Protestant Pastor admits to purgatory

[thessalonian]

I was listening to this guy on the radio try to explain imputed vs. infused righteousness and the Catholic position on Purgatory. Some things struck me funny so I sent him the following email. #3 and #4 are about purgatory and how he actually affirmed it as I see it.


Hi Todd,

I am sure it is not your desire or intent to distort Catholic theology in order to make protestant theology look better. Protestant theology I would think you will agree should stand on it's own against the "errors of Rome". With that in mind let me clear a few things up.

1) Your monologue implied that Catholicism views life as a process by which we get saved. You said something to the effect that if we go through life and do all the right things then our sins are justified and we get to heaven. Forgive me if this is not exactly how you explained it. This is not a correct assessment of the Catholic view. The very nature of how you explained infused righteousness contradicts it even. We do believe that at the point of salvation (we won't get in to the finer points of when that is) one is completely cleansed of sin by the power of the Holy Spirit, though not the tendency of sin. The scriptures say "you are a new creation" and "I will wash you clean". Paul speaks of the WASHING of water and the laver of regeneration. Your whole ministry indicates that something must happen internally or one is not truly saved. This change happens by the grace of God, not the will of man. Thus imputed righteousness, while it sounds good to you fails when you really look at what you say about how one must get saved by the law and then the gospel. He must be convicted of his sin. There must be change, internally. God gives the sinner the power over sin by grace, i.e. the alcoholic can prevail against his alcoholism if his conversion is true and complete. So at the point where one "is saved", i.e. comes in to a state of grace, he is fully justified and in fact sanctified and will enter heaven if he dies immediately. That is the Catholic view. Therefore it is not in this sense a lifelong condition where one must keep doing good in order to at some point maybe eventually be saved.

We can speak of being saved in the past tense and in the present tense. The difference between us however needs to be understood so that we can properly represent each others positions. We do not believe that a future sin can be presently justified. This is not logical. The difference between us is most importantly that one can sin and that sin needs further justification

2) Another inaccuracy your monologue seemed to imply is that a difference between us is that we have justification and you have sanctification. This is not accurate if that is what you intended to imply. We view justification in a broader sense that actually includes sanctification. It is the forgiveness of sin (which in a sense is imputed) but then also the actually cleansing of the sin, which is the internal part, the action of the Holy Spirit actually removing the sin's effects on the soul so that one can in fact enter heaven. For it says "nothing unclean shall enter". This is going to get long but briefly works fit in in that a virtue counteracts a vice. If one gives charitably it counters selfishness and pride. If one fasts it counters gluttony, as well as gives him an understanding of hunger that should make him more charitable toward his neighbor.

3) Having said all that I come to my main point. Purgatory. Your imputed righteousness view, in my mind actually fits more with purgatory than the Catholic view. This might sound a bit strange to you, but let me explain. In your monologue you admitted three things. 1) We need sanctification. 2) That we must be fully sanctified when we enter heaven. 3) Your view is that we can never be fully sanctified before death. (this is why I say there is more need for a view on purgatory among protestants).

Now if you will take off your Protestant glasses and forget the word purgatory for a minute answer me this question. What happens if one is not fully sanctified before death? You know it has to happen before heaven for NOTHING UNCLEAN SHALL ENTER. You likely will not apply 1 Cor 3:15 yet you have to admit that any lack of obedience or sin we commit does in fact have consequences, regardless of whether we are "saved' or not. God chastises those he loves. People do not want to hear that sin has consequences, that it is punished by God, even for Christians but I would at least hope you will admit that this is the case. Now one who gets drunk (and Christians do) has more of a tendency toward overindulging in alcohol. A Christian who commits adultery (and you and I know they do) is weakened toward sexual purity. This must be cleansed out of him and "he will suffer loss but be saved as if through fire". You said that this sanctification is never complete before death. So at death do you think that when it happens it is simple and painless?

4) Last point. Purgatory is not at all about justification in the sense that no sin is forgiven IN PURGATORY. It is all about the sanctification end of the process. This was the main thing that I have a beef with concerning your monologue yesterday. Now in light of #3 above, you admit that one does not get fully sanctified by the end of life, therefore further sanctification must somehow take place. Catholicism explains this further sanctification as a part of it's theology. All I can say about what you did yesterday is that in my view you simply ignore it even though your words indicate it must occur.

Blessings

Gerald

[phatcatholic]

paragraph 1 may be a little confusing b/c salvation IS in fact a process. where we differ w/ the protestants is how we define "salvation." we are not actually "saved" as in "possess an ultimate assurance of our place in heaven" until we enter heaven. this is b/c there is always the potential that we may fall. however, we are "sanctified" as in "truly cleansed of sin and fit for heaven" every time we receive the Lord's sanctifying grace.

often times when catholics say "saved" they really mean "sanctified." but, if this distinction isn't cleared up, then using the word "saved" can be confusing to protestants b/c it doesn't actually fit with their definition of the word. so, he may be wondering how you could say that "salvation" is not a process even tho you don't believe in an assurance of "salvation." what you really mean is that "sanctification" is not a process. we don't work and work for an eventual or gradual cleansing. when we receive God's grace through the sacrament of confession, we are sanctified. period. but, since we can fall, we go through a life of continual "sanctification" that ultimately leads to our "salvation" in heaven. i hope that makes sense.

also, i don't understand this sentence: "4) Last point. Purgatory is not at all about justification in the sense that no sin is forgiven IN PURGATORY. It is all about the sanctification end of the process." i guess it depends on what you mean by sin being "forgiven." in a sense, you're right, sin is NOT forgiven in purgatory b/c our relationship with God is secure (or we wouldn't be in purgatory, which ultimately leads to heaven). however, sin IS forgiven in purgatory in the sense that it is through this purging that we atone for the effect our sin has had on the Body of Christ and we are cleansed of our knowledge of sin and our inclination to sin. so, that distinction may need to be made.

finally, i understand that this is something u wrote to him at the spur of the moment, but you are asking him to take your word on alot of things. some examples from the CCC and from Church Councils to show that this is really what Catholics believe, and examples from Scripture that show why we believe it would make your letter stronger.

i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[thessalonian]

Thanks for your clarifications. I understand salvation is a process but it is also an even at baptism. That is why he is confused on the matter and misstates Catholic theology. I was trying to bring the emphasis back to the "saved" at baptism portion of our doctrine. Thanks for the clarification on sanctification.

My point in the sentence you don't understand is that accorcding to their definition of sanctification, that is not really what goes on in purgatory. We are not forgiven there. The sins must be forgiven beforehand. But then we must be sanctified in his view of the word, having the effects of that sin on our lives removed.

As for adding stuff from the CCC and all, the email will get to long. I think it was anyway. I'm not expecting a dialogue as I've emailed this guy in the past and he may make a snide remark or two and then ignore me. Just looking to plant a little seed. Make him a little less certain than he sounded yesterday on the radio of Catholic teaching.

[thessalonian]

Do you understand my main point that if he believes that sanctification is all that goes on after justification and he believes that we cannot be fully sanctified in this life, that this forces him in to some sort of a purgatory like doctrine?

[phatcatholic]

yes, i understand. i've never seen a protestant take the position that we cannot be fully sanctified in this life. that is interesting.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Nov 1 2005, 12:48 PM']yes, i understand. i've never seen a protestant take the position that we cannot be fully sanctified in this life. that is interesting.
[right][snapback]775886[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Even without that position they either have to guarantee full sanctification at death or admit to some purgatorial process afterward.

[tojo]

Meh, when I was a Prottie we really just didn't think about the need for completion of sanctificiation after death......

[thessalonian]

Seems like it's a glaring gap in their theology. If they admit to sanctification and cannot gaurantee it to be complete at the end of life, something's gotta give. But when I've raised it in the past they will essentially put their hands over their ears and say "purgatory is wrong.". I actually did get some proties to acknowledge this on a message board one time however after pressing them for days. They finally assented to the basic concept of purgatory, that we need to be cleansed after death but before entry to heaven. They were okay with this as long as I didn't make them call it purgatory.

Edited November 1, 2005 by thessalonian

[tojo]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Nov 1 2005, 04:16 PM']Seems like it's a glaring gap in their theology.  If they admit to sanctification and cannot gaurantee it to be complete at the end of life, something's gotta give.  But when I've raised it in the past they will essentially put their hands over their ears and say "purgatory is wrong.".  I actually did get some proties to acknowledge this on a message board one time however after pressing them for days.  They finally assented to the basic concept of purgatory, that we need to be cleansed after death but before entry to heaven.  They were okay with this as long as I didn't make them call it purgatory.
[right][snapback]776080[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Kike I said, we really didn't think about it, howveer galringa hole it was, we missed it...

[thessalonian]

Phat,

I understand some of what you wrote. I have to say I am a bit confused and always have been with regard to the boundaries between sanctification and justification. It seems like in the protestant framework, justification is only about the forgiveness. But sanctification for them seems to be a process worked out by works.

I would say that I have seen sanctification as partially influenced by works. Your statement that it occurs solely from God’s grace in the sacrament clears my thinking up a bit. Would it be correct to say that it is effected by our works in that if we are doing good we are sinning less(venial sins only of course), thus the grace we receive in the sacrament goes more toward purification of our hearts and minds, ie. Strengthening against further sin? I would also have to say that I am a bit confused between justification and sanctification. What is a proper understanding of the boundaries between them or is there a boundary between them?

[thessalonian]

Also, it almost seems like he is preaching sanctificatin by works. From what phat said to me in my related thread, we believe sanctification is by the sacraments, i.e. baptism, confession, eucharist. It seems that for them sanctification would be by works alone. Am I missing something?

[thessalonian]

Phat,

Another thing that has always confused me a bit is that at baptism we are completely sanctified and would go staight to heaven. Yet we still have strong tendancy toward sin. Thus it seems purgatory is not about removing this tendancy toward sin. Is this tendancy toward sin only because of the flesh. Thus when body and soul are separated it is gone? Is life about subduing the flesh and healing it for the final resurrection of the body?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Nov 9 2005, 09:24 AM']Phat,

I understand some of what you wrote.  I have to say I am a bit confused and always have been with regard to the boundaries between sanctification and justification.  It seems like in the protestant framework, justification is only about the forgiveness.  But sanctification for them seems to be a process worked out by works.[/quote]
i can't really answer for how protestants understand the relationship between works and sanctification. the phrase "protestant viewpoint" is a misnomer b/c it implies one general viewpoint when there are in fact many. you would have to seek clarification from whoever you happened to be debating w/ at the time.

i don't know if this helps at all, but i find a belief in "imputed" (as opposed to "infused") righteous among many protestants. by this, they mean that they are justified before the Lord via a judicial (aka "legal," "imputed," or "declared ") sanctification. God merely declares that dirty people are righteous. he merely looks the other way, instead of truly making them righteous and having them to share in his divine life. grace is [i]imputed[/i] to them, instead of being [i]infused[/i] within them.

that's the best i can do to articulate some type of "protestant viewpoint" on sanctification. i hope it helps.


[quote]I would say that  I have seen sanctification as partially influenced by works.  Your statement that it occurs solely from God’s grace in the sacrament clears my thinking up a bit.  Would it be correct to say that  it is effected by our works in that if we are doing good we are sinning less(venial sins only of course), thus the grace we receive in the sacrament  goes more toward purification of our hearts and minds, ie. Strengthening against further sin?[/quote]
yes, that would be correct. note that "sanctifying" grace is not the only type of grace we receive through the sacraments. actually, we don't even receive this type of grace from all of the sacraments b/c not all of them cleanse mortal sin. however, we do receive from all of them what is referred to as "actual" grace. this type of grace achieves what you are describing here: the renewal of our hearts and minds, protection from temptation, and motivation to do His Will.

likewise, actual grace is not bound by the sacraments like sanctifying grace is. God is showering us w/ actual grace all the time, compelling us to do good works. when we do them, we receive more of that same grace to sustain us in our walk w/ the Lord. it is for that reason that we can say that works prompted by grace are "meritorious" --because they truly result in the reception of more grace. since maintaining a right relationship with the Lord (aka, a "justification" before the Lord) is what is necessary to obtain salvation, we can say that, insofar as good works help us to maintain that relationship, they do in fact aid in our reception of that final assurance of salvation.

note that, generally speaking, good works aid in our [i][b]salvation[/b][/i]. from my understanding, the only time good works aid in our [i][b]sanctification[/b][/i] is when the good work happens to be a person taking recourse to one of the sacraments that provide sanctifying grace (baptism, confession, or anointing of the sick).


[quote]I would also have to say that  I am a bit confused between justification and sanctification.  What is a proper understanding of the boundaries between them or is there a boundary between them?
[right][snapback]783664[/snapback][/right][/quote]
here is a helpful phrase: "we are justified through sanctification." in other words, we are put in right relationship w/ the Lord through the cleansing of our sin.

think about it, what does it mean to be "justified" before a person. it means you and i are "straight" (as the cool kids like to say ). "are we cool man?"........."yea, we're straight." basically, that's what it means. i do something grievous against you, like make out with your sister. you messed up our friendship when you did that, b/c it obviously angered me. you wish to restore our friendship, so you come to me and apologize. i say, "you are forgiven" (or [i][b]sanctified[/b][/i]). as a result of your repentence and my forgiveness, you are my friend again (you are [i][b]justified[/b][/i]).

does that help?


[quote name='thessalonian' date='Nov 9 2005, 09:32 AM']Also, it almost seems like he is preaching sanctificatin by works.  From what phat said to me in my related thread, we believe sanctification is by the sacraments, i.e. baptism, confession, eucharist.  It seems that for them sanctification would be by works alone.  Am I missing something? [right][snapback]783672[/snapback][/right][/quote]
i'm honestly not sure. i don't have a firm grasp on exactly what it is that your protestant friend believes.


[quote name='thessalonian' date='Nov 9 2005, 09:49 AM']Phat,

Another thing that has always confused me a bit is that at baptism we are completely sanctified and would go staight to heaven.  Yet we still have strong tendancy toward sin.  Thus it seems purgatory is not about removing this tendancy toward sin.  Is this tendancy toward sin only because of the flesh.  Thus when body and soul are separated it is gone?[/quote]
to answer you question: no

as i understand it, the dichotomy between the "body" and the "soul" is actually a false one in the sense that our bodies don't actually [i]do[/i] anything on their own or have a mind of their own. they function purely b/c they are animated by the soul. the competition that we often see in the bible between "the flesh" and "the spirit" is not actually between the body and the soul. it is between the carnal appetites of the soul vs. that same soul illumined by the grace of God. so, b/c our soul has had a body and it knows what sin is, that desire may remain even when it is w/o the body.

concupiscence, as you know, is our inclination to sin. b/c of the fall, we have a knowledge of sin. we are aware of it and enticed by it. however, thru God's grace we can come to no longer desire the "things of the flesh" (which are techinically, the inordinate desires of the soul). if we have not been sufficiently open or receptive to God's grace in this life so as to rid us of this '"knowledge of sin" then His grace will purge this from us in the afterlife, so long as we are in right relationship with Him.


[quote]Is life about subduing the flesh and healing it for the final resurrection of the body?[right][snapback]783704[/snapback][/right][/quote]
metaphorically speaking, yes. i mean, its not the end all and be all of our existence, but it is a goal of ours. more precisely, we should strive to subdue those carnal appetites of our soul that are pitted against the spiritual good which God's grace causes us to desire.

i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[thessalonian]

VERY helpful phat. Thanks!