Purgatory, yes or no? Arguments that captivate Christians

Deutsch

There can (actually) be no agreement between Protestantism and Catholicism. The teachings of the Gospel and those of the Catholic Catechism are too different. Therefore, the “points of contention” will never cease, even if the battle of arguments today is more or less fought out as entertainment, based on “bread and circuses.”

Mutual counterarguments

One of the “eternal points of contention” between Protestant believers and followers of the Roman Catholic Church concerns the existence of purgatory. For representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, this institution exists in the “in-between” as a matter of course. Protestants, on the other hand, consider this “place of purification” to be unbiblical.

The Catholic educational magazine “catholic.com” has once again attempted to refute the (supposed?) arguments of the Protestants and presents a comparison of the arguments. (Source). As an example of the “common arguments,” the article cites the statements in the book “Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences” by the Protestant writers Ralph MacKenzie and Norman Geisler.

Contradiction to the teachings of Jesus

This book argues that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory contradicts the teachings of Jesus, who ultimately ascended to heaven immediately after his death. Jesus taught, according to the argument against purgatory, that after death, humans go either directly to heaven or directly to hell. Therefore, there is no room for purgatory for purification. The Protestant authors cited the following Bible verses as evidence:

Luke 23:43:
“And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.“

Luke 16:26:
“And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.“

Luke 16:22-24:
“And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.“

The missing punctuation marks

At this point, the Catholic author questions whether these statements actually rule out purgatory. This particularly applies to the supposedly “self-evident verse” Luke 23:43, in which Jesus promises that the criminal on the cross will be in paradise “today.”

However, this verse could also be interpreted differently. Greek does not use punctuation such as commas, periods, or semicolons. Therefore, it is also possible: “Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise!” The “today” marks the time of Jesus’ statement, not the time when the thief will be in paradise.

He is right

On this point, the Catholic author is absolutely right. There is no punctuation mark in the Greek, making it not only more likely that Jesus meant the time of His statement, but even more compelling. This is for a specific reason that will be discussed later (the topic of the soul). Less room for speculation about the word for “today” would be offered by looking at the Greek word “semeron.” This means not only “today” but also “now,” in the sense of “what is happening today.”

Thus, the verse could also read: “I tell you now: You will…”

In addition, in Jewish thought, the word “paradise” (Greek “paradeisos”) often referred not to a place, but to a blessed state of the deceased righteous person. Elsewhere, Jesus refers to this as “Abraham’s bosom.” It should be noted at this point that this conversation took place before the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, for heaven had not yet been opened at that time. The author refers to the Catholic Catechism, Can. 661 and 1023.

What defines the church

At this point, however, the Roman Catholic self-image emerges again. Its own oppinion is considered doctrine, even if it deviates from the Bible’s teachings or isn’t even found there. This is also the case in 1023 of the Catechism.

It states literally what Pope Benedict XII (Const. “Benedictinus Deus”) stated on the subject of the Ascension:

“We define, by Apostolic authority, that, according to the universal decree of God, the souls of all saints… and other faithful who died after they had received the holy Baptism of Christ, in whom there was nothing to be purified when they departed, . . . or if there was or will be anything to be purified in them then, if they have been purified after their death,…“

“We define,” and do so by virtue of a self-ascribed “Apostolic Authority.” In other words, it’s not written that way in the Bible, but we say it is so, and thus it applies from now on. Arguing with one’s own catechism to refute an argument directed against this body of dogma is fundamentally unworkable. But this, once again, clearly demonstrates the pedestal on which the Church of Rome believes itself to be positioned with its teachings.

Chronologically & logically incomprehensible

Canon 612, which proves that heaven had not yet been opened, refers to John 3:13, in which Jesus himself states:
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.“

Since Jesus Christ said this during His lifetime on earth, before His crucifixion, it cannot mean that heaven is fundamentally closed, for Jesus Himself had not yet ascended, but He speaks in the past tense. Furthermore, before Jesus Christ, there were already human beings, Enoch (seventh after Adam) and the prophet Elijah. Both did not experience death but were taken directly to heaven. The claim that no one could have been taken to heaven before Jesus’ ascension because the gates were closed is incorrect.

The Catechism again

If Jesus actually meant heaven with the word “paradise,” the author argues, this does not rule out purgatory. According to Catholic doctrine, it is possible for a person to feel such a deep love for God at the moment of death that their soul is completely purified (CCC 1022, 1472). The thief on the cross could have been such a person.

Not valid

Another circular argument. The problem, after all, is the doctrine of this church as laid down in the Catechism. It’s baffling how anyone could come up with the idea of ​​trying to prove the supposed truthfulness of the Catechism using the same Catechism itself. “According to Catholic doctrine,” yes, but not according to the Gospel.

CCC 1022 begins with the statement, “Every human being at the moment of death receives in his or her immortal soul an eternal retribution.” And CCC 1472 defines the necessity of purification after sin, which can also be accomplished on earth while alive. Complete purification is also possible through fervent love.

This, in turn, raises two other fundamentally important problems within Roman Catholic doctrine!

A show fight for hot air

The following arguments and counterarguments listed in this article can be safely left out, as they lead nowhere anyway. It fails not only because of the arguments from the Roman Catholic side, but also because of a fundamental assumption on the part of the Protestant viewpoint.

However, just as a side note, this “dispute” between the two views offers a wonderful example of how Hegelian dialectic works. Both sides throw arguments at each other to refute the other’s version. Readers and interested parties are inclined to take sides with either one side or the other. But only those who make the effort to get to the bottom of the truth will realize that both are actually wrong!

Neither heaven, nor hell, nor purgatory

For a person who has died will neither go to purgatory nor go directly to heaven or hell. Therefore, the entire discussion is essentially obsolete and merely serves to keep people chasing after all sorts of things, as long as they lose sight of the truth or never see it.

A dead person no longer has breath (God’s life-giving breath) and crumbles to dust. That’s it! (Info) The Bible is crystal clear on this point! The Church of Rome is downright cynical at this point because it knows exactly what the Gospel actually says about the state of the dead. The Roman Church itself proves this, based on its own works (New Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, page 332). Yet, in its imagined authority, it believes it can teach people something completely different (CCC 366, “The Church teaches…”).

Idea goes back to Babylon

Fundamentally, humans do NOT possess an immortal soul that wanders somewhere after death. This idea originated in ancient Greek “wisdom,” carried by Aristotle, enthusiastically adopted by Augustine and Aquinas, and presented today as “Christian doctrine.” The originator of this “immortality theory” was Thales of Miletus, who, in turn, used this mythology to establish the connection via Egypt to Babylon (Info).

Actually back to Eden

If one is consistent, then the idea of ​​a separate, immortal human soul dates back to the Garden of Eden. This is one of the three lies of the serpent, and all three lies are even listed as official teachings in the Roman Catholic Catechism (Info).

Today’s Protestantism, or rather the Evangelicals, merely act as sparring partners for the Church of Rome, because “protest” is dead (Info). Show fights fought for the sake of “truth.” But nothing can be as far from the truth, nor as dangerous, as the erroneous doctrine of an immortal soul. Martin Luther didn’t believe in it either. He spoke of a “sleep of the soul,” and that mankind waits in a state of absolute unconsciousness for the last trumpet and the voice of Jesus to emerge from the grave.

Denial of Jesus’ work of redemption

Another fundamental problem with Roman Catholic doctrine lies in the postulated necessity of purifying the soul. This failed simply because there is no “soulful substance” in this sense, for man, born of the dust of the earth and with the life-giving breath of God, IS the soul. With the idea of ​​purgatory, the Roman Catholic Church merely demonstrates that it completely denies or rejects the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ—the atoning work of Jesus. He purchased the right to pardon sinners through the price of his own death.

Jesus’ death on the cross was unique, final, and everlasting (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 10:10). This contrasts with the regularly celebrated re-sacrifice of Jesus by the Roman Catholic Church (Eucharist – Info). According to the Church of Rome, Jesus’ death was at least insufficient, imperfect, defective, and even completely unnecessary to forgive sins (Info).

Wasn’t it Pope Francis who was unable to answer the question of why Jesus had to die on the cross because he could not see any reasonable reason for it?

Gospel is in principle simple

Justification by the grace of Jesus based on faith. It’s that simple. It doesn’t matter whether the word “alone” appears in a verse or not. Man himself can do nothing, absolutely nothing, for his own righteousness. He is neither capable of doing so nor is he in the necessary position to do so. Once sinned, it’s done with, and the sinner cannot erase it himself. Righteousness by works is a characteristic of every pagan religion, as are other peculiarities of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (Info).

“Shoemaker, stick to your last,” as the saying goes. Hence, “Christian, stick to your Bible!”

Bible verses from King James Version (1611)