VENIAL AND MORTAL SIN

 

In Catholic theology, there are two categories of sin: “venial” and “mortal.”  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.” (CCC #1855)

“For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.’" (CCC #1857 – emphasis in original)

On the other hand, they believe that venial sin is not as serious:

“One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.” (CCC #1862 – emphasis in original)

“Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. ‘Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.’” (CCC #1863)

Notice the term “humanly reparable.”  I’ll come back to that later.

Is All Sin the Same?

Since Protestants don’t generally believe in the categories of “mortal” and “venial” sins, many Catholics will therefore say that Protestants believe “all sin is the same.”

But to clear the air, let me assure you that all sin is not equal.  God is just and His punishment for stealing a candy bar is not the same as it is for randomly killing someone.  Yet, the person stealing the candy bar (if unrepentant) will be in the same Lake of Fire as the person who murders (if unrepentant).  God sends them both to Hell.  They’ll just be eternally suffering on different levels.

All sin is indeed equal in terms of your final destination, but not in terms of intensity of punishment.  So, your “little” (venial) sins are still incredibly serious and must be dealt with.  People are often taught that a “little white lie” is no big deal, but again, we should treat all sin with the same sense of urgency.

The “seven deadly sins” that the Bible speaks of (Proverbs 6:16-19) are not the only ones that are deadly!  All sin, if not repented of, is mortal.

From Whence Cometh This Doctrine?

So, where does the Catholic Church get this idea of two categories of sin?  Well, there is a footnote in CCC #1854 that points to a Scripture passage that seems to be the pivotal reason that they believe in venial and mortal sin:

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.  All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. (1 John 5:16-17)

Catholics claim that the apostle John is saying here that some sins are not deadly.  But Scripture is clear that ALL sin kills – EVERY sin makes you eligible for Hell:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10 – Emphasis added)

These two verses just above are saying that the law is a package deal.  If you break only one of His commandments, you are guilty of breaking God’s law as a whole.  If you are in court for breaking a law, the judge will not let you go simply because you got most of them right.  You are still guilty of breaking the law of the land.  We must realize that God’s law is not just a random assortment of loose principles and ideas, it should be taken very seriously because it is the essence of His character and desire.

I believe that 1 John 5:16-17 above is actually talking about the unpardonable sin that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 12:31-32.  The unpardonable sin is not just one particular sin – it is the end result of a continual hardening process of a person’s unrepentant heart over time.  Every individual sin can be forgiven, but Jesus is alluding to the fact that a person’s heart has reached a certain level of coldness and hostility where there is no turning back.  He is sinning against the Holy Spirit, the member of the Trinity whose work it is to convict us of sin and to lead us to repentance (John 16:8; Romans 2:4) – and this sin is a complete rejection, a despising of that work of the Spirit. 

Concerning blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, if someone fears that he has crossed the line and is worried that he may have committed this sin, the chances are very good that he hasn’t, because the person who is guilty of this sin is not concerned about it and will not want anything to do with God.  He is beyond help.  It is the point of no return, where grace is no longer available.  That is a terrifying place to be!  I think that this is the point in 1 John 5:16-17, it is not describing “mortal” versus “venial” sins.  All sins are mortal (deadly) – until you repent of them!  None are mortal if they are confessed and forgiven.

Error in the Catechism

I want to point out a couple of things from the Catechism quote that that I mentioned at the beginning of this article (CCC #1863).  First, it says:

“Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin…” 

I pretty much agree with this statement in the sense that your “little” sins, if unconfessed and the person remains unrepentant, can lead to a hardening of the heart, and ultimately destroy you.  So, this just proves our point that “venial” sins are also dangerous and can lead to eternal damnation.  So, there is no separate category.  Every sin is a “grave matter.”

The second point of the Catechism quote that I want to address is this:

“With God's grace it [venial sin] is humanly reparable.”

This suggests some sort of “restitution” that the sinner is able to pay.  In the Catholic scheme of things, forgiveness can be applied to the sinner only after some sort of work is done (penance).  But there is absolutely no sin that is reparable by any mere human in Christianity.  The only “repairing” needed has already been done by Jesus Christ on His cross.  This is the absolute cure for the effects of sin.  John the baptist so eloquently said about Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  Jesus didn’t just cover our sins, as was done in the Old Testament. He takes them away, past, present and even future sins (if we repent and confess them).

To gain salvation, all we can do is surrender to Him and believe/trust in His suffering and work on that cruel cross.  That is the gospel – that is the good news.  We don’t have to constantly worry if we have done enough.  There are no rituals or works of charity that can repair, improve, or restore our broken relationship with God.  Only the cross and only through Jesus.

Martin Luther

There is a story about Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer and former Catholic priest.  As a Catholic, he became extremely aware of his sin and was so tormented by it that as soon as he finished his confession and came out of the Catholic confessional, he would remember another sin and immediately rush back into the confessional to confess it.  Sometimes he would spend hours in the confessional.  This was torture for both Luther and the priest!  The priest, wearied by Luther’s obsession, reportedly told him that if he wanted to confess a sin, go out and commit something worthy of confession.

The Catholic Church had Luther (and all its members) thinking that he must merit his salvation through works of some kind or another.  But this was sheer torture for him.  He seemed to never be able to do enough.  He rightly understood God’s hatred of sin (while most people don’t), but he was utterly helpless.  His sins terrorized him daily, but in the Catholic system there was no relief. 

But one day he finally came to fully understand the phrase, “… the just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17), whereupon he finally achieved the peace of God – and it revolutionized the history of the medieval church.

We have to commend Luther for his zeal and his fear of God.  This is good.  But there is a balance – we also need God’s peace to be able to live the Christian life.  The problem is that he was desperately trying to rid himself of sin through a works-based salvation.  Luther misunderstood the power of God’s grace and the sufficiency of the work that Jesus did on the cross.  We must remember Jesus’ last words, “It is finished!” (John 19:30). 

See these articles on Luther and his battle with sin:

https://www.placefortruth.org/blog/justification-and-martin-luther

https://www.pbs.org/empires/martinluther/monk_penance.html#:~:text=Priests%20took%20confession%20from%20their,in%20to%20repent%20further%20sins.

https://worldlysaints.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/martin-luther-his-confessions-and-battle-against-sin/

Also, the practice of confession to a priest is not a biblical one.  See these articles:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-sacraments-of-catholic-church-part.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

Conclusion

The question to ask is, “WHY is the sin in 1 John 5 a “sin not unto death,” and the other a “sin unto death”?  The answer is simply because the first one is FORGIVEN/FORGIVABLE and the second is NOT!  This erroneous Catholic concept of venial and mortal sins goes against clear biblical teaching elsewhere that says, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), or “The soul that sins, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4), or “He which converteth the sinner… shall save a soul from death” (James 5:20), or “And you… who were dead in trespasses and sin…” (Ephesians 2:1).  Therefore, any and all sin (apart from a repentant heart) brings spiritual death.

Now, this doesn’t mean that a Christian loses and gains his salvation every time he sins and repents, over and over.  No, as long as he maintains his trust in Christ and his attitude is one of continual repentance, his sin is washed away.  This applies to even those secret sins of which he may be unaware (Psalm 90:8). 

Biblical confession is not a ritualistic or robotic procedure in which every single personal thought has to be remembered and painstakingly processed into a system where we can infallibly identify every single sin in our lives – and then “formally” confess them to a priest.  No, remember the thief on the cross?  He simply said from the heart, “…Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom” (Luke 23:42).  Jesus knew his heart and immediately forgave him.

We must be careful when attempting to categorize sins as venial or mortal, as people might tend to view some of their sins as “minor” and be casual about them.  These two distinctions have certainly caused confusion in the body of Christ.

So let us take care to be biblical with our view of sin.  In the end, we must have balance – a healthy fear of God, yet a firm peace in our hearts, knowing the sufficiency of Jesus’ work. 

 

THE DARBY DECEPTION (The Pre-Trib Rapture on Trial)

The doctrine of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture teaches that the Rapture of the church (i.e., the sudden removal of true believers worldwide) happens shortly before the start of the Tribulation.  The Tribulation (also known as “the time of Jacob’s trouble”) is a seven-year period of extreme chaos, death, destruction and punishment such as the world has never seen coming upon this unregenerate and evil society.

So, what is the origin of the Pre-Trib doctrine?  Is it biblical, or is it something made up by man?

What Do Catholics Say?

Many Catholic apologists claim that John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was the originator of this teaching.  We know of no official statements from the Catholic Church claiming this, but there is an article on this topic over at Catholic Answers making this claim.  The article has no specified author, but it does have the nihil obstat and imprimatur, which are the Catholic Church’s seals of approval, so that certainly gives the article some weight (according to the Catholic Church).  It says that “…all Christians agreed that the rapture… would occur immediately before the Second Coming, at the close of the period of persecution… But in the 1800s [refering to the time of Darby], some began to claim that the rapture would occur before the period of persecution…” and that “…no Christian had heard of it in the previous 1800 years of Church history.”  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-rapture

Author and former editor of (Catholic) Envoy Magazine Carl Olson says that “John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)… formed the dispensationalist system… the concept of a pretribulation Rapture was unheard of prior to that time” and that it was Darby who “solidified the belief in the 1830s…” and that the Pre-Trib Rapture was “the modern creation of Darby…”:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5788

Catholic apologist Tim Drake writes, “This theory [the Pre-Trib Rapture doctrine] traces its roots to the 1830s and John Nelson Darby…”:

https://legatus.org/do-catholics-believe-in-the-rapture/

Popular Catholic author and apologist Steve Ray also claims that “The Rapture is a new Protestant doctrine…” and that it “was never taught in all of church history until the mid-1800’s when two women had an ecstatic vision…” (which is allegedly where Darby got the idea of a Pre-Trib Rapture):

https://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2018/02/03/the-rapture-not-all-evangelical-protestant-scholars-agree/

The people at the CatholicBridge.com website also tell us that “John Darby… put forth the Pre-Tribulation Rapture theory around 1830 after traveling to northern Scotland to meet with Margaret McDonald, a woman who had a ‘vision’ during a serious illness…”:

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/raptured-catholics.php

And the highly popular, internationally known Catholic author and speaker, James Akin, who is a senior apologist at Catholic Answers, also claims that dispensationalism (which ties in closely with the Pre-Trib Rapture) “was started in the 1830s by an Englishman named John Nelson Darby”:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/israel-and-the-church

These are just some of many Catholic apologists who make this claim concerning Darby and the Pre-Trib Rapture.

Pre-Trib Is Pre-Darby

But it can be demonstrated that at least some concept of  a Pre-Trib Rapture existed long before Darby’s time.  For the record, it is not just Catholics that have fallen for the idea that Darby started the concept, but some Protestants have, as well.  For instance, Dave MacPherson wrote concerning this topic, but his work has been refuted by articles such as these:

https://pmicenter.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/dave-macpherson-inventor-of-false-pre-trib-rapture-history/

http://www.according2prophecy.org/macphers.html

http://christinprophecy.org/articles/the-origin-of-the-concept-of-a-pre-tribulation-rapture/

According to the links just above: 

· Dave MacPherson wrongly attributes the origin of the Pre-Trib Rapture to (occultic influenced) Margaret McDonald, from which Darby supposedly stole the idea.

· Mac Pherson’s work is lacking in historical method, and his book, The Rapture Plot is defective, lacking in substance, and it distorts history.

· His attack on the Pre-Trib view is described as ridiculous

· MacPherson overlooks the fact that Darby developed his concept of the Rapture in the winter of 1826-1827, three years before he even met Margaret McDonald.

· McDonald’s handwritten account of her “Pre-Trib” prophecy actually has nothing at all in it that suggests a Pre-Trib Rapture!

· There is no hard historical evidence that McDonald, Edward Irving (a Scottish minister who allegedly influenced Darby), or his followers (the Irvingites) ever held to pretribulationism, so how could they be the very source of Darby’s Pre-Trib view?

· Darby’s understanding of the Pre-Trib Rapture was the product of the development of his personal interactive thought with the text of Scripture.

It is true that the modern Pre-Trib concept was highly developed and popularized by Darby, but to say that a Pre-Trib idea was “unheard of” before Darby is simply false.  The following sources promoted, or at least mentioned, some type of pretribulationism before the time of Darby in the 1800s:

Morgan Edwards (1722-1795)

Thomas Collier (1615-1691)

Brother Dolcino (1250-1307)

Pseudo-Ephraem (4^th to 8^th Century)

The Apocalypse of Elijah (3^rd Century)

Irenaeus (140-202 A.D.)

The Shepherd of Hermas (140 A.D.) 

See here:

https://www.pre-trib.org/tom-s-perspectives/message/a-history-of-pre-darby-rapture-advocates/read

http://baptistbulletin.org/the-baptist-bulletin-magazine/is-the-pre-trib-rapture-a-recent-invention/

Champions of History?

Catholics are almost always the ones to point to history when trying to prove their point, but according to the articles linked above, history does not at all support their case concerning Darby being the creator of the Pre-Trib Rapture.

In fact, we would strongly assert that the Pre-Trib Rapture is indeed a BIBLICAL concept.  See here:

https://calvaryoxnard.org/reasons-to-believe-in-a-pre-tribulation-rapture/

https://www.raptureready.com/

http://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014_09_01_archive.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-rapture-and-catholic-eschatology.html

Some Questions

So, if the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is not the correct view, then perhaps it is the Post-Tribulation view (where the Rapture happens after the Tribulation, at the time of Jesus’ literal return to earth, also known as the Second Coming).  This is the view of the Catholic Church (as well as some Protestant groups).

But if the Post-Trib view is true, then:  

• Where is the imminency?  Where is the concept that Jesus could appear at any time? 

 

The Bible clearly tells us to watch for the coming of Jesus Christ because we do not know when He comes (Mark 13:32-37; Luke 12:40).  But if we find the Tribulation upon us, then we will know that there will be seven years before He comes back.  That is, two periods of 1260 days each (Daniel 9:27 [“middle of the week”]; Revelation 11:3; 12:6).  We can know that He is coming back 1260 days after the abomination of desolation (in the middle of the Tribulation).  But if we already know exactly when He is coming, then there is no imminency involved and therefore, we cannot trust what Jesus said. 
 

• Where is the “business as usual” idea?

Matthew 24:36-39 and Luke 17:26-29 tell us that Jesus’ coming (of which the time is unknown) will happen during a time in which people will be experiencing a “business as usual” status (i.e., people will be doing the normal, everyday stuff - building, planting, marrying, etc.).  But the Bible also tells us:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from Heaven, and the powers of Heaven shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven…  (Matthew 24:29-30)  

Sorry, but we can hardly call this “business as usual.”  At this point will be many supernatural and frightful events happening.  The Bible clearly tells us of a coming with unknown timing, a time of relative peace and prosperity (Matthew 24:36-39 and Luke 17:26-29), and another coming with incredible disasters and heaven-shaking signs and events (Matthew 24:29-30), which is a time that can be calculated and determined.  These two cannot be the same event.  So, either Jesus is contradicting Himself… or, there will be two separate events, or phases, of his coming.  We prefer to believe the latter.

• If Post-Trib is true, then at what point do the resurrected believers enjoy their mansions of which Jesus spoke?

In My Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (John 14:2-3)

Jesus said that He would go (to Heaven - where God’s house is) and prepare a place for us.  He then said He would come to receive us (to be with Him), obviously, in this context, to enjoy the mansions that He prepared for us.  We need to go to Heaven to enjoy our mansions, right?  But if He only comes back after the Tribulation, when He touches down on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4) and sets up His kingdom here… then we don’t get to live in our mansions in Heaven, do we? 

In the Pre-Trib view, the church (all true believers) are taken up to our mansions (as promised) before the Tribulation.  And we will be in Heaven while the “earth dwellers” (Revelation 3:10; 6:10; 11:10; 13:14) are enduring the wrath of God for their rejection of Him.  And while in Heaven, we will enjoy the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7-9) before we come back to earth with Him to reign.  This makes much more sense in light of His promise about the mansions. 

• If the church of Jesus Christ must go through the Tribulation, then why does Jesus make the Tribulation conditional for the church of Thyatira?

Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, EXCEPT they repent of their deeds. (Revelation 2:22 - NASV)

Apparently, those repenting of their sins would not have to go into “great tribulation.”  Those repenting would be part of the true church of Jesus Christ.  Therefore, the church does not go through the Tribulation.

 

Furthermore, another of the seven churches that Jesus addressed, the church of Philadelphia, is promised the same thing:

Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. (Revelation 3:10)

The “hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world” is none other than the seven-year Tribulation.  Jesus Christ, Himself, promised to keep the church, the true believers, FROM (Greek “ek,” meaning “out of”) that temptation.

• If the church has to go through the wrath and judgment of God (in the Tribulation), then why was the angel who was bringing judgment to Sodom and Gomorrah restricted?  Why did he tell Lot that he and his family had to first be removed from Sodom before its judgment? 

   

Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come hither… (Genesis 19:22)

In other words, the angel is saying, “I can’t destroy this place until you and your family are safely out of the area.”  The righteous are sometimes disciplined by God, but they are never to partake of God’s wrath and judgment.

Remember, Jesus used the picture of Lot escaping Sodom as an example of His coming:

As it was in the days of Lot… (Luke 17:28-30)

• If the Tribulation comes first, along with the antichrist, then what was it that was hindering the antichrist from appearing?

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 gives us a hint that something is now holding back the antichrist from appearing.  If it’s not the church of God, or the Holy Spirit’s influence in the church, then what exactly is it that is holding this false messiah back.  Something significant is now preventing the antichrist from appearing on the scene, and we believe it is the true church, because Christians are salt and light in this wicked world (Matthew 5:13-16).

• If the Pre-Trib Rapture is not true, then why were the Thessalonians shaken and confused when they thought that the Day of the Lord (the Tribulation) had come upon them? (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)

They already knew that Christians must suffer persecution (2 Thessalonians 1:4).  Paul had already warned them, so that was not an issue with them.  What troubled them is that someone wrote a false letter to them, forging Paul’s name and saying that the Day of the Lord had come.  They were troubled because they knew that they were not supposed to go through the Day of the Lord / Tribulation.  That false letter contradicted what Paul had told them about the Rapture in his first letter (1 Thessalonians).

• Also, could not the Rapture, itself, be the very cause, or catalyst, that triggers the Tribulation, and a perfect time to usher in the antichrist to present “solutions” to the chaos of millions of people on earth missing?

See these articles suggesting the Rapture as the cause or beginning of the Tribulation:

https://studygrowknowblog.com/2011/03/16/could-the-rapture-cause-the-coming-world-collapse/

https://israelmyglory.org/article/aftermath-of-the-rapture/

The U-Turn To Earth

One argument that Post-Tribbers use is that Jesus will come in the clouds and the church will rise to meet Him in the air and then we will all make a U-turn and come back down to earth with Jesus.  They say this because some claim that the Greek word for “meet” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is a technical term used to describe the people of a city going out to meet a conquering king or dignitary approaching the city.  And the people would then accompany him back to the city.  Post-Tribbers see this as what should happen when Jesus returns to earth.

But in the following link, the author points to Michael R. Cosby, a Post-Trib Professor of New Testament and Greek, who at first believed the same thing, but then experiencing a “disturbing exercise in scholarly honesty,” discovered, to his horror, that applying the term in this way was wrong and was simply eisegesis [i.e., reading something into the text, rather than letting it speak for itself].  See here:

https://www.pre-trib.org/articles/all-articles/message/the-meeting-in-the-sky/read

Conclusion

One last thing.  The Tribulation period is about God’s wrath.  Never are God’s people (who are faithfully following Him) the objects of His wrath!  This punishment is not for the church (the bride of Christ).  And no good husband, especially Jesus Christ, would thoroughly beat his bride till bloody before taking her out to eat.  But that would be a proper analogy of the Tribulation and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb if the Post-Trib view is true. 

Remember, the Tribulation is called the “time of Jacob’s trouble.”  God re-named Jacob “Israel” (Genesis 32:28).  So, the Tribulation is mainly about the nation of Israel and God’s dealings with them (Daniel 9:24), it is not about the church.

Of course, there are other views of what will happen in the end times.  Unfortunately, all the details are not conveniently found in the same chapter of a single book in the Bible, therefore one must do some research to put the puzzle pieces together.  But taking Scripture together as a whole, we believe that the Pre-Trib position makes the most sense of all the data.

So, since the concept of the Pre-Trib Rapture is biblical and historical, the false idea that Darby “started” this concept is indeed a deception.

THE FALSE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this series we looked at the doctrine of Purgatory, and saw that, at its core, it is a corrupt teaching because it is based on the false notions that 1) Jesus’ work on the cross is not enough to forgive all our sins, and 2) mere humans can atone for sin.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-1.html

This month we will look at the Scripture verses that Catholics and others will use to try to prove the teaching.  The concept of Purgatory is not consistent with the principles of Scripture, and our intent here is to show the weakness of these Catholic arguments.

What Does the Catholic Church Say?

 

The Council of Trent assures us that Purgatory is a biblical doctrine when it says that this teaching has come both “…from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers…” (Session XXV, “Decree Concerning Purgatory”)

The online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with Trent and speaks of the “proofs” of the Catholic position “both in Scripture and in Tradition.” (Purgatory, under subheading “Proofs”)

But on the other hand, the New Catholic Encyclopedia implies that the doctrine has some support from Scripture, but admits:

"In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture." (Vol. XI, pg. 1034, Copyright 1967, Catholic University of America)

So, which is it?  Why is there a contradiction in these official Catholic sources?  Interestingly, both these Catholic encyclopedias have the same official Catholic seals of approval, i.e., the “nihil obstat” and the “imprimatur,” yet they don’t agree on whether Purgatory is actually biblical or not.

So, Is Purgatory Really in the Bible?

Here are some common Scripture passages (in no particular order) that Catholics will use to try and support the doctrine of Purgatory:

1 Corinthians 3: (NASV used throughout, unless otherwise noted)

10) According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it.  But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 

11) For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 

12) Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,

13) each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 

 

14) If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.

 

15) If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

  

And Catholics will say, “See, this is Purgatory!”  But this passage is not talking about purging sin from (or purifying) the believer himself; it is about revealing the quality of the believer’s WORK which will determine his rewards.  In fact, it says nothing about “temporal punishments” or sins.  It is not about any kind of punishment, but rather, eternal rewards (or lack thereof).  Catholics read the concept of Purgatory back into this text, although it is just not there.  Just because we see the word “fire,” does not mean that this is Purgatory.

 

In this passage, Paul uses the phrase “suffer loss” in verse 15, and it is a specific Greek term, “zemioo,” meaning “to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss.”  The same term is used by Paul in Philippians 3:8, where he had “…suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ.”

Matthew 16:26 also uses the same Greek term where Jesus said: 

 

For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits [suffers the loss of] his soul…

So, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 is about suffering the loss of certain eternal rewards, not suffering for sins in Purgatory.

Furthermore, the Catholic New American Bible has the following footnote on this passage:

“The text of v. 15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” (World Publishing, Copyright 1987, Page 1233)

By their own admission, there is no support for the doctrine of Purgatory from this passage.

Another passage Catholics use is Matthew 12:

31) Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

32) And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come.

  

Catholics will say that this passage is telling us that some sins can be forgiven in “the age to come.” But we know that there is no forgiveness in Hell, therefore, this must mean they are forgiven in Purgatory, right?

No, this simply means that this specific sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) is a sin that will never be forgiven.  The parallel passage in Mark makes this clear:

 

But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin. (Mark 3:29)

That’s all it’s saying.  It is not suggesting that any sin can be forgiven in the afterlife.  Besides, Purgatory is NOT depicted by the Catholic Church as a place or state of forgiveness, anyway, but of punishment.  So neither does this passage support the concept of Purgatory.

Matthew 5:

25) Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

 

26) Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent.

  

Catholics will say that this must be speaking of Purgatory.  Jesus appears to be saying that there is a possibility of getting out of this particular place.  And since no one gets out of Hell, this must be Purgatory.

First of all, no one can say that it is NOT speaking of Hell, since Hell is mentioned in this very same context (verse 22).  And the person in Hell would indeed be there “until he had paid up the last cent,” meaning that his stay there would be forever, since he could never pay for it.  For the person in Hell, there is no end to his payment for his sins.

In the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-27), Jesus tells us of the man who was forgiven of a very great (actually, an impossible) debt.  But he was forgiven of his debt simply because he humbled himself and begged for mercy from the king.  The king felt compassion for him and released him of his obligation.  This is clearly a picture of God dealing with us in salvation.  Notice here that the servant was not given the means to repay the debt, but he was altogether forgiven.  That is, he had to pay nothing because of his master’s great mercy.  In the same way, we Christians do not have to atone for our sins.  Jesus Christ did all the necessary atoning.  This clearly demonstrates the error in the concept of Purgatory.  So, once again, the Catholic attempt to use Matthew 5:25-26 also fails the test.

Job 1:5:

And it came about, when the days of feasting had completed their cycle, that Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.”  Thus Job did continually.

  

The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions Job offering sacrifices for his sons (CCC #1032), as though this somehow supports the idea of Purgatory.  First of all, his sons were living at the time, so this has nothing whatsoever to do with praying for souls in Purgatory.

Secondly, ALL biblical sacrifices (in the 66-book Protestant Bible) were offered for the living, without a single mention of Purgatory.  So, Job 1:5 does not point to Purgatory, either.

2 Maccabees 12:39-46

39) On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs.

40) But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.

41) They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden.

42) Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.

43) He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;

44) for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

45) But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.

  

46) Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin. (Catholic New American Bible, Revised Edition, online)

Catholics will say that because of this need to pray for the dead, there MUST be an intermediate state like Purgatory.

No, these dead soldiers, according to the text, were very plainly struck down by God for their idolatry.  And according to Catholic teaching, idolatry is a “mortal” sin (CCC 1857; 1858), and mortal sin sends one to Hell, not Purgatory.  Purgatory is supposedly for “venial” (lesser) sins.  So, the concept of Purgatory does not follow here.

 

Since the teaching of Purgatory contradicts this passage, then either:

1) This book of 2 Maccabees is wrong (and therefore uninspired) or 

2) Catholic teaching about venial and mortal sin is wrong, or

3) both of the above. 

 

The evidence points to number 3.

Conclusion

There IS no Purgatory.  Like the children’s story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes,” Catholic apologists are seeing something in Scripture that’s simply not there.  But this story (Purgatory) won’t just end in embarrassment like the children’s story does.  Rather, it will end in eternal souls being lost, because of their warped view of an “insufficient” Savior.

It is absolutely critical to remember that Jesus Christ CANCELED our record of sin debt:

Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)

 … When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of Majesty on high. (Hebrews 1:3)

Once again, there is no punishment or suffering in the afterlife for the Christian.  Sin has been completely atoned for.  Jesus Christ does the purifying and the atoning… not us.   That’s what Jesus meant when He said, “It is finished!” (John 19:30)