Zone1 Purgatory makes perfect sense.

[Mashmont]

My non-Catholic Christian friends believe people either go to Heaven or Hell. They don't believe in Purgatory. But in addition to being biblical (Maccabees, Luke, Corinthians, Timothy, Hebrews), the concept of Purgatory makes perfect sense. Only the perfect can be admitted to Heaven, and few die in a state that approaches perfection. So for those who followed God's teaching, but still have a ways to go, it's logical they would need to be purified. This purification MUST be unpleasant. We all know that facing unpleasant or difficult tasks or conditions on earth makes us tougher and better and more cheerful people. So it's logical purgatory is what we need for perfection.

My faith teaches that self-denial and penance are ways to avoid purgatory. Sacrifices on earth are far less painful than those we have to endure in Purgatory, so the best path is to do what we can on earth. Some have criticized Mother Teresa for her praise of suffering, but her misconstrued words were in the context I'm talking about, of improving yourself and working towards perfection.

Father Paul Sullivan, who authored a work in the 1940s called "How to Avoid Purgatory" gives a lot of ways we can go straight to heaven. One of the 'sufferings' we can do is by reacting positively to every inconvenience on earth, rather than complaining about them. Simple sacrifices like that. Never complain. That simple practice alone, changes your whole outlook. Father Sullivan's little book is among the most life-changing I've encountered. Another 'penance' comes from St. Therese Lisieux, who is considered one of the Church's greatest saints, and is a Doctor of the Church because of her doctrinal contributions. Her advice is to never miss an opportunity to be charitable to anyone and everyone you encounter in a day. This could be a smile or a kind word. You have dozens of opportunities a day to do this. You can do it five times on a trip to the supermarket.

You can also do acts of self-denial. Don't give in to an opportunity to comment negatively on someone or something. And suffering doesn't have to be this big onerous thing. It can be little things. If you like soy sauce on your rice, leave it out. On a short trip in the car on a cold day, leave off the heat. If you are faced with an unpleasant task, immediately grab it by the horns and embrace it. Overpower it. If you would love a soda right now, have a glass of water instead. If you are alone on a driving trip, say the Rosary or some other prayer. All these things will put you in a cheerful energetic frame of mind to where you are just bursting to do for others.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Doesn't that sorta deny the fact that the bible says you cannot earn your salvation?

 

[Mashmont]

Doesn't that sorta deny the fact that the bible says you cannot earn your salvation?

No, it doesn't. Protestants often make this claim about Catholics. They imply we think salvation can be earned SOLELY through good works, as if we deny the necessity of Jesus' Christians suffering and resurrection. But we don't deny that in the least. HOWEVER, even with Jesus' suffering and resurrection, we still must do good works to reach heaven aka love one another as much as possible. And loving others entails good works.

 

[WinterBorn]

I thought, if you truly repent of your sins, and love the Lord, you were forgiven. Or have things changed that much since I was in church?

 

[Meriweather]

Doesn't that sorta deny the fact that the bible says you cannot earn your salvation?

Doesn't the Bible also recommend storing up treasure in heaven?

 

[Calypso Jones]

Doesn't the Bible also recommend storing up treasure in heaven?

certainly.

 

[ninja007]

Jesus did all the purging on the cross. it is finished. purgatory is not found anywhere in the bible.

 

[ninja007]

salvation is a free gift,period.

 

[ninja007]

Let’s now consider the arguments the author makes for purgatory.

Argument 1 for Purgatory​

He first turns to II Maccabees 12:39-46, which says:

“39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs. 40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. 42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.”

​

IIMaccabees was never part of the Hebrew Scriptures, and is considered an “apocryphal” book, meaning it was never part of Holy Scripture. The original OT canon was Jewish, and contained the twenty two books (the same thirty nine in today’s Protestant Bible; some were combined as one). This canon was known as the Palestinian canon. When the Hebrew OT was translated into Greek (the Septuagint) in Alexandria, Egypt, included in the canon were fifteen books known as the Apocrypha. These were likely included due to the tradition of many churches viewing these books as “useful”, but not canonical (indeed, not all of these books were accepted by the Council of Trent, an “infallible” Catholic council). There are many good reasons why Christians reject the apocryphal books as being included in the OT canon. These include history and evidence from some of the books themselves. Specifically:

• No apocryphal books were written by a prophet. All of the OT Scriptures were written by prophets, while none of the apocryphal books were; therefore, the apocryphal books are not canonical. Scripture attests to this view in that the OT is referred to as the Scriptures of the prophets.
• The apocryphal books were not accepted by the Jews as part of the OT. If these books were part of the canonical OT, then surely Jesus would have criticized the Jews for excluding them from Scripture, yet He never does.
• Jesus and the apostles never quote from the apocryphal books. The OT testifies of Christ, and He gives testimony to the validity of the OT by quoting from many of its books. The apostles, likewise, quote from the OT. Yet they never quote from any of the apocryphal books.
• Many Jewish scholars and early church fathers rejected the apocryphal books as canonical. Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus, and the rabbis at the Council of Jamnia all rejected the apocryphal books as canonical. Most of the early church also rejected them, including Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, and Jerome. Interestingly, cardinal Cajetan, the man the Catholic church sent to debate Luther, also rejected these books as canonical.
• Some apocryphal books contain many historical and geographical inaccuracies. The Bible does not contain such inaccuracies. These errors prove the books that contain them are non-canonical.
• Some apocryphal books contradict Scripture.
• The apocryphal books were never accepted as canonical by the church until the Council of Trent. Roughly 1,500 years after these books were written, the Catholic church decided to “officially” recognize the apocrypha as Scripture. These books were not accepted as canonical Scripture by either the Jews or the early Christian church.
• No apocryphal book makes the claim that it is the word of God. While most OT books do claim to be God’s word, none of the apocrypha claim this status.

Furthermore, there are several problems in the Maccabees text itself. First, the passage acknowledges that the men were killed by God for idolatry (v. 40). Thus, they died in their idolatry, and Scripture says this of idolaters: “9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6) In addition, Scripture makes clear that there is no “second chance” once a person dies. Hebrews 9:27 says, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.”


The passage goes on to say that the Jews took up a collection for an “expiatory sacrifice” for the idolaters. Yet, Scripture says, “No man can by any means redeem his brother Or give to God a ransom for him—8 For the redemption of his soul is costly.” (Psalm 49) Furthermore, Hebrews 10:4 says, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” This contradicts v. 46 in the Maccabees passage. Finally, the passage contradicts itself. Verse 45 says there is a reward for those who have gone to rest in “godliness”. Yet, v. 40 says they died as idolaters, meaning they died in ungodliness.


As if acknowledging that II Maccabees is not God’s word, the author says this: “Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value. Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised.” (emphasis in original) So, here the author is making two absurd assumptions. First, he assumes that what the Jews believed and practiced at the time of Christ was correct. Second, he implies that Jesus and the apostles agreed with such practices since this is the faith in which they were raised.


To show just how absurd his reasoning is, let’s extend his logic to other practices of the Jews and see if Jesus approved. First, the Jews practiced what they called “Corban”. We find this in Mark 7: “9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”” Clearly, Jesus did not approve of everything the Jews practiced, especially those that contradicted the word of God. Since we have seen that what these Jews did in Maccabees also contradicted God’s word, it would be impossible that Jesus would have approved or believed in such things.


As demonstrated above, it’s obvious why II Maccabees was not included in Scripture. The text contradicts God’s word as well as itself. Therefore, this passage cannot be used to support purgatory.

Argument 2 for Purgatory​

Next, the author turns to Matthew 12: “31 “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” (emphasis added) The argument here is that Jesus implies that sins can be forgiven in the age to come, that is, after death. Thus, he says this supports the view of purgatory.


From a purely logical perspective, this passage can mean at least two things. First, it could mean what this author suggests, that people can be forgiven after death. Second, it could mean that Jesus is simply emphasizing that blasphemy against the Spirit will never be forgiven, using the “age to come” for emphasis.


How do we know which one? If we find Scripture that does not support the author’s view, we have to reject it, and indeed we do. As mentioned above, Hebrews 9:27 says, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” If judgment comes after death, then it is logically not possible that a person could be forgiven after death.


Furthermore, this passage does not support purgatory based on the very logic of Catholic teaching. According to the Catholic church, purgatory does not “forgive” sins, of which Matthew 12 speaks. Rather, in their own words, purgatory “purifies” “lesser faults”. Their own teaching says nothing about sins being forgiven in purgatory; instead, the person must atone for these sins via the purifying fire of purgatory. If they were forgiven, there would be no need to atone for anything. Thus, Catholicism’s own teaching refutes purgatory.


Therefore, this argument does not support purgatory.

Argument 3 for Purgatory​

The author next cites Matthew 5 as evidence for purgatory: “25 Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.” He goes on to state that the word for prison is the Greek word phulake, which he says is used in 1 Peter 3 as a temporary holding place, which he says gives further support for his argument. What he does not say is that phulake is also used for the word “prison” throughout the New Testament, so there’s nothing special about how it’s used in 1 Peter 3.


So, is Jesus referring to purgatory here? As demonstrated above, Christ has paid for all of our sins, once for all, and God will remember our sins no more. Therefore, this can’t mean purgatory. In this passage, Christ is simply emphasizing that a sinner will never be let out of prison since he cannot pay for his sins because he lacks the ability to pay, namely, the sinlessness of Christ. What Jesus is saying, then, is that those who are guilty (everyone) should settle his sin before he gets to the judge. The only way to settle our sin is by believing in Jesus. The judge here is God, who will punish with an eternal death in hell all who have not settled their sins by faith in Christ, a punishment from which there is no “repayment.


John Calvin wrote about this passage (you have to love his sarcasm):

“But it is highly ridiculous in the Papists, to construct their purgatory out of a continued allegory on this passage. Nothing is more evident than that the subject of Christ's discourse is the cultivation of friendship among men. They have no shame, or conscientious scruple, to pervert his words, and to torture them into a widely different meaning, provided they can impose on the unlearned. But as they do not deserve a lengthened refutation, I shall only point out, in a single word, their shameful ignorance. The adversary is supposed by them to be the devil. But Christ enjoins those who believe on him to be agreed with the adversary. Therefore, in order that the Papists may find their purgatory here, they must first become the friends and brethren of devils. A farthing is well known to be the fourth part of a penny: but here, as is evident from Luke, it denotes a mite, or any small piece of money. Now, if we were disposed to caviling [irritating or annoying objection], we might here obtain another exposure of the absurdity of the Papists. For, if he who has once entered Purgatory will never leave it, till he has paid the last farthing, it follows, that the suffrages (as they call them) of the living for the dead are of no avail. For Christ makes no allowance, that others may free a debtor by satisfying for him, but expressly demands from each person the payment of what he owes. Now, if Moses and other satisfactions are useless, however warm the fire of Purgatory may be, yet the kitchens of priests and monks, for the sake of which they are so anxious to maintain it, will be cool enough.”​

Therefore, this argument does not support purgatory.

Argument 4 for Purgatory​

Finally, in his last argument, the author brings up the classic Catholic passage in support of purgatory, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:

“10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.”
​

It’s useful here to go back to the “infallible” definition of purgatory. It says, “As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.” In the passage above, v. 14 says a person will receive a reward. The fire here is solely to reveal each person’s works. Yet, purgatory is supposed to be for those who need their sins (“certain lesser faults”) purified by fire. How is it they receive a reward? Indeed, the definition of purgatory makes no mention of receiving a reward, as it is not even about rewards.


This passage, however, is speaking solely about the rewards to which a Christian can look forward in heaven. In fact, this is even mentioned in the verses immediately preceding this passage: “8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.” Thus, it’s clear that Paul is speaking solely about rewards in the verses that follow.


The quality of our works will be tested as though by fire. Those works done with the right motivation for the glory of God, and in the power of the Spirit will survive, just as gold, silver and precious stones would survive a fire. For these works, we receive a reward. Our works done out of a selfish motivation and not for God’s glory will not survive the testing fire. As a result, we will suffer loss in that we will receive no reward. Importantly, notice the text says we will be saved even if we have no works worthy of a reward. Clearly, then, this passage says nothing about purifying our sins.


A related passage is in 1 Peter 1: “6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”


Notice that God gives us trials in order to demonstrate the proof of our faith. This will produce works that, when tested by fire, will survive, so much so that when our Lord comes He will give us praise for these works.


The fire in this passage reveals the quality of the believers’ works; some are burned up, while others pass the test for a reward. The fire of purgatory is to purify a person’s sins; if this passage supported purgatory, it would speak of a fire that purifies the gold, wood, hay, etc. Therefore, this argument does not support purgatory.


The doctrine of purgatory begs the question: if God intended for us to believe in purgatory, why would He cloak this teaching in such veiled verses as this author suggests? Why would He not simply explain it as the Catholic church has in the catechism above? The obvious answer is that purgatory is a false doctrine.


As part of the Catholic gospel, purgatory is anything but good news. Scripture says the gospel is good news because Christ has paid for every sin we have committed or will commit, and because we are declared righteous in God’s eyes because He has credited Jesus’ righteousness to us. I hope you can share this good news with your Catholic family and friends, and explain to them why purgatory is a false gospel. Just as He has done for us, may He lead them out of darkness and into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9).

Refuting Purgatory | Verse By Verse Ministry International

Get the latest online Verse by Verse Bible teaching and materials

versebyverseministry.org

 

[Mashmont]

Jesus did all the purging on the cross. it is finished.

That implies man doesn't have to do anything to get into Heaven, which is obviously untrue.

 

[Mashmont]

Let’s now consider the arguments the author makes for purgatory.

Argument 1 for Purgatory​

He first turns to II Maccabees 12:39-46, which says:

“39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs. 40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. 42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.”​

​

​

IIMaccabees was never part of the Hebrew Scriptures, and is considered an “apocryphal” book, meaning it was never part of Holy Scripture. The original OT canon was Jewish, and contained the twenty two books (the same thirty nine in today’s Protestant Bible; some were combined as one). This canon was known as the Palestinian canon. When the Hebrew OT was translated into Greek (the Septuagint) in Alexandria, Egypt, included in the canon were fifteen books known as the Apocrypha. These were likely included due to the tradition of many churches viewing these books as “useful”, but not canonical (indeed, not all of these books were accepted by the Council of Trent, an “infallible” Catholic council). There are many good reasons why Christians reject the apocryphal books as being included in the OT canon. These include history and evidence from some of the books themselves. Specifically:

• No apocryphal books were written by a prophet. All of the OT Scriptures were written by prophets, while none of the apocryphal books were; therefore, the apocryphal books are not canonical. Scripture attests to this view in that the OT is referred to as the Scriptures of the prophets.
• The apocryphal books were not accepted by the Jews as part of the OT. If these books were part of the canonical OT, then surely Jesus would have criticized the Jews for excluding them from Scripture, yet He never does.
• Jesus and the apostles never quote from the apocryphal books. The OT testifies of Christ, and He gives testimony to the validity of the OT by quoting from many of its books. The apostles, likewise, quote from the OT. Yet they never quote from any of the apocryphal books.
• Many Jewish scholars and early church fathers rejected the apocryphal books as canonical. Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus, and the rabbis at the Council of Jamnia all rejected the apocryphal books as canonical. Most of the early church also rejected them, including Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, and Jerome. Interestingly, cardinal Cajetan, the man the Catholic church sent to debate Luther, also rejected these books as canonical.
• Some apocryphal books contain many historical and geographical inaccuracies. The Bible does not contain such inaccuracies. These errors prove the books that contain them are non-canonical.
• Some apocryphal books contradict Scripture.
• The apocryphal books were never accepted as canonical by the church until the Council of Trent. Roughly 1,500 years after these books were written, the Catholic church decided to “officially” recognize the apocrypha as Scripture. These books were not accepted as canonical Scripture by either the Jews or the early Christian church.
• No apocryphal book makes the claim that it is the word of God. While most OT books do claim to be God’s word, none of the apocrypha claim this status.

Furthermore, there are several problems in the Maccabees text itself. First, the passage acknowledges that the men were killed by God for idolatry (v. 40). Thus, they died in their idolatry, and Scripture says this of idolaters: “9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6) In addition, Scripture makes clear that there is no “second chance” once a person dies. Hebrews 9:27 says, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.”


The passage goes on to say that the Jews took up a collection for an “expiatory sacrifice” for the idolaters. Yet, Scripture says, “No man can by any means redeem his brother Or give to God a ransom for him—8 For the redemption of his soul is costly.” (Psalm 49) Furthermore, Hebrews 10:4 says, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” This contradicts v. 46 in the Maccabees passage. Finally, the passage contradicts itself. Verse 45 says there is a reward for those who have gone to rest in “godliness”. Yet, v. 40 says they died as idolaters, meaning they died in ungodliness.


As if acknowledging that II Maccabees is not God’s word, the author says this: “Rejecting the inspiration and canonicity of II Maccabees does not negate its historical value. Maccabees aids us in knowing, purely from an historical perspective at the very least, the Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ. This is the faith in which Jesus and the apostles were raised.” (emphasis in original) So, here the author is making two absurd assumptions. First, he assumes that what the Jews believed and practiced at the time of Christ was correct. Second, he implies that Jesus and the apostles agreed with such practices since this is the faith in which they were raised.


To show just how absurd his reasoning is, let’s extend his logic to other practices of the Jews and see if Jesus approved. First, the Jews practiced what they called “Corban”. We find this in Mark 7: “9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”” Clearly, Jesus did not approve of everything the Jews practiced, especially those that contradicted the word of God. Since we have seen that what these Jews did in Maccabees also contradicted God’s word, it would be impossible that Jesus would have approved or believed in such things.


As demonstrated above, it’s obvious why II Maccabees was not included in Scripture. The text contradicts God’s word as well as itself. Therefore, this passage cannot be used to support purgatory.

Argument 2 for Purgatory​

Next, the author turns to Matthew 12: “31 “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” (emphasis added) The argument here is that Jesus implies that sins can be forgiven in the age to come, that is, after death. Thus, he says this supports the view of purgatory.


From a purely logical perspective, this passage can mean at least two things. First, it could mean what this author suggests, that people can be forgiven after death. Second, it could mean that Jesus is simply emphasizing that blasphemy against the Spirit will never be forgiven, using the “age to come” for emphasis.


How do we know which one? If we find Scripture that does not support the author’s view, we have to reject it, and indeed we do. As mentioned above, Hebrews 9:27 says, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” If judgment comes after death, then it is logically not possible that a person could be forgiven after death.


Furthermore, this passage does not support purgatory based on the very logic of Catholic teaching. According to the Catholic church, purgatory does not “forgive” sins, of which Matthew 12 speaks. Rather, in their own words, purgatory “purifies” “lesser faults”. Their own teaching says nothing about sins being forgiven in purgatory; instead, the person must atone for these sins via the purifying fire of purgatory. If they were forgiven, there would be no need to atone for anything. Thus, Catholicism’s own teaching refutes purgatory.


Therefore, this argument does not support purgatory.

Argument 3 for Purgatory​

The author next cites Matthew 5 as evidence for purgatory: “25 Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.” He goes on to state that the word for prison is the Greek word phulake, which he says is used in 1 Peter 3 as a temporary holding place, which he says gives further support for his argument. What he does not say is that phulake is also used for the word “prison” throughout the New Testament, so there’s nothing special about how it’s used in 1 Peter 3.


So, is Jesus referring to purgatory here? As demonstrated above, Christ has paid for all of our sins, once for all, and God will remember our sins no more. Therefore, this can’t mean purgatory. In this passage, Christ is simply emphasizing that a sinner will never be let out of prison since he cannot pay for his sins because he lacks the ability to pay, namely, the sinlessness of Christ. What Jesus is saying, then, is that those who are guilty (everyone) should settle his sin before he gets to the judge. The only way to settle our sin is by believing in Jesus. The judge here is God, who will punish with an eternal death in hell all who have not settled their sins by faith in Christ, a punishment from which there is no “repayment.


John Calvin wrote about this passage (you have to love his sarcasm):

“But it is highly ridiculous in the Papists, to construct their purgatory out of a continued allegory on this passage. Nothing is more evident than that the subject of Christ's discourse is the cultivation of friendship among men. They have no shame, or conscientious scruple, to pervert his words, and to torture them into a widely different meaning, provided they can impose on the unlearned. But as they do not deserve a lengthened refutation, I shall only point out, in a single word, their shameful ignorance. The adversary is supposed by them to be the devil. But Christ enjoins those who believe on him to be agreed with the adversary. Therefore, in order that the Papists may find their purgatory here, they must first become the friends and brethren of devils. A farthing is well known to be the fourth part of a penny: but here, as is evident from Luke, it denotes a mite, or any small piece of money. Now, if we were disposed to caviling [irritating or annoying objection], we might here obtain another exposure of the absurdity of the Papists. For, if he who has once entered Purgatory will never leave it, till he has paid the last farthing, it follows, that the suffrages (as they call them) of the living for the dead are of no avail. For Christ makes no allowance, that others may free a debtor by satisfying for him, but expressly demands from each person the payment of what he owes. Now, if Moses and other satisfactions are useless, however warm the fire of Purgatory may be, yet the kitchens of priests and monks, for the sake of which they are so anxious to maintain it, will be cool enough.”​

Therefore, this argument does not support purgatory.

Argument 4 for Purgatory​

Finally, in his last argument, the author brings up the classic Catholic passage in support of purgatory, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:

“10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.”​

​

It’s useful here to go back to the “infallible” definition of purgatory. It says, “As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.” In the passage above, v. 14 says a person will receive a reward. The fire here is solely to reveal each person’s works. Yet, purgatory is supposed to be for those who need their sins (“certain lesser faults”) purified by fire. How is it they receive a reward? Indeed, the definition of purgatory makes no mention of receiving a reward, as it is not even about rewards.


This passage, however, is speaking solely about the rewards to which a Christian can look forward in heaven. In fact, this is even mentioned in the verses immediately preceding this passage: “8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.” Thus, it’s clear that Paul is speaking solely about rewards in the verses that follow.


The quality of our works will be tested as though by fire. Those works done with the right motivation for the glory of God, and in the power of the Spirit will survive, just as gold, silver and precious stones would survive a fire. For these works, we receive a reward. Our works done out of a selfish motivation and not for God’s glory will not survive the testing fire. As a result, we will suffer loss in that we will receive no reward. Importantly, notice the text says we will be saved even if we have no works worthy of a reward. Clearly, then, this passage says nothing about purifying our sins.


A related passage is in 1 Peter 1: “6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”


Notice that God gives us trials in order to demonstrate the proof of our faith. This will produce works that, when tested by fire, will survive, so much so that when our Lord comes He will give us praise for these works.


The fire in this passage reveals the quality of the believers’ works; some are burned up, while others pass the test for a reward. The fire of purgatory is to purify a person’s sins; if this passage supported purgatory, it would speak of a fire that purifies the gold, wood, hay, etc. Therefore, this argument does not support purgatory.


The doctrine of purgatory begs the question: if God intended for us to believe in purgatory, why would He cloak this teaching in such veiled verses as this author suggests? Why would He not simply explain it as the Catholic church has in the catechism above? The obvious answer is that purgatory is a false doctrine.


As part of the Catholic gospel, purgatory is anything but good news. Scripture says the gospel is good news because Christ has paid for every sin we have committed or will commit, and because we are declared righteous in God’s eyes because He has credited Jesus’ righteousness to us. I hope you can share this good news with your Catholic family and friends, and explain to them why purgatory is a false gospel. Just as He has done for us, may He lead them out of darkness and into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9).

Refuting Purgatory | Verse By Verse Ministry International

Get the latest online Verse by Verse Bible teaching and materials

versebyverseministry.org

Then there is the part where it is just common sense that we have to be perfected to enter Heaven.

 

[Mashmont]

I thought, if you truly repent of your sins, and love the Lord, you were forgiven. Or have things changed that much since I was in church?

You're forgiven, but you still have to repay the last penny, sayeth Jesus.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Doesn't that sorta deny the fact that the bible says you cannot earn your salvation?

for one thing, that is not in any Bible I know of

There is this in Sciprture, though

Work out your salvation with fear and trembling

Phil 2:12

and i could list some others

Mt 18:23.. forgiven once but then had to repay..

 

[Meriweather]

I wonder how many people feel they are ready to be in the holy place in the presence of All That Is Holy? No faults to be rid of, a clean soul to offer...

 

[ninja007]

Then there is the part where it is just common sense that we have to be perfected to enter Heaven.

Jesus perfects us.

 

[ninja007]

Then there is the part where it is just common sense that we have to be perfected to enter Heaven.

2 Corinthians 5:21, "He [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Here we have a double imputation. God imputed our sins to Christ who knew no sin. And God imputed his righteousness to us who had no righteousness of our own.

 

[ninja007]

Then there is the part where it is just common sense that we have to be perfected to enter Heaven.

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

 

[ninja007]

You're forgiven, but you still have to repay the last penny, sayeth Jesus.

Romans 5:1​

1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

 

[ninja007]

You're forgiven, but you still have to repay the last penny, sayeth Jesus.

What Jesus is getting at in verses 25 and 26 is that it is always better to work things out with someone without going before a judge,

 

[ninja007]

Romans 5:9​

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.