The Reformed Doctrine of Purgatory
Conforming to Christ
Trent Horn posted a video a few weeks ago on the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. The video lays out a minimalist position of the doctrine, which is essentially the position given by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I commented on the video, which ultimately spawned some dismissive comments. Judge for yourself what I have to say below. I will follow with some additional comments on the topic.
As a Reformed Christian, I think I agree with everything that Trent Horn said in this video. It isn't just Jerry Walls that agrees with Horn’s position, the Reformed Confessions agree as well.
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 32.1 states
The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
Essentially, the Westminster Divines accepted that there is a purification of souls after death. However, the difference between the Reformed and Catholic doctrines on purgatory is a question of timing rather than if the purification happens or not. The Reformed are clear that purification is immediately after death. Do the Roman Catholics believe it is immediate or over time? Horn seems to suggest that we simply do not know.
Purification may suggest to us the role of good works in Reformed theology. We conform ourselves to Christ for the day of judgment. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 states:
According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Those who have the foundation are saved. Is this faith? It would seem so. It is the pearl from which all the gates in the Kingdom of Heaven are made—the chief cornerstone—Jesus Christ. Those who are united to Christ through faith are saved. If they do not do good works in the present age, their works will be burnt up and they shall suffer loss. Suffering conforms us to Christ and makes us acceptable on the Day of Judgment—the day in which the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q 90) states that "the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted."
The justification we have now is by faith and the justification we have at the end of the age is by works. We are justified through faith, and at the end of the age our works will be tested, and they will either be "very good" in the words of the Genesis 2 or they will be condemnable—requiring purgation. We can only do good, acceptable works of God through being set free from the bondage of sin—the expectation of death, and this is done through unity with Christ. Those who have the justification in the present by faith also have it at the end of the age, either by good works or through fire. Essentially, conform yourself now in the present age, which involves suffering, or be conformed at the end of the age through fire. Nothing given to the Son by the Father will be lost (John 6:39).
The similarity between the Reformed and Catholic views will come down more to venial v. mortal sin, the system of penance, how confession and absolution function, supererogation, etc. But, lately, I have seen more similarity between the two views than differences.
Now, some additional comments:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
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. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:
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.
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.
It seems then that the disagreement between the Reformed and the Roman Catholics on this issue extends to whether one can pray for the dead or not. The Reformed will say that we cannot pray for the dead and certainly cannot offer the Mass as a sacrifice for the propitiation of the sins of the dead.
It must be said that praying for the dead—regardless of whether it is effectual or not—seems to not be a sin. It seems like a pious and fine thing to do. Are we to reject it simply because it is ineffective? If so, then we are in dangerous waters since Christ prayed for something he knew was impossible.
Look at Mark 14:36. Christ prays, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” In Matthew 26:39, Christ qualifies this prayer with, “if it be possible,” and Luke 22:42 says, “if you are willing.” Yet, Christ was, as Acts 2:23 states, “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”
So, it was impossible for the Father to spare Christ his suffering. It was his definite plan. And Jesus knew this as evident by his continued prophesying about his suffering and death (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:21-22, Mark 8:31, Mark 10:33-34). Jesus knew, and yet he prayed to be spared anyway.
Shall we be penalized for praying for things that are impossible? If so, then we run the risk of penalizing Christ.
On works, the position I laid out here roots the purgation at death and the final purgation in the conformity to Christ necessary for our entry into Heaven. We must be purified in body and soul. At death, our soul is purified, and at the end of the age, our body will be purified. Both seem to have relation to our works.
The Reformed get anxious about this because they flee upon hearing the word “works” or the mere suggestion that they must do something. But it must be understood that nothing I said here suggests that good works hinder or help someone’s salvation.
This is all I have to say for now. I recognize that what is laid out here is not the convention way of explaining the Reformed doctrine on justification. It may even echo of recent controversies within the Reformed world regarding how justification works. But this is a blog post, not an academic article or treatise on systematic theology. Let me know what you think. This position is in flux.
I will stop here out of fear of writing a TLDR article and being too pedantic.