1. What are the presuppositions of purgatory? The basic argument is twofold: (i) sinners cannot enter heaven; (ii) Christians are still sinners when they die. Hence, there must be a period of postmortem sanctification to render them sinless.
2. But what's the basis for the assumption that sinners cannot enter heaven? I can think of roughly three or four prima facie arguments:
i) Rev 21:27 is stock prooftext.
However, even if we grant the relevance of that passage to the issue at hand–which is dubious (see below), that of itself, doesn't explain why it's the case. It's just a statement of fact. What's the underlying rationale?
ii) It might be argued that sinners cannot enter into the presence of God, the heavenly angels, and the saints. That's incompatible with God's holiness (1 Jn 3:2), and the general holiness of heaven.
iii) It might be argued that the saints in heaven can never commit apostasy. Never lose their salvation or fall from heaven. But that must mean they are sinless.
iv) It might be argued that sin is incompatible with heavenly bliss (e.g. Rev 14:13; 7:16-17; 21:4).
3. Let's run back through the list:
i) One ambiguity is how the word "heaven" is defined. Is that used to denote the intermediate state of Christians or the final state of Christians? On the face of it, Rev 21:27 has reference to the final state, not the intermediate state. In the narrative of Revelation, this is after the return of Christ and the final judgment. So it doesn't speak directly to the period between death and the final state. In the same book, Rev 6:19-11 is more germane to the intermediate state.
Therefore, Rev 21:27 doesn't prove that sinners can't enter heaven, if we're using heaven as a synonym for the intermediate state of Christians rather than the final state of Christians. Mind you, this doesn't mean sinner can enter heaven, in that sense. But one needs a better argument. It could be true, but perhaps we lack sufficient information to say whether or not that's true.
ii) The problem with this rationale is obvious. Jesus mingled with sinners. God appears to sinners in theophanies. Seers (e.g. Isaiah, Daniel, John the Revelator) have visions of heaven, which seem to be (temporary) out-of-body experiences. So there doesn't seem to be any impediment in principle to God's compresence or Christ's compresence with sinners in heaven. Likewise, heavenly angels appear to sinners. Sinners survive these encounters.
iii) This is more interesting. From the standpoint of Reformed theology, God preserves the elect from apostasy even though they can still sin. So, in theory, people in heaven could still be sinful, but not be in danger of falling from heaven. I'm not saying that's true, just addressing the logic of the rationale.
In addition, even assuming that someone can become sinless through a gradual process of sanctification, which is not a given, it's unclear to me how any incremental process could make it impossible for someone to sin. Impeccability seems to require a special act of grace by which God preserves an individual from sin. But if God can instantly render a Christian impeccable, then, a fortiori, God can instantly render a Christian sinless. If God can do the greater, he can do the lesser (argumentum a maiore ad minus). That, however, nullifies the rationale of purgatory at one stroke.
iv) That's more complicated. Certainly heaven is supposed to be an improvement over life in a fallen world. A better place (Heb 11:16). Sin is a source of misery.
Again, though, it may be necessary to distinguish between the intermediate state and the final state. The saints in Rev 6:9-11 don't seem to be blissful!
There are various ways in which heaven (i.e. the intermediate state) could be a great improvement, could be a far happier condition, without requiring the saints to be sinless. For instance, there will be no crime in heaven. No persecution. There won't be the opportunity to commit certain sins.
My point is not to deny that the saints are sinless. My point, rather, is that the supporting arguments fall short of demonstrating that contention. From what I can tell, traditional theological assumptions on this question are underdetermined by the available evidence.
"My point is not to deny that the saints are sinless."
ReplyDeleteBut what you argument essentialy comes down to is that we can't say for sure that the saints will be sinless, so maybe they will be sinning in Heaven and thus there is no need for infusion of righteousness and their complete transformation into objectively good people in the eyes of God.
The use of Revelation 6:9-11 misses the point entirely - it is not about beng blissful or not, but whether Saints need to be objectively good and free from any sin to enter the presence of God. Nothing in Revelation 6:9-11 indicates any sinfulness among the Saints.
"But if God can instantly render a Christian impeccable, then, a fortiori, God can instantly render a Christian sinless."
But people are still sinning till the end of their lifes (even born again Christians), don't they? Therefore, this rendering of Christians sinless must necessarily occur after death, which is the main point of the necessity of Purgatory. As long as rendering Christians sinless occurs after death (we know it must, since it practically does not happen in this life), it means that saved Christians must undergo a purification between death and entering Heaven - whether you call it Purgatory or any other name.
Furthermore, Scripture makes clear that in Heaven there will ne no death, tears, mourning etc. (Revelation 21:4). All these things are direct result of sin. Thus, if Christians were to sin in Heaven, the state described in Revelation 21:4 would be impossible.
Your argument that "Heaven" from Revelation 21:27 might not be the final state of Christians does not solve the problem, because Hebrews 12:14 teaches clearly that without holiness no one will see God (so that includes the final state of Christians in Heaven as well). Moreover, even if Revelation 21:27 applies only to the intermediate state before New Jerusalem, than it surely must apply to the latter as well (since it will be an improvement from the Beatific Vision received before the Second Coming).
Also, I'm not aware of any other Protestant who would argue that it is possible that there will be sinners in Heaven. Seems like quite a radical argument to dodge the reality that Christians can enter Heaven only completely purified and objectively good in the eyes of God, they can't remain sinners (and thus imputed righteousness does not suffice and Purgatory is necessary).
That does not even go into the topic of temporal punishment which is the second reason for the existence of Purgatory besides purification.
"But what you argument essentialy comes down to is that we can't say for sure that the saints will be sinless, so maybe they will be sinning in Heaven…"
DeleteWe don't need to know things "for sure" unless we have sufficient evidence. Some questions are open questions in the absence of compelling evidence. God often puts us in that very situation.
"The use of Revelation 6:9-11 misses the point entirely"
To the contrary, it's a window into the intermediate state, unlike Rev 21:27, which doesn't address the condition of Christians between death and the final state.
"Nothing in Revelation 6:9-11 indicates any sinfulness among the Saints. "
Which it doesn't affirm or deny. It's a problem when you dogmatize things without proper or adequate evidence.
"As long as rendering Christians sinless occurs after death (we know it must, since it practically does not happen in this life), it means that saved Christians must undergo a purification between death and entering Heaven - whether you call it Purgatory or any other name. "
i) You haven't established that Christians even need to be sinless to enter heaven. Maybe so, maybe not.
ii) You're begging the question of whether God can instantaneously sanctify a person. On the face of it, impeccability is an artificial state for humans. Humans are creatures. Creatures are contingent. To be contingent is to be naturally subject to change. So there's inherent moral instability unless God preserves them. That's not the result of an incremental process.
"Furthermore, Scripture makes clear that in Heaven there will ne no death, tears, mourning etc. (Revelation 21:4). All these things are direct result of sin."
i) That's an overstatement. In many cases, those are the indirect result of sin. A person doesn't grieve because he's a sinner, but because of something that happened to a loved one. In many cases, suffering is a result of what is done to one person by another person, and not because the suffering person sinned.
ii) Death and sin are two different things. Since the intermediate state is a postmortem disembodied state, Christians could still be sinners, but they've put death behind them. They can't die during the intermediate state cuz they're already dead!
"Thus, if Christians were to sin in Heaven, the state described in Revelation 21:4 would be impossible."
DeleteWhich doesn't refer to where Christians go after they die.
"Your argument that 'Heaven' from Revelation 21:27 might not be the final state of Christians does not solve the problem, because Hebrews 12:14 teaches clearly that without holiness no one will see God (so that includes the final state of Christians in Heaven as well)."
You can't use an appeal to Heb 12:14 to salvage your appeal to Rev 21:27. You need to interpret each passage on its own terms. And I explained to you what's wrong with your interpretation of Heb 12:14, which you ignore.
"Moreover, even if Revelation 21:27 applies only to the intermediate state before New Jerusalem, than it surely must apply to the latter as well (since it will be an improvement from the Beatific Vision received before the Second Coming)."
You've imported the Catholic dogma of the Beatific Vision into the discussion, but you can't use that filter to exegete Heb 12:14 or Rev 21:27 since they don't make any claims that are indexed to the alleged Beatific Vision.
"Also, I'm not aware of any other Protestant who would argue that it is possible that there will be sinners in Heaven. Seems like quite a radical argument to dodge the reality that Christians can enter Heaven only completely purified and objectively good in the eyes of God, they can't remain sinners (and thus imputed righteousness does not suffice and Purgatory is necessary)."
That's not a refutation of my argument. Moreover, you repeat your initial mistake, as if sola fide precludes the need for sanctification. But in classic Protestant theology, both are necessary. However, they can't be mixed.
"That does not even go into the topic of temporal punishment which is the second reason for the existence of Purgatory besides purification."
Which is a direct attack on the sufficiency of the atonement.
Moreover, modern Catholicism has been replacing the traditional forensic model of Purgatory with a transformative model. I ignored the traditional, increasingly obsolete model. But it's certainly worth pointing out that this is another instance where Rome changes horses in midstream.