Why This PROTESTANT Believes in Purgatory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 січ 2024
- In this video, Dr. Bob Hartman (professory of philosophy at Ohio Northern University) joins me to discuss his paper "Heavenly Freedom and Two Models of Character Perfection" published by the journal Faith and Philosophy.
Link to Paper: philpapers.org/archive/HARHFA...
------------- GIVING -----------
One Time:
You can leave a Super Thanks or give on PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/thean...
Monthly:
To become a patron, go to / theanalyticchristian
------------ MERCHANDISE -------------
To purchase TAC shirts, mugs, phone cases, and more, go to
www.theanalyticchristian.com
--------- CONTACT ------------
If my videos have been of service to you, I'd love to hear how you have benefitted from them. You can reach me at
theanalyticchristian@gmail.com
------------ WEBSITE -----------
www.theanalyticchristian.com - Розваги
Im not a believer AT ALL - but i enjoy a lot of religious content - your channel is great. The quality is great. Guest are great. Topics are great. Its on par with religion for breakfast - i wish you had more viewers. This channel has been here for 5 years - high time you get more subs!
I heavily and whole heartedly agree with your assessment of this channel!
Underrated content 🎉
How does this argument not break down instantly in the Calvinism vs Arminianism discussion?
Woke up this mornin with puragatory on my mind. Timely. If once saved always saved is bogus, then why should a scaliwag- the thief on the cross comes to mind , wake up in paradise. No room for error. “He’s dead Jim. Unlike a dedicated Christian who gets things wrong enough to not past muster. Surely the scaliwag needs to spend time in purgatory? IF this- purgatory gets mo people into heaven then I’m in favour of the concept.
The cooperative version is empirically superior
I actually think there are extra and unnecessary steps in this view from the beginning.
Why do we HAVE to say you “can’t” sin in heaven as it relates to the ability? As opposed to saying you “won’t” sin even if you have the choice?
Seems to me, if God can give us resurrection bodies. He can also give us resurrection character, and a perfected character will always, by necessity choose what is right based on character, not the lack of free choice. This means that we can have free will in heaven, in the same sense that we have it on earth, but just like on earth, that doesn’t necessitate that we will choose the bad or sinful option. It only necessitates that it is an option. What inclines us towards sin here on earth is our fallen nature, which is exactly what will be restored when we go to heaven.
This is also how I see God. Some say God “can’t” choose to be immoral. I say he absolutely could, as he is omnipotent. However, God’s character is such that he WILL NOT choose to be immoral, even though his power would allow him to.
If you think about it, this actually affords God an extra level to his omnipotence in a paradoxical way, because he has the power in his character to freely choose only that which is perfectly moral.
See, this for me is an argument that partly led me away from the free will defense against the PoE (and Christianity more generally). To say that we can be of a perfect moral character and freely not sin makes total sense to me. And if God had simply made us from the start this way, this seems to contain no lack or failure on God's part - we would simply be like God, (semi-)eternally morally perfect creatures. I have yet to hear a satisfying answer on why this would not have been a better way to create us as free and yet morally impeccable creatures.
@@TheGreatAgnostic Okay. So, do you think true love is a moral good?
"Can" only implies possibility. We CAN believe Mickey Mouse is the Son of Moses, but should we?
Obviously, no, we should not.
Should they?
This model of purgatory has several difficulties for me as a Protestant
The first is linguistic equivocation. It seems to me that here we are making the mistake of using the same name to designate the concept presented in the video (a place of character development) and the Roman Catholic concept (a place of payment for the venial sins of the faithful) in the same baggage. This is literally throwing out the whole judicial burden and penalty of purgatory that comes from Augustinianism. On that sense, it looks like more a strange version of the EO´s toll houses than the purgatory
The second objection is that this model opens the door to potential universalism. After all, if the co-operative model is superior intriscally, why not extend it to the damned in hell? Why not turn hell into a purgatory? Hell becomes superfluous and you literally have more of the Jewish concept of hell than the Christian one in this theory
Another issue is that this model destroys a major battleground of the Protestant reformation, which is the assurance of salvation. The believer would not have the certainty of enjoying God's company, but only a probability that would be achieved or not through, guess what, a moral transformation. In this sense, yet another difficulty arises, which is that love for God would no longer be the standard in heaven, but an intrinsic virtue in a person's character, which would destroy sola fide, which is another pillar of the Reformation
In the end, this model presents more difficulties than it tries to solve. I believe that the instantaneous and transformative model is superior, but such difficulties of the co-operative model can be circumvented if, instead of the pugatory, this place of change of character is a place in heaven before the Beatific Vision. But I see that isn´t the intention of the author of the theory to think on this way
So, as a protestant, I do not see reason to believe in purgatory
Great points, however, I think they can be addressed.
In the first point, I don't have much to add. I believe Hartman chose to use the term “purgatory” more for practical reasons than anything else. He probably knows that most people, when they hear “purgatory,” think of a place between heaven and hell. It's like we're on our way to heaven but have to go through a process first. Most people don't have a deep theological understanding of what purgatory really is. So, I think he chose this term to make it more understandable in general. If this causes any issues, the solution would simply be to change the name, calling it “limbo” or any other term that works.
Regarding the second point, I think we might have a semantic issue here as well. When we say “hell,” what do we really mean? This is an important question because many philosophers and theologians have defined “hell” as a state of eternal rejection of God. An explicit example of this is C.S. Lewis in his book “The Great Divorce,” where he suggests the existence of a bus that takes people from “hell” to heaven. He argues that if someone decides to stay in heaven, the place they came from was purgatory, but for those who always choose to return, that place is hell. In this view, which fits well with Hartman's model, what defines hell is the person, not the place. So, Hartman could genuinely state that it is impossible for people in hell to be saved while maintaining the belief that all people in purgatory will be saved.
Now, if we want to adopt a more classical view of hell, where the condemned are tortured, etc., we can use Molinism to argue that God does not extend this cooperative model to the damned in hell because He knows they would freely reject all the opportunities He would give them. Therefore, no matter how much God works with them, they would still choose to reject God, making it senseless to offer them this opportunity. In fact, the Molinist can believe in both models simultaneously: Those whom God knows would go back and freely reject Him if placed in purgatory, He uses the unilateral model. On the other hand, for those He knows would choose to develop their character, He places them in purgatory.
As for the third point, we can address it again using Molinism. In fact, what was said before could be applied here as well. God, through His middle knowledge, knows which people would freely develop their character and which would not. In the first case, God puts them in “purgatory,” while in the latter, He does all the work alone. In this model, a genuine Christian can be sure of their salvation, no matter how they choose to act, because God can ensure that they will be saved.
I imagine that in the last part of your objection, you meant the following: according to sola fide, what gives us salvation is faith in Christ. However, in this model, what gives us salvation is how we act, not our faith in Christ. Therefore, if the model is true, we cannot believe in sola fide. However, the model does not imply this, mainly because it has nothing to do with salvation. Both the original model and the Molinist model focus on how God can develop the character of the saved, not on how they will be saved. If God places people who rejected Him on Earth, that is another question to which both models do not provide an answer.
Then may be the problem is with the reformation, not the doctrine of cooperation.
It's quite easy to disagree with this fellow. For instance, from a traditional Christian point of view, if it's impossible for people to sin or make the wrong choice in heaven as he posits here, there would be no Satan.
But is it free if will in purgatory? You would still be motivated to act in a way that results into getting into heaven - which apparently you would know about. I mean, you'd know if you were in heaven and what's going to happen and in hell, so I'm guessing purgatory would be no different. You made it sound like God was her coach and they would set goals and slowly work on perfecting her.... Ive never considered this so..... Wouldnt it make more sense if it were a place that Jenny wasnt aware of the impact of her actions? I mean, not know that the consequences of her actions is moving her closer or further from Heaven? That would be more of a free will. If her actions for lying or stealing, or whatever else you could do there .. . It seems like purgatory would be confusing for a dead person. If you're going to be tested by god during this time - would jenny be under the impression she was on an earth like existence? I would think she would be interacting with other "people" bc how else would she make decisions that would demonstrate shes changing?
Ohh mini zaps??? That's not free will.
Your over intellectualising in my opinion. “ It is done”Grace to GET saved. Grace to be made perfect in the image of God. What’s the deal with free will anyway? IF A and E had not sinned , we, their offspring would have No freewill. So far 11.and change in, you havnt mentioned the main reason, perhaps the only reason, for purgatory- those under the age of accountability, assuming one accepts the suffering theodicy.As U correctly said, ones character in heaven is predicated on moral choices one does or does not do this life.Aespecially first trimester aborted or miscarried fetus can’t experience any pain. They cannot accept J rock as their saviour or even have a relationship with him.The only other option is entry level reincarnation. The tyke soul is put into anew zygote at the moment of conception that comes to term . The baby into a toddler to adult etc.
Sorry about my inadvertent tone there.