I think a reasonable argument can be made on behalf of Purgatory existing. Purgatory is a distinctive Roman Catholic Doctrine, however I think a case can be made that if it is defined broadly enough, some Protestant groups end up accepting it too. Purgatory is the state that one enters immediately upon dying iff one is a Christian, one has persevered and remained a Christian to the end of his/her life, and that Christian has not been completely sanctified. This, in Catholic terms, would be all Christians who are not ordained as Saints, Catholic Saints skip Purgatory and enter directly into Heaven.
So here is the argument:
(1) When a Christian dies either he is completely sanctified or is not
(2) If he is not, then in order to enter heaven, he must be perfect
(3) In order to be perfect, he must be completely sanctified
(4) Thus, the sanctification process must be completed after death
(5) This is Purgatory
How strong is this argument? I actually think it is strong for those Christians who accept (2) and (3), indeed a lot do because they believe that God makes people perfect in order to be in Heaven with him. They may quibble at (5) but I doubt a good argument could be given as to why. Even the Catholic church has not specified what kind of state Purgatory actually is, they have said it could be a timeless state, or instantaneous, or a temporal state where one is cleansed of one’s impurities. Either way I suspect the most common Protestant understanding would be that God cleanses the person instantaneously. This must occur after death and so this really is Purgatory.
There are however, Christians who believe that upon dying, one remains in the same spiritual state that one was in at the last moment of death. Thus there will be some more spiritually mature people in Heaven than others. So they would not accept (2).
I’m not sure where I stand, I guess we would then need to look at the theological data to make a full decision.
But what about the idea that when one dies they “fall asleep”. They are not working towards sanctification but are awaiting the day of resurrection when they shall be made fully sanctified. I guess in a sense it is like purgatory but yet not b/c there is no becoming more sanctified while there. It is more like a state of waiting, waiting for the return of Christ. In Revelation it speaks about the saints under the throne of God having to wait until there number has been completed.
Of course, supposing that one does go to heaven directly after death and are instantaneously sanctified… if you want to call that instant “Purgatory” I suppose you can but it would seem like a meaningless doctrine.
I personally disagree with the Catholic idea of saints for my understanding of the word as used in Scripture is that it refers to all believers. But I’ll leave that for another time.
Comment by Miah — May 15, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Well I think the same argument applies. If we suppose that they do fall asleep until the parousia, then when they are resurrected, either they will be perfected then or not. If they are, then they have been “purged” of their impurities. If not, then they haven’t. Even if the purging of sins is instantaneous, it’s still a cleansing which is the meaningful part. Just because something is instantaneous doesn’t entail that it is meaningless.
I believe Catholics do use the term saints to refer to all believers, but canonize “S”aints as ones that have performed miracles and such.
Comment by Zach — May 15, 2008 @ 10:26 am
So I’ve thought about it more and I think you made a good point, but it needs to be reformulated. Perhaps what you meant was that Purgatory is pointless if the person being purged is unconscious. And here is where the difference is. The Catholic Church clearly holds that Purgatory is a state wherein the person is conscious of the purging, although they don’t know what that process would feel like. So in the view you described, if someone were raised from the dead already morally perfect, then the purging would have occurred while they were unconscious. And that would not qualify as Purgatory. So I guess consciousness is the key quality of Purgatory. So good comment Miah.
Comment by Zach — May 15, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Your right, Purgatory would be a purging of one’s sinful nature while conscientious of it. The only time I believe we are aware of being sanctified is while we are alive here. The instantaneous act of complete purgation, whether it be solely at the resurrection (and we all sleep until that day) or it happens at the moment of our death, will be something we do not suffer, b/c Christ already suffered, and so we will only be aware that it has happened—that we have been changed.
Actually what I meant by it being a pointless doctrine is that if it happens instantaneously there is really no need for Purgatory. If I understand it correctly, a person goes there to be sanctified and purged of their sins. Tradition holds that this is a suffering process and whatever suffering and work you do here will minimize your time there. Being instantaneous would nullify the idea of suffering for some length of time in order to be purged. If the idea of suffering is then moot b/c sanctification is instantaneous, Purgatory would then seem to me useless; it performs little to no function and if that’s the case, then why have the doctrine?
Comment by Miah — May 15, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Here is another idea:
What if we are already sanctified spiritually before death? Faith is what makes us sanctified but our flesh wages war against our now sanctified spirit b/c the two diametrically oppose one another. As we mature in our faith, we learn to live by the Spirit, who sanctifies us, as opposed to the flesh. When we die, our already sanctified spirit is then loosed from the flesh which is salvation…
I don’t know. This idea, while intriguing, may flirt with Gnosticism too much.
Comment by Miah — May 15, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
That depends upon what you mean by “flesh.” If you mean body, then I don’t think that’s correct. At the Resurrection we will be given glorified bodies, which don’t war against us. But if you mean sin nature then yes.
Comment by Zach — May 17, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Yup, what the NIV typically renders as sin nature, the actual word used there by Paul is flesh (there being practically every time it appears in Romans). So I tend to use the word flesh for what many title as their sin nature.
Comment by Miah — May 17, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
So, I’m currently reading “Four Views on Hell” and am in the chapter that is arguing for purgatory. It has been an interesting position thus far on how the idea has come about and developed. A few pages from now it should discuss the issue I’m currently concerned w/ regarding the idea and that is grace and justification in connection to purgatory. Reading the chapter though reminded me of this post. Have you had any more thoughts or insights regarding it lately?
Comment by Miah — November 19, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
That looks like an interesting book. Although I was looking at the book on Google Books and the way Walvoord describes the Roman Catholic view is actually incorrect. He says that the Church takes the purgatorial view of hell, but that is false. Purgatory and hell are different states. Only people who die in a state of grace enter into purgatory to have their imperfections and temporal punishments purged from them, and then they enter heaven. All those who die in a state of grave sin enter Hell, they never go through purgatory like Walvoord seems to indicate. Moreover, Hell is a permanent place, not a place of purging. Google Books doesn’t have the chapter on the purgatorial view available though, so I don’t know what Hayes says about it. As for the view itself, I still think there is something to the idea, so I’m inclined to think that there is such a state before Heaven.
Comment by Zach — November 19, 2008 @ 10:59 pm