I
never, even for a moment, entertained the notion that the doctrine of
Purgatory may be true for the first 30+ years of my life. The only
thought I ever gave to the doctrine was for about 20 minutes in high
school when a Catholic girl spoke about the doctrine at Youth Alive.
It was an awful experience for everyone involved. It was awful for
her because she really didn't have a strong enough grasp on the
doctrine to speak about it, much less defend it, in front of a
hostile and more-or-less biblically knowledgeable crowd. It was awful
for the rest of us because a few of us who had less than zero tact
went on the offensive and ended up making her cry. I didn't feel so
bad about it at the time, but in retrospect it was an instance
severely lacking in Christlikeness.
Now
that I've come to terms with the fact that doctrinally I'm more traditionally orthodox than I previously suspected, I've decided it's probably
time to start thinking more seriously about Purgatory. This post will
be a bit of an outline of why I'm considering giving this doctrine an
endorsement. I'm not ready to commit just yet, don't get me wrong. I
think, though, that if I were really forced to hazard a guess, my
guess would be in the affirmative.
I
think the primary source of my skepticism of Purgatory has been an
almost complete lack of understanding of some basics about the
doctrine. Before moving on to my argument, then, I want to make two points.
First,
it is often claimed that Purgatory is a figment of the Catholic
Church's imagination, designed primarily for the purpose of
collecting indulgences (in fact, when I mentioned Purgatory to my
roommates, the first thing one of them said was, "didn't
the Catholic Church just make that up?"). In reality,
though, it's not clear that this doctrine was ever in doubt at any
point prior to the Reformation. References to the doctrine go all the
way back to the second century C.E. (Origen, Hippolytus) and it
appears from Augustine and Gregory I to have been widespread by
the fourth and fifth centuries. Further, a fairly rich
tradition of belief in a Purgatorial state exists in ancient Jewish
literature (Talmud and Apocrypha for sure, and possibly Josephus),
which lends credence to the idea that early Christians received the
belief as part of the Jewish tradition from which Christianity arose.
Next,
I think the basic definition of the doctrine needs to be established,
since it is commonly misunderstood by outsiders to
Catholicism/Orthodoxy.
The
Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the doctrine in this way:
1030
"All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still
imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation;
but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the
holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031
“The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final
purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the
punishment of the damned."
St.
Gregory is then quoted as giving the following argument:
"As
for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final
Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that
whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned
neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we
understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but
certain others in the age to come."
The
supposed efficacy of prayers for the dead is also listed as
justification for the doctrine, but since I am skeptical of said
efficacy, I won't bother quoting this section.
Purgatory
is not, as is the common misconception, a place where souls who
narrowly missed the cut will go to earn the rest of their salvation
by suffering for their sins. It is a place where those who
are already saved will go for purification.
I'm
not going to spend a bunch of space here defending the doctrine
against all comers. If objections come later (and I hope they do),
I'll try to deal with them then. For now I want to try to reason
through why I believe Purgatory may be exactly the kind of place we
would expect an omni-benevolent God to create.
In the argument that follows, I assume the following controversial beliefs to be true and will not offer independent arguments for them here: Christian orthodoxy, some sort of mind/body dualism, inclusivism, progressive sanctification, and theosis. I'm sure I've missed some, but these are the ones that come to mind for now.
In the argument that follows, I assume the following controversial beliefs to be true and will not offer independent arguments for them here: Christian orthodoxy, some sort of mind/body dualism, inclusivism, progressive sanctification, and theosis. I'm sure I've missed some, but these are the ones that come to mind for now.
I
think that if God is omni-benevolent, He would provide a possibility
for the salvation of the unchurched. Otherwise, He creates certain
people (a great many people, in fact) without any possibility of
avoiding damnation, then holds them accountable for it. I doubt this
can be reconciled with a loving creator. The great theologian Karl
Rahner spoke of “anonymous Christians.” This term refers to
non-Christians who are saved by the grace of Christ. The view that
anonymous Christians exist is called “inclusivism.” Again, I have
no intention of defending inclusivism here. Suffice it to say that
for the purposes of this argument I'm assuming the truth of
inclusivism. This is to say that I believe many who have never heard
the gospel, have only heard a distorted version of it, lack the
mental capacity to grasp it, etc. may nevertheless be saved by God's
grace. This is a pretty widespread intuition in many, if not most,
Christians I know.
So
under the assumption that anonymous Christians exist, here is my
argument.
As
a first premise, we'll simply state what we know about anonymous
Christians: they will have had no opportunity to undergo any real
process of sanctification in their earthly life. After all, how can
one undergo a process of becoming more Christlike or of conforming
her will to Christ's if she has never heard of Christ or been
introduced to His teachings? So my first premise is just that
anonymous Christians will end this earthly life
without having undergone sanctification.
Second
premise: some degree of sanctification is required to be in communion
with God (I know “communion with God” is a loaded term. When I use this term I'm thinking about remaining in the
presence of God post-judgment). This belief is firmly entrenched in the history of Christian thought, and is a part of any version of the ordo salutis. I won't
do any exegesis, so if anyone wants to dispute this
interpretation of the verses that follow they are welcome to do so. Here's
a little rundown of texts I think support this claim: Lev. 11:44, Rom. 6:22, 2 Cor. 3:18, 1 Thess. 5:23, Heb.
12:14, and Rev. 3:15-20. Interestingly, Rev.
3:15-20 was the text used in the incident I referenced above to make
the poor Catholic girl cry. I thought for sure it created an
air-tight case against Purgatory. Now I think actually creates a case for this premise. If God spews the luke-warm out of his
mouth, does this not demonstrate that one must have undergone some
degree of sanctification in order to be in communion with Him?
So
the argument thus far is this:
1. Anonymous
Christians will end this earthly life without having undergone
sanctification.
2. Sanctification
is required to be in communion with God.
Now
let's add one more:
3. Anonymous
Christians will eventually be in communion with God. I take
this to be obvious. The definition of an “anonymous Christian”
is just someone who is not a “Christian” by creed, but who is,
in fact, saved. If one is saved, she will eventually be in communion
with God.
So:
4. Anonymous
Christians will end this life without having undergone that which
is required to be in communion with God. (1,2)
5. Those
who will eventually be in communion with God will end this life
without having undergone that which is required to be in communion
with God. (3,4)
The
conclusion must be that that which is required for communion with God
(sanctification) will happen at some point other than this earthly
life. Continued sanctification, especially in the Eastern
Orthodox tradition, is the primary purpose of Purgatory. It also
meets the qualification of not being part of this earthly life. I
think, then, that if one shares my intuitions about anonymous
Christians/inclusivism and the benevolence of God, she should very
seriously consider the doctrine of Purgatory to be a live option in
her theology.
Though
my argument above is specific to inclusivists like me, please don't
make the mistake of thinking Purgatory is only an option for
inclusivists. It isn't. The example that comes to mind is
the thief on the cross with Jesus. Surely the thief will have
no time to undergo sanctification prior to his death. Should we
say he will never undergo sanctification and will thereby skip an
important step in the ordo? Perhaps purgation is a
simple theological solution even for exclusivists who want to retain
strong notions of the necessity of sanctification for communion with
God.