At the end of the current issue of The Briefing (July/August 2008), Nathan Walter mentioned some cautions on the trend of listening more and more to sermons downloaded from the internet (often from current evangelical heroes). But it was this piece of advice that I really want to echo:
Don’t forget your responsibilities as a listener. Test everything. Never listen without your Bible open. Chase up the passages and write notes.
Get out your highlighter. Underline his advice in red ink. I cannot agree enough! Often I find myself reading articles in Christian journals and books, seeing the biblical reference in brackets and assuming that the person has cited it accurately and fairly. The presupposition is charitable when dealing with Christians. But how often is it wrong! The proof texts are often not proof texts at all!
Let me give a few examples—starting with an obvious one: recently, I mentioned the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory while speaking against the practice of indulgences in a sermon on ‘grace alone’. Some people were totally unfamiliar with the idea of purgatory. To try and be fair in my explanation, I checked what the official Roman Catholic Catechism says about purgatory. There were several biblical references cited as justification for this Roman Catholic doctrine. But when I looked up the references, I was astonished by how poorly the citations actually supported the claim. They were not proof texts at all.
For example, to justify purgatory as a place of purification, the Catechism speaks of a purifying or cleansing fire and gives 1 Corinthians 3:15 and 1 Peter 1:7 as cross references. In 1 Corinthians 3:15, the context is of fire testing the quality of our work in Christian ministry on the Day of Judgement leading to degrees of reward in the new creation. The fire does not refer to purification but to the destruction of any work of ministry not built on the foundation of Jesus Christ. And there is not the slightest hint that this can delay a person entering heaven.
1 Peter 1:7 speaks of the effect of trials in terms of refining our faith. Verse 6 reveals that these trials were occurring now in the present age. It’s not talking about post-mortem at all!
The third bit of evidence given was based on Jesus’ comment that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this age, nor in the age to come (Matt 12:32). The Catechism reasons that this implies there are offences which cannot be forgiven now, but can only be forgiven in the age to come (hence purgatory). This logic is dreadfully flawed. For a start, the ‘age to come’ normally refers to the new creation, the new heaven and earth, not to some intermediate state (such as purgatory). Furthermore, it is an argument from silence, and the inference that there are different types of sin does not automatically follow. Jesus is simply saying this certain sin—blasphemy against the Spirit—cannot ever be forgiven.
The next piece of evidence given is to say purgatory is based on the Scriptural practice of prayer for the dead. But the ‘Scripture’ cited is 2 Maccabees 12:46. This comes from the Apocrypha, not from the New or Old Testament, and, of course, it is not accepted by Protestant Christians as Holy Scripture at all, and offers scant support. (Why we shouldn’t accept the Apocrypha as Scripture is a post for another day!)
Finally, there is a reference to a comment by an early church leader that if Job’s offerings for his sons were effective (Job 1:5), then why wouldn’t our offerings for the dead be effective? Firstly, quoting an early church leader does not prove the teaching is correct, but only shows what that leader believed. Secondly, look up the reference and you see that Job made his offerings for his children while they were alive, not after their death!
I could add that the idea of purgatory is denied by such Scriptures as Hebrews 9:27, Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23-24. But if I did that, I hope you’d look up the references to check for yourselves.
I guess readers of this blog may be unsurprised by this example. But in my next post, I will give examples of two other claims made by academics that were only disproved by checking the references myself.
With all due respect Sandy, the Catechism of the Catholic Church never claims to provide a detailed exposition of each text. I would think that the most charitable thing to do would be to refer to a Roman Catholic commentary, or better yet, suggest some to your audience. Otherwise, you’re simply guilty of strawperson representations.
I’d also point out that your proof texts don’t prove anything except for the fact that you don’t, for whatever reason, find the Roman Catholic proof texts convincing. Others may disagree. Still others may find your proof texts in response less than convincing because of the theological framework that either they or yourself are dealing with. So, if for instance you take as your a priori assumption that purgatory does not exist, then it stands to reason that you will honestly believe that no terms used in the Bible actually refer to purgatory.
OK Sandy, I’ll bite …
I looked your verses up.
How does Philippians 1:23-24 deny the idea of purgatory?
It doesn’t say depart and immediately be with Christ.
Are you just testing us?
In fact, I’m not sure that any of your four quoted verses strictly deny the idea of purgatory …
Heb 9:27—isn’t purgatory part of judgement?
Luke 23:43—special case (and what does ‘today’ mean in timeless eternity anyway?)
2 Cor 5:8—is this really defining that there are only two states: in the body or at home with the Lord?
Ian, I realise you are probably just winding me up, and playing devil’s advocate. But good on you for looking up the verses. Quite right. I would have liked to give a brief exposition of each, but it would have made the post even longer and it was already too long.
However, to take up the Philippians example, Paul numbers two alternatives. It would be odd, indeed, if, when discussing the options for his future, he omitted to mention other additional options. And the two options are:
Since departing and being with Christ is better by far, I cannot see any way this allows the possibility of purgatory intervening. At best, it might allow the possibility of what some call ‘soul sleep’. But there is no mention of delay here, let alone the unpleasantness of suffering in purgatory.
I think you have really answered your own question in the parallel passage in 2 Corinthians 5:8: yes, there are only two alternatives upon death (before the general resurrection): in the body or at home with the Lord.
Once we see this, the other references certainly support this understanding.
One might also add the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31. Yes, we are cautious from building too much detailed doctrine from the details of such a parable. But it does not appear to leave much room for purification, let alone from crossing one one post-mortem state to another.
All you have for purgatory is an argument from silence.
It’s also been suggested to me by someone else that the Catechism of the Catholic Church never claims to provide a detailed exposition of each text, and that, perhaps to be fairer, I could have referenced a Roman Catholic commentary on the topic.
Perhaps so. I would simply say that the Catechism itself does actually provide fairly extensive exposition on its teachings, and that one would expect the texts cited to be self-evidently demonstrating the contention they are supposed to be proving or supporting.
If the text being cited is not self-evidently supportive, then further additional exposition or reasoning should be provided. Otherwise it continues to make biblical interpretation seem like a mystery.