heaven?

 

[Syele]

So you will continue to sin in heaven, and to desire to sin in heaven?

Of Course not.

 

[VociMike]

Of Course not.

Then what will change at death? For you sin now, and you desire to sin now. I keep hearing that no change will be needed to enter heaven, and then when I ask “so you will continue to have sinful desires?” you say “of course not!” I just can’t connect the dots.

But I’ll try again. Help me connect the dots.

Are you actually and really perfect now?

Will you actually and really be perfect in heaven?

 

[M_Oliver]

Pergatory when it is a Biblical concept.

Question: Where in the bible is this concept?

 

[Atreyu]

My point is simple. Protestants believe the issues taken care of at Purgatory are taken care of at the time of being Saved.

The Protestant and Catholic beliefs on the whole questions of how you are saved, when you are saved, and what exactly you are saved from are simply different. Similar, but different. For Protestants, Purgatory is redundant.

Yes, I agree. I suppose some of the Catholics here have taken things a bit further than I have, in trying to prove that we cannot escape from having a teaching on Purgatory. Personally I think we should focus more on the issue as you describe it: how you are saved, when you are saved and what you are saved from (although I’m not too sure that we disagree about the last).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Then why do we even need to live on this earth, beforehand?

Why can’t God just instantaneously give us wholesome, generous, saintly lives, without having to go through 60, 90 or even 100 years of suffering here on earth?

Because it pleased Almighty God, for His own good pleasure, to create beings other than Himself ​

Specifically, and in due course, to create & then recreate us, “that we might** be to the praise of His Glory**”

We do not exist for ourselves, we exist & move & have our being not for us, but “for Him Who loved us, and gave Himself for us”. IOW, it glorifies Jesus Christ that we exist. All things are for Him, all are made by Him and for Him.

And it glorifies Him that He should predestinate, elect, choose, call, justify, sanctify a people of His own possession, as an act of pure grace & mercy. ##

That’s why ##

 

[Sixtus]

The RCC teaches that purgatory is a place where humans gain merit for themselves through suffering.

Flameburn, we were doing so well. Then you go and spoil it!

You have convinced me you possess enough knowledge of Catholic theology to know that what you have asserted above is NOT Catholic teaching.

No where does the Church claim Purgatory to be a place in the sense that it is better understood as a process. It is less to do with forgiveness and more to do with perfection. Yes, my sins are forgiven in Christ, but I alone have the duty to 'make myself perfect. For Jesus said ‘be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect’.

I perfect myself on this earth by self-denial and turning to the Lord in times of great weakenss.It is not enough to submit to the pleasures of the flesh as ‘it will be ok, Christ atoned for my sins’

Purgatory is not about atonement or justification. Protestants I have come to realise see Justification as possessing one part… Catholics see it as two parts: ‘the forgiveness of sin’ and the ‘achieving perfection by individual effort’. Self denial and self correction has been a Christian practice since apostolic times, but of course you will know that.

If that perfection is not achieved in this life, then by the grace of God and the sacrifice of His Divine Son on the cross, that is achievable after death.

I started this thread by asking a question. I repeat that question by asking a slightly different question. Why do ‘some’ Protestants not believe that we have an individual responsibility for achieving a perfection worthy of the beatific vision?

 

[Syele]

Then what will change at death? For you sin now, and you desire to sin now. I keep hearing that no change will be needed to enter heaven, and then when I ask “so you will continue to have sinful desires?” you say “of course not!” I just can’t connect the dots.

But I’ll try again. Help me connect the dots.

Are you actually and really perfect now?

Will you actually and really be perfect in heaven?

Tell me, in the Catholic viewpoint, is it your flesh or your soul that sins or Both?

Galatians 5

16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Ephesians 2:
12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

So we have the spirit and the flesh. When your flesh Dies it is your spirit that goes to God for Judgement, not the flesh. The punishment for all sin is Death and our Bodies and the flesh with them die. The Spirit was made right with God at the time of Salvation, the time we became part of God’s Household. The Flesh Completely dies when it Dies. In Heaven we recieve new incorrupt Bodies. We don’t keep the old sinful ones.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

But Christ has already paid the penalty for sin, and no further penalty for sin need be paid if ‘those in Purgatory’ are in Christ and therefore covered by His righteousness. Is Christ being daily made to suffer again for the sins for which He once died to atone for?

Actually, the lamb was slain from the foundation of creation-- and yet we all know that this does not mean that Christ suffers over and over again.

The physical manifestation (or epiphany) of Christ’s salvific work on the cross expands all the way from eternity past and infinitely into the future.

Indeed, when Christ died, he went and preached to the spirits in prison long ago-- even though he had not physically died on the cross yet from their temporal perspective.

Likewise, Paul himself says that he rejoices in what was suffered for us, and he filled up in his flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions-- for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Clearly Christ had already died. He was not dying over and over and over again.

And yet certainly Paul’s statements are not taken literally in saying that Christ’s sacrifice was in anyway insufficient to save.

Rather, by patiently bearing with these sufferings he was tapping the crucifixion of Christ on the cross-- exaclty like those in purgatory do as Christ purges them in death just as he purges us in life.

My apologies. But I don’t really see how your objections are valid in light of how Christ has worked in Spirit so save people from all generations past, present and future by his one sacrifice on the cross.

 

[Doggy]

There is no purgatory mentioned explicitly in the bible…once the soul dies,it dies until it is to be resurrected by Christ’s second coming…and of course I don’t know why you claim that protestants have a “different” bible when all bible versions are THE SAME. The only difference is that the apocrypha is added to the NASB and other versions (forgot which), which protestants don’t accept because it has no basis in either the old or the new testament scriptures. Christ quotes many verses in the old yet never once in the apocrypha…

 

[AlegreFe]

…and of course I don’t know why you claim that protestants have a “different” bible when all bible versions are THE SAME. The only difference is that the apocrypha is added to the NASB and other versions (forgot which), which protestants don’t accept because it has no basis in either the old or the new testament scriptures.

The Catholic Church did NOT add those books. Martin Luther took those books OUT because of the verses that referred to purgatory. He would’ve had to take out more books for that because there are verses in the bible that refer to purgatory (my post above). He also wanted to take out James and some other books. He wanted “James” out because of the fact that it says that we are justified by our works and NOT by faith alone.

btw, the NASB is a Protestant bible not a Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible is the NAB which stands for New American Bible.

 

[Frost]

Why do Protestants object to Pergatory when it is a Biblical concept. It was also believed by the Jews of Jesus day.In that snese belief in Purgatory was not created by the CC but inherited from it’s earliest roots of Judaism. There is no evidence that the Lord refuted this teaching. So why do Protestants not accept it?

Because when we are washed clean in the blood of the Lamb, there is no need for anything else. The cross is enough.

1 Cor. 6: 11

 

[VociMike]

So we have the spirit and the flesh. When your flesh Dies it is your spirit that goes to God for Judgement, not the flesh. The punishment for all sin is Death and our Bodies and the flesh with them die. The Spirit was made right with God at the time of Salvation, the time we became part of God’s Household. The Flesh Completely dies when it Dies. In Heaven we recieve new incorrupt Bodies. We don’t keep the old sinful ones.

Well, this certainly came out of nowhere! So our perfect spirits ride around in sinful bodies, sinning away, and when we die our perfect spirits are freed from those sinful bodies and all sin and desire to sin stops immediately? Hmm…

To me, honestly, this is a cop-out. My mouth doesn’t sin, I do. My eyes don’t desire to sin, I do. Satan and his angels are pure spirit, but they sinned and continue to sin. Paul says “For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.” He doesn’t say “For my flesh does not do the good I want, but my flesh does the evil I do not want.”

I’m sorry, I think this artificial separation of the human person into perfect spirit and sinful flesh is nothing but a fantastic invention, a passing of the buck (“It’s not me who sins but my rotten old flesh!”) It smells of the general distaste and distrust that Protestantism seems to have for material creation.

But at least you did finally connect the dots for me.

BTW, were Adam and Eve’s bodies the corrupt type when they sinned?

For that matter, was Jesus’ earthly body the corrupt or incorrupt type? If it was the corrupt type, how come He didn’t sin?

 

[Syele]

Well, this certainly came out of nowhere! So our perfect spirits ride around in sinful bodies, sinning away, and when we die our perfect spirits are freed from those sinful bodies and all sin and desire to sin stops immediately? Hmm…

To me, honestly, this is a cop-out. My mouth doesn’t sin, I do. My eyes don’t desire to sin, I do. Satan and his angels are pure spirit, but they sinned and continue to sin. Paul says “For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.” He doesn’t say “For my flesh does not do the good I want, but my flesh does the evil I do not want.”

You see it as a cop-out, I see it as a Gift from God. When he said “I For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.” He is rightfully not seperating the parts of himself. You Body is still part of you until it dies and it directly affect your desires. Do you not eat because you are hungry? Without the body you are not tempted to sin and are not subject to the lusts of the flesh.

Romans 6
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I’m sorry, I think this artificial separation of the human person into perfect spirit and sinful flesh is nothing but a fantastic invention, a passing of the buck (“It’s not me who sins but my rotten old flesh!”) It smells of the general distaste and distrust that Protestantism seems to have for material creation.

They cannot be totally seperate during this life. Both are a part of you now. The Bible often wanrs against the lusts of the flesh and tells us as Christians to live by the Spirit.

But at least you did finally connect the dots for me.

BTW, were Adam and Eve’s bodies the corrupt type when they sinned?

For that matter, was Jesus’ earthly body the corrupt or incorrupt type? If it was the corrupt type, how come He didn’t sin?

Origional sin corrupted Adam and Eve’s perfect bodies. To say otherwise would mean God created them bad. He Didn’t. They chose to sin. Our spirits CAN resist temptation to sin. Just because your flesh is corrupted dosn’t mean you must be a slave to it and do what it desires. Jesus is the example of this. Jesus was capable of Sinning and rightly chose not to. Satan tempted Him, Yet he did not succumb to the temptation. He didn’t sin because His spirit was not corrupt. Every saved person is capable of resisting the temptations of the flesh by directing thier spirit to what God wants them to do. Only the unsaved are slaves to the flesh.

As a saved Christian it is unacceptable to blame my “rotton old flesh” for my sin, God has given me the gift of salvation from such slavery. Only the unsaved can blame their “rotten old flesh” because they cannot do Good without God.

 

[VociMike]

You see it as a cop-out, I see it as a Gift from God. When he said “I For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.” He is rightfully not seperating the parts of himself. You Body is still part of you until it dies and it directly affect your desires. Do you not eat because you are hungry? Without the body you are not tempted to sin and are not subject to the lusts of the flesh…

Allow me to point out that of the seven deadly sins, only two are (apparently) related strictly to the flesh (lust and gluttony). And it is by no means obvious that uncorrupted bodies would, by definition, be impervious to those two sins.

 

[Syele]

Allow me to point out that of the seven deadly sins, only two are (apparently) related strictly to the flesh (lust and gluttony). And it is by no means obvious that uncorrupted bodies would, by definition, be impervious to those two sins.

Adam and Eve became corrpted after they sinned once. Their sin wasn’t lust or Gluttony…

 

[flameburns623]

Then what will change at death? For you sin now, and you desire to sin now. I keep hearing that no change will be needed to enter heaven, and then when I ask “so you will continue to have sinful desires?” you say “of course not!” I just can’t connect the dots.

But I’ll try again. Help me connect the dots.

Are you actually and really perfect now?

Will you actually and really be perfect in heaven?

At death we will be separated from the body of sin we now lug about as if chained to a corpse. This was an actual Roman punishment, imposed upon some criminals: a living person was chained to a corpse. In a few days or weeks of course, the putrefying corpse would bring disease and death to the living prisoner. No one was allowed to free the living person from the corpse, and even after the condemned person had been overcome by the rottenness of his or her dead companion the two bodies were buried together. This is the image Paul is likely conjuring when he exclaims in Romans 7:24:

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

What happens to our sinful inclinations and desires at death is that they are buried alongside our natural bodies, rather as the rotting corpse would be buried along with the dead prisoner.

In Heaven, you will have the perfection of Christ. You will not ‘be’ perfect in the sense that you will somehow have perfected yourself. You will be clothed in a foreign righteousness, a righteousness not your own.

 

[flameburns623]

Sixtus:

Flameburn, we were doing so well. Then you go and spoil it!

You have convinced me you possess enough knowledge of Catholic theology to know that what you have asserted above is NOT Catholic teaching.

Sixtus, I am not explaining Roman Catholic theology. I am explaining certain aspects of Protestant Reformational theology, with the specific end in mind of answering the question posed by the title of this thread: “why don’t Protestants believe in Purgatory?” (Or, as some would have it, "pergatory "

In any case, I can certainly get Catholic theology wrong in places. I may so have done, in which case you will do me a grand favor by correcting my flawed understanding. My understanding however, is that Roman Catholicism–like Arminianism–definitely teaches that there is some engine or means whereby human beings generate for themselves merit. Hence the ‘treasury of merits’ upon which souls can draw upon through the use of sacramentals or indulgences. Or make deposits into, by living lives of extraordinary righteousness. Now I do understand that even in Catholic theology the raw materials by which one generates such merit are rooted in the righteousness of Christ. The engine which is used to convert those raw materials into merit is, ultimately the work of Christ. Hence Roman Catholics would argue that the ultimate ground and being of all human merit is Christ. And yet–and yet–in some way, the saintliness of St. Francis of Assisi is somehow due to his own merit, his own specialness, his own goodness. There is something about the good St. Francis that made him so saintly, even though even he himself would say that all the credit ultimately belongs to Christ.

I probably haven’t nailed all of the loose ends down as precisely as a Catholic Molinist would like but what I am saying is essentially what I understand to be what Catholicism says. Protestant Arminianism would say much the same thing, by the way, except that my sense is that Arminians are a little less theologically and philosophically rigorous in how they put things.

Reformational Protestant theology simply rejects the idea that human beings have any sort of goodness or merit in them–or any ability to be good or to have merit–from the perspective of God. Humanly speaking of course, it’s very nice that St. Francis was a good man. It is very nice that he preached to the animals. But from a God’s-eye-view, the preaching of St. Francis is no more meritorious than the eating habits of Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lector (except than Hannibal is a fictitious person, of course). ALL of our righteousness is as filthy rags, there is NONE righteous, not even one. We are saved–all of us who are of the Elect of God, from Adam to the last man or woman destined to be numbered with the People of God–not by our own merits but exclusively by the merits of Christ on the cross.

I started this thread by asking a question. I repeat that question by asking a slightly different question. Why do ‘some’ Protestants not believe that we have an individual responsibility for achieving a perfection worthy of the beatific vision?

Because Reformational Protestants reject the notion that humans can achieve perfection, or even that our own perfection is desirable or needful Because the pursuit of perfection represents returning oneself to the bondage of the Law, while Christians are set free by the Gospel. We do not pursue our own perfection: we receive the perfection of Jesus Christ.

Yes, my sins are forgiven in Christ, but I alone have the duty to 'make myself perfect. For Jesus said ‘be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect’.

The only way to achieve the commandment you persistently cite is to give up your own efforts at being perfect and to receive the perfection of Christ. Otherwise you sell yourself over again to the bondage of Law and miss the grace of the Gospel.