Second Chance?
I stand corrected on the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. I stated their view incorrectly when I wrote, "The doctrine of Purgatory offers a second chance to sinners, but the Bible does not." I should have said the doctrine offers, to the dead, a time for penitent sinners to be fully perfected and purified prior to entrance into heaven." I acknowledge the mistake. The fact that the Bible is silent about both the terms and the concept involved in the Roman Catholic doctrine of "purgatory" stands.
The Council of Trent
Mr. Childers says I was inaccurate when I wrote, "The fantasy (purgatory) of the Catholic Church originated at the Council of Trent." This, according to Mr. Childers is inaccurate because the doctrine was believed long before the 1500s. The fact that many prominent Catholic theologians believed and promoted the doctrine of purgatory long before the Council of Trent does not mean it was an official dogma of Catholicism. There were probably almost as many, if not more, and as prominent, Catholics who denied it.
Greg Litmer, a Christian and ex-Catholic, said the doctrine of "purgatory" was decreed as "an article of faith by the Council of Florence." He added, "Then 124 years later, due to the public outrage surrounding the sale of indulgences which is tied so closely to the idea of Purgatory, the Council of Trent confirmed the doctrine." (Tract on Purgatory, GVJ Publications, Louisville, KY.)
Here is a statement from the Council of Trent, Session VI, Cap. XVI, Can. 30:
"If any shall say, that after the grace of justification has been received, the offence is so remitted to the penitent sinner, and the guilt of eternal punishment so effaced, that there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be suffered, either in this world, or in the world to come in purgatory, before admission can be obtained to the kingdom of heaven; 'let him be accursed'."
The Council of Trent affirmed even truly penitent sinners do not have full remission of sins at death. The Council stated that penitents who die forgiven of sins still retain temporal guilt in "purgatory." In this imagined holding place, inhabitants of "purgatory" allegedly receive temporal punishment during their stay there. Several Catholics rejected this concept. For all practical purposes, the decree from Trent put an end to their objections, if they desired to be good Catholics. I stand corrected in that "purgatory" became an official Catholic dogma at the Council of Florence.
The false notion that God does not completely remit all of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin gives rise to the arbitrary distinction Catholicism make in sin. They distinguish "mortal sins" from "venial sins." As a consequence, Catholics, who die guilty of venial sins, "or with the temporary punishment of their sins still unpaid, must atone for them in Purgatory." (See The Question Box, page 394, Rev. Bertrand L. Conway, C.S.P.).
This is repugnant to the very concept of God, who is rich in mercy and grace (Ephesians 2:4). Catholicism's god would fail to remit the sins a true penitent who confesses sins and seeks pardon. We would know from our Catholic friends, what sins will the true and living God fail to forgive when a truly penitent believer confesses and prays for pardon? John said: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).
Mortal and Venial Sins
Next, Mr. Childers defends the Catholic concept of "venial" and "mortal" sins. To Catholics, a "mortal" sin is a sin such as deliberate murder or adultery. On the other hand, a sudden outburst of temper due to a nervous condition would be classified as venial, by Catholics. The penalty for an unforgiven mortal sin is eternity in hell. The penalty for a venial sin is temporal punishment here by the Catholic Church and in Purgatory by God. I repeat, this an arbitrary Catholic distinction with no biblical support.
Mr. Childers appeals to 1 John 5:16,17 to prove there are mortal and venial sins. This passages speaks of one committing a sin "unto death" and another committing a sin "not unto death." The difference is not that one sin is of less importance or consequence than the other. The difference is not in the sin, but the sinner.
The sinner who commits a sin unto death is the impenitent and hardened individual who will not seek pardon from the heavenly Father. The Hebrew epistle deals with the same idea (Hebrews 6:4-6). Those who turn away from the faith and reject the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, make it impossible to renew them to repentance. They find no place for repentance. Like Esau, they find no place for repentance, though seeking it carefully with tears (Hebrews 12:17).
There is the warning against "willful" sin (Hebrews 10:26) for which there remains no more sacrifice for sin. (This Catholic misconception may explain their erroneous doctrine of the "mass" which allegedly puts Christ Jesus through the suffering on the cross every time a Catholic Priest conducts the mass. That really amounts to a rejection of the all-sufficient, one time for all time, sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. See Hebrews 9:25-26).
The sinner who does not sin "unto death" is the one who will be brought back to acceptance with the Lord by repentance. No matter what the sin, a truly penitent sinner will be fully forgiven. God so completely forgives he promises to never remember the sin again (Heb. 8:12; Psalm 103:12). How could this be true if God still holds the forgiven, who are not fully forgiven, in the punishing fires of purgatory?
We are admonished to convert such a sinner from the error of his ways and in so doing will "save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:19-20). No matter how grievous the sin, the one who will repent can be converted and saved. The distinction made by the Catholics on mortal and venial sins is arbitrary and anti-biblical. All sin brings spiritual death, separation from God (Isaiah 59:2; Romans 6:23). All sins of which true penitents confess and seek forgiveness are fully forgiven.
Indulgences
In 1515-1517, Pope Leo X promoted the practice of selling indulgences. Every intelligent reader of reformation history knows this was one of the immediate causes of the "Reformation." The original purpose of selling indulgences was to enrich the coffers of the "Papal See." Fluery's Ecclesiastical History mentions some who received indulgences on "such easy conditions, that men could hardly care at all for their salvation if they refused to gain them." (From "History of Apostasies," page 140).
Catholics have attempted to define indulgences so as to remove the opprobrium of selling permission to sin. They feel the need to mend fences, condemning Tetzel for doing what he was commissioned to do by their "Holy Father." The basic premise on which indulgences rest, remains about the same. The doctrine of indulgences is closely related to their doctrine of purgatory. Read the following definitions:
"Indulgences, the remission of temporal punishment due to sin after its guilt has been forgiven, which the Church grants from the treasury of the merits of Christ and His saints." (The Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary, The Gilmary Society, page 478).
The Catholic Church offers a variety of indulgences:
Of what benefit are indulgences to the Catholics? The same article says, "The Church offers satisfaction to the souls in purgatory, from her treasury of the merits of Christ, and asks God to apply this satisfaction to the souls of those in purgatory."
Catholics believe the dead need the prayers, suffrages, works of piety (which includes a donation of money), and the like, in order to have the merits of Christ doled out to them. The only way they can obtain these merits is by the behest of the Catholic Church and, in turn, their request to God that it be dispensed to the dead in "purgatory." Why? Because they are evil? No. Because they are guilty of "mortal sin"? No. Why? Because, even though forgiven, they are still not fully fit for heaven and must still suffer for a time in the fires of "purgatory." Nothing remotely resembling this is in your Bible.
When a rich man died and was in hell (Luke 16) he was tormented in the flame. (Will Catholics say this was "purgatory"?) This man saw a poor beggar, whom he had mistreated in life. The beggar was happily resting in the bosom of Abraham. The rich man wanted someone to go from the state of bliss to warn his brothers on earth not to come to that awful place. (Where else could they go, per the Catholic doctrine of "purgatory"?).
Abraham's response must present an enigma to Catholics wedded to their doctrine of "purgatory." Abraham told the rich man, "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" (verse 26). Dear friend, where you find yourself after death is where you will remain. Notice Abraham said "from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass (from you) to us." There is no passage way from the wicked or the righteous after death. It seems to me there would have to be such a passage way if those in "purgatory" ever get out of it.
. . .and John Tetzel
John Tetzel's actions, according to Mr. Childers, were "out of line." Not with all Catholics, they weren't, Mr. Childers. Pope Leo X never censured Tetzel. He was apparently delighted at the financial success of Tetzel. He was condemned by Cardinal Cajetan and others, but by no means, by all in the Catholic Hierarchy. The Catholic Church accepted the monies gained through Tetzel's sale of indulgences. Did they refund the money to all those who bought them? Those who purchased indulgences for themselves, and their dead, were under the conviction it was a way to have temporal punishment of their sins removed by buying them. Tetzel, though rebuked, was given a Church sanctioned burial at a convent in Leipzig, Germany.
Prayer for the Dead
Mr. Childers suggests several passages that allegedly prove prayers for the dead will alter their ultimate and eternal destiny. One he mentioned is from the Apocrypha. He cites II Maccabees 12:40ff. Mr. Childers says those of the dead were not "necessarily" guilty of idolatry. Notwithstanding the lack of authority in apocryphal writings, this passage clearly shows the dead, for whom prayers were to be offered, had been guilty of idolatry, a mortal (not venial) sin. The passage says it was the reason these idolatrous Jews were slain (vs. 40). It was not simply the possessing amulets and icons of idols, but the practice of idolatry for which they were killed. It was the Lord who pronounced and executed this death sentence -- "they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden."
The apocryphal record tells us Judas Maccabeus sent an offering to Jerusalem for the dead. That offering was to make prayers for the dead possible. The conclusion the author of 2 Maccabees comes to is, "It had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead" (vs. 44). Maccabeus thought it was the right thing to do; God never approved of it.
Mr. Childers says John Tetzel was wrong in selling indulgences. Yet he, and all Catholic apologists, use the case of Judas Maccabeus who sent a huge sum of money to Jerusalem to pay for prayers for the dead. Was Tetzel, in Germany and Switzerland, doing anything different than Judas Maccabeus was in Jerusalem? If the Catholics don't like what John Tetzel did, they should equally condemn Maccabeus. But they justify their practice of praying for the dead in "purgatory" by a passage that says prayers for the dead were paid for with money.
I agree that the sale of idulgences in northern Europe was an abuse of the original Catholic concept. However, both the "Pope" and his advisors were intent on raising money. Therefore they commissioned Tetzel to raise money by offering indulgences. The reaction of the people in the countries where he offered indulgences for money were convinced it was more than abuse, it was outright error.
German Catholic princes adamantly opposed the practice. They met in the Diet at Nuremberg in 1523 and set forth a "Hundred Grievances of the German Nation." Among the grievances were:
No. 5: "How license to sin with impunity is granted for money."
No. 67: "How more money than penitence is extracted from sinners."
No. 91: "How bishops extort money from the concubinage of priests."
Mind you, these were loyal Catholics making this list of grievances. Later, the grievances were more fully stated. In the enlarged edition they charged that those selling indulgences in their land "declare that by means of these purchasable pardons, not only are past and future sins of the living forgiven, but also those of such as have departed this life and are in purgatory of fire, provided only something be counted down. Every one, in proportion to the price he had expended in these wares, promised himself impunity in sinning."
Their grievances went largely unheeded and Tetzel continued selling them. It is undeniably true that Catholics in Germany, at the time of Tetzel's visit there, considered the sale of an indulgence as a guarantee against future sins they might commit.
Dr. D.R. Hagenbach wrote of Tetzel, "He drove into the cities in superb style, amidst the pealing of bells. The Papal indulgence bull was carried before him on a velvet cushion. Solemn processions, bearing crosses and banners, went to meet him and escorted him into the church. Then a red cross, upon which were the pontifical arms, was set up, and this, Tetzel affirmed to be as efficacious as the cross of Christ himself. One of his train even tried to make the multitude believe that he saw the blood of Christ flowing gently down over it. . . . Indulgences were offered upon every condition -- even for future sins. The little couplet of which the indulgence vendors made use is well known. 'When in the chest the coin doth ring, the soul direct in heaven doth spring.' ('Wenn nur das Gelt im Kasten ringt, die Seele gleich den Himmel springt.')" -- (History of the Reformation in Germany and Switzerland, Volume I, pages 95, 96).
Mr. Childers alleges I urge Mr. Childers to consult another of the Books of the Apocrypha. Read the following from Wisdom of Solomon,
"But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace. For though they be punished in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality" (vss 1-4).
That plainly contradicts the doctrine of "Purgatory." That also contradicts the understanding Catholics have of II Maccabees 12. This is one of many reasons why the Apocrypha have no authority. Which apocryphal book will Mr. Childers accept? Why take Maccabees and not Wisdom? It is my understanding that Jerome, a canonized saint of Catholicism, who was instrumental in producing the Latin Vulgate, rejected all Apocryphal books.
Mr Childers alleges that the Apocrypha "was included in the Bible used by Christ, the apostles, and all Christians without exception until Father Luther and John Calvin threw it out." Mr. Childers does not have his facts correct. The Jews have consistently rejected the apocraphal books as non-canonical. Let Mr. Childers show some reputable and authentic Jewish source that endorses the Apocrypha.
Mr. Childers uses the Jews to prove a belief in purgatory by the Jews. He said, "It is taught in the Scriptures, which will be discussed later. The Jews had a practice called the Qadish, which is a period of prayer for the repose of the souls of the deceased." The fallacy of this is evident. The Jews at one time believed in and practiced worship of Baal. Some of them denied the existence of angels, resurrection or spirits (Acts 23:9). They were wrong. And I believe Mr. Childers is wrong about Qadish.
Professor Israel Shahak, author of " Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years," wrote:
"From the ethical point of view, classical Judaism represents a process of degeneration, which is still going on; and this degeneration into a tribal collection of empty rituals and magic superstitions has very important social and political consequences. For it must be remembered that it is precisely the superstitions of classical Judaism which have the greatest hold on the Jewish masses, rather than those parts of the Bible or even the Talmud which are of real religious and ethical value. (The same can be observed also in other religions which are now undergoing revival.) What is popularly regarded as the most 'holy' and solemn occasion of the Jewish liturgical year, attended even by very many Jews who are otherwise far from religion? It is the Kol Nidrey prayer on the eve of Yom Kippur - a chanting of a particularly absurd and deceptive dispensation. by which all private vows made to God in the following year are declared in advance to be null and void. Or, in the area of personal religion, the Qadish prayer, said on days of mourning by sons for their parents in order to elevate their departed souls to paradise - a recitation of an Aramaic text, incomprehensible to the great majority. Quite obviously, the. popular regard given to these, the most superstitious parts of the Jewish religion, is not given to its better parts."
Mr. Childers relies on Jewish superstition and a degenerate practice employed by classical Judaism today. I deny that the practice of Qadish indicates God approved of the Catholic concept of "purgatory." Why is it Mr. Childers is quick to cite the Jews as authority from a book all orthodox Jews reject, viz., II Maccabees? Why is it he is quick to cite Jewish superstition and degenerate beliefs to bolster the doctrine of this mythical farce called purgatory? My answer is, he has nothing in the inspired word of God to which he can appeal.
Scriptures Appealed to:
II Timothy 1:16-18. This is Paul's expression of concern for those who had stood with him during his ordeal in Rome. It is a simple prayer for eternal happiness and peace in heaven. There is nothing in this passage to suggest Paul was praying him out of "purgatory." Where is there a prayer for a dead person in this passage? It is not there.
I Corinthians 3. Here Mr. Childers alleges Paul is discussing the fires of "purgatory." Paul said those whose work is proven by fire will receive a reward. But lacking in the assertion is evidence the fires where those of the imaginary "purgatory." Fire is often used in the sense of an ordeal placed on Christians in this life (I Peter 4:12). That is Bible; the assertion it is "purgatory" is fantasy.
The context clearly shows that the point of this passage has to do with exposing a man's work; the passage does not discuss punishing a man or purging him of his sins.
The "workers" are the evangelists, men like Paul and Apollos (v. 6). The "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and stubble" represent those who were converted as a result of the teacher's work and God's increase.
"All who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution" (II Timothy 3:12). Persecution is likened to a "fiery trial" in scripture (I Peter 1:7; 4:12). These "fiery trials" will come upon strong, committed Christians, as well as those whose character and conviction is weak. Those of strong character and conviction will only be purified and strengthened by persecution, but the weak are often "burned up" by these fires.
Paul is not discussing a punitive of purgative fire, he is discussing a fire of testing. In verse 14 he said, "If a man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward? The "man" is the preacher. The "work" refers to those whom this man influenced to become Christians (his converts). This verse teaches that the teacher gets some satisfaction out of knowing that his work was not in vain. I Thessalonians 2:19-20 and Philippians 2:14-16 show that one's converts will be a source of rejoicing to the evangelist in heaven.
Verse 15 and the works which will be "burned up" refers to converts who fell away as a result of temptations and trials. The faithful teacher himself will not lose his salvation, but he does lose his source of rejoicing. This is the same loss that Paul expressed concerns about in Galatians 4:11 and I Thessalonians 3:5. This passage is not dealing with "purgatory" unless one has defined purgatory as the fiery trials and temptations which come upon the godly while they are still on this earth and in the flesh!
Mr. Childers appeals to Matthew 5:20, 22, and 23-26. The Lord doesn't tell us "lesser sins." There are no "big" and "little" sins. We may look at some sins as more grievous and serious than others, but no matter what the sin is, it pays off in the very same currency -- death (Rom. 6:23). The last passage he cites speaks of paying one's self out of prison, not "purgatory." It is the Lord's illustration of right conduct and reaction to truth, not a subtle way of telling us there is some lost cavern somewhere, filled with the mourning souls of those in torment, waiting for us to pray and pay them out of "purgatory."
In summary, every passage introduced by Mr. Childers, and every passage I have read from Catholic scholars deals with people who were alive. There is nothing in the Bible (Apocrypha excluded) indicating any prayer was ever offered in behalf of the dead.
I urge Mr. Childers to reexamine his faith and return to the Lord's fold. - 2081 Old Scottsville Rd., Alvaton, KY 42122-9717