Protestant Response to Catholic Arguments for Purgatory
By way of introduction to our reply, two things should be observed. First, Ott admits that the Bible teaches the existence of purgatory only “indirectly,†and even then it is only a “possibility†from these Scriptures. Phrases like these reveal the weakness of the biblical basis for this doctrine. Further, he acknowledges that the argument from reason is arrived at only “speculatively.†In short, there is really no direct or positive proof for purgatory from Scripture. Rather, it is based on extra-biblical tradition and human speculation.
Response to Argument from Scripture. The New Catholic Encyclopedia frankly acknowledges that “the doctrine of purgatory is not explicitly stated in the Bible.†Neither is it taught implicitly in Scripture, since the Roman Catholic use of Scripture to support purgatory does violence to the contexts of the passages employed. A brief examination of them will suffice.
2 Maccabees 12:42–46. The Protestant response to the use of this text to prove purgatory is simple: 2 Maccabees is not part of the inspired canon of Scripture, and therefore has no authority. It, along with the rest of the Apocrypha, were not accepted as inspired by the Jewish community that wrote them. They were not accepted by Jesus and the apostles, who never quoted them in the New Testament. They were rejected by many important early Fathers of the church, including Jerome, the great biblical scholar and translator of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. Indeed, they were not infallibly added to the Roman Catholic Bible until after the Reformation (a.d. 1546), in a futile attempt to support purgatory and prayers for the dead which Luther attacked.
Even then this polemical anti-Reformation council inconsistently rejected some apocryphal books, including one (2 [4] Esdras 7:105) which speaks against praying for the dead (see chap. 9).
Matthew 12:32. Catholics’ use of this passage to support the concept of forgiveness of sins after death fails for several reasons. First, the text is not speaking about forgiveness in the next life after suffering for sins but the fact that there will be no forgiveness for this sin in “the world to come†(Matt. 12:32, emphasis added). How can the denial that this sin will not ever be forgiven, even after death, be the basis for speculating that sins will be forgiven in the next life? Also, purgatory involves only venial sins, but this sin is not venial; it is mortal, being eternal and unforgiveable. How can a statement about the unforgiveness of a mortal sin in the next life be the basis for an argument that non-mortal sins will be forgiven then? What is more, the passage is not even speaking about punishment, which Catholics argue will occur in purgatory. So how could this text be used to support the concept of purgatorial punishment? Finally, even if this passage did imply punishment, it is not for those who will eventually be saved (as Catholics believe is the case with those who go to purgatory) but for those who never will be saved. Again, how can a passage not speaking about punishment for the saved after death be used as a basis for belief in purgatory, which affirms punishment for the saved? In view of these strong differences, it is strange indeed that Roman Catholic scholars cite it in support of the doctrine of purgatory. It only indicates the lack of real biblical support for the doctrine.
1 Corinthians 3:15. Here Paul is speaking of believers who will one day be given a “wage†(v. 14) for their service to Christ. The texts say nothing about believers suffering the temporal consequences for their sins in purgatory. They are not burned in the fire; only their works are burned. Believers see their works burn but they escape the fire. Even Ott seems to admit that this text “is speaking of a transient punishment of the Day of General Judgment, probably consisting of severe tribulations after which the final salvation will take place.†If so, then it is not speaking of what has traditionally been called purgatory at all.
It should be pointed out that contemporary Catholic apologists tend to reduce purgatorial pain to the scrutinizing experience of post-mortem sanctification, thus indicating their retreat from the more traditional and objectionable Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory. First, 1 Corinthians was written to those “who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus†(1:2, emphasis added). Since they were already positionally sanctified in Christ, they needed no further purification to give them a right standing before God. They were already “in Christ.†After listing a litany of sin, including fornication, idolatry, and coveting, Paul adds, “that is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ†(1 Cor. 6:11, emphasis added). From this and other Scriptures (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21) it is evident that their sins were already taken care of by Christ’s suffering (cf. 1 Pet. 2:22–24; 3:18) and that they stood, clothed in his righteousness, perfect before God. They needed no further suffering for sins to attain such a standing or to get them into heaven. The fact that God desired them to improve their practical state on earth does not diminish for one moment their absolutely perfect standing in heaven. No sudden rush of practical sanctification (= purgatory) is needed to enter heaven.
Second, the context reveals that the passage is not speaking about the consequence or sin but of reward for service for those who are already saved. Paul states clearly: “If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation [of Christ], that person will receive a wage [or, reward]†(1 Cor. 3:14). The question here is not sin and its punishment but service and its reward. Likewise, as even Catholic theology acknowledges, the “loss†(v. 15) is clearly not referring to salvation since “the person will be saved†(v. 15). Thus, the loss must be a loss of reward for not serving Christ faithfully. There is absolutely nothing here about suffering for our sins or their consequences after death. Christ suffered for all our sins by his death (1 Cor. 15:3; Heb. 1:2).
Third, the “fire†mentioned here does not purge our soul from sins; rather, it will “disclose†and “test†our “work.†Verse 13 says clearly, “the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work†(emphasis added). There is literally nothing here about purging from sin. Contrary to the Catholic claim, the aim of the cleansing mentioned is not ontological (actual) but functional. The focus is on the crowns believers will receive for their service (2 Tim. 4:8), not on how their character is cleansed from sin. It is simply a matter of revealing and rewarding our work for Christ (2 Cor. 5:10).
Matthew 5:26. Ott’s “further interpretation†goes well beyond the context. First, Jesus is not speaking about a spiritual prison after death but a physical prison before death. The previous verse makes the context clear: “Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge . . . and you will be thrown in prison†(v. 25). To be sure, Jesus is not speaking of mere external things but of the spiritual matters of the heart (cf. vv. 21–22). However, nothing in the context warrants the conclusion that he intended the concept of a “prison†to refer to a place (or process) of purgation for sins in the next life, which is what one would have to conclude if this passage is made to speak of purgatory. Even orthodox Catholics like Cardinal Ratzinger shy away from the prison image of purgatory, claiming it is not “some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp.â€Â
Further, to make this an analogy or illustration of a spiritual prison after death (i.e., purgatory) is to beg the question, since one has to assume there is a purgatory where you “will not be released until you have paid†(v. 26) before it can be an illustration of it. Illustrations do not prove anything; they only illustrate something already believed to be true. Hence, this passage cannot be used as a proof of purgatory.
Finally, if this text is taken as a reference to purgatory it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that there is nothing temporal or eternal left to pay for the consequences of our sins. While Catholics acknowledge that Christ’s death paid the penalty for the guilt and eternal consequences of our sins, they deny that this means there is no purgatory in which we pay for the temporal consequences of our sins. But, as we shall see below, Christ’s death on the cross was both complete and sufficient for all our sins and all their consequences. To say there is some suffering for sins left for us insults the once-for-all finished work of Christ (cf. Heb. 10:14–15). Once Jesus suffered for our sins, there is nothing left for us to suffer, for there is “no condemnation†for those in Christ (Rom. 8:1). Indeed, even death is overcome (1 Cor. 15:54f.).
Response to Argument from Tradition. Even though Ott admits that the primary proof for the existence of purgatory comes from the testimony of the church fathers, he does not hesitate to reject the testimony of the majority of Fathers on other occasions. He notes that “the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of Christ’s birth [e.g., birth without pain or penetrating the hymen]. However, the question is whether in so doing they attest a truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of Revelation.†This is a good question and one which we ask of the doctrine of purgatory as well. Indeed, as we have seen in examining the biblical passages used to support the dogma of purgatory, Catholic scholars have misinterpreted ScriptureIn reading through Ott, a standard Catholic authority on dogma, it is interesting to note how many times he admits that this doctrine “is not explicitly revealed in Scripture†or that “direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had†or “express scriptural proofs are lacking.†These phrases are more than a hint to the fact that purgatory has no basis in Scripture.
Geisler, N. L.,
