Truth Unites - Response to Trent Horn on Purgatory

Episode Date: January 7, 2022

In this video I respond to Trent Horn's response to my video on  purgatory. I address (1) how Trent frames the discussion, (2) his  distinction between the "core essence" and "secondary details" of  purgatory, and then (3) the evidence from church history, particularly  the church fathers, demonstrating that even the minimal conception of  postmortem cleansing is not universal (or anywhere close to it)  throughout church history. See Trent's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEmA8QLSnV0& Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

This video is going to be a response to Trent Horn on the issue of purgatory. I'd put out one video, Trent put out a response. I'll link to Trent's response. Now, Trent has expressed an interest in dialogue, and I would love to do that. So my comments in this video will be deliberately anticipatory for an in-person engagement. So his video was almost three hours. So at a certain point, it becomes unwieldy to do, you know, full rebuttals. It would just be too long.

So I won't be comprehensive. Instead, I do think there could be value, though, in giving a limited response that tries to hit some of the main points in the discussion, gives pushback on some things, flags other things for attention and so forth to try to set us up for success for when we have an in-person dialogue, whenever we can do that. He has some other things going on. It might be later in the spring. That works great for me.

And by that point, if we want to talk about something else, that's fine too. Let me explain why I'm responding to Trent's videos, but not some of the other videos that have come out like William Albrecht put out a series of videos. People have asked about this. Trent's videos are professional, they're charitable, they're well argued. He put a lot of work into it. Really impressive amount of research. Although we disagree, I get the sense that he's a good faith interlocutor

where it can be productive to engage with him. So I really look forward to talking. I don't think Williams videos merit that kind of engagement, either in terms of the content or in terms of his manner of expression. I don't think he's a bad guy. I really don't. And I wish him the best. But I don't think he's learned how to do public engagements in a way that's professional where you keep it on the arguments rather than going ad homonym, blatantly misrepresenting the other side, wild over-the-top rhetoric and overstatement, violating the Ninth Commandment by making claims about the other side that are not truthful and there's no way you could know if they are truthful and so forth.

So sorry to say that, but his responses are out there in public and I guess people take them. seriously and think of them as like real refutations. So I need to explain why I don't really take them as seriously. Trent, I take very seriously and I think his video was very well done. So I'm looking forward to talking as well. Okay, I have four sections in my response to Trent. First, framing where we disagree. Second, defining the word purgatory. Third, some specific comments about church history. And fourth, some general comments about church history. First, framing where we disagree. Let me show a clip of how Trent opens his video and frames the nature of where we disagree. Hey, everyone. In today's episode, I'm going to respond to Dr. Gavin Ortland's recent video,

Purgatory, a Protestant perspective. The majority of his original video is on how purgatory is represented in the church fathers. And I'm going to focus on that part of his video because Dr. Ortland makes a case that many Protestants don't normally make, which is that references to purgatory, he claims, are actually rare in the Church Fathers, and that Catholics have been misinterpreting their writings in order to support the doctrine of purgatory, and it's not actually well supported in the Fathers. That's what he claims. Now, I didn't actually say those things, and that doesn't summarize accurately my position. There were three claims there that I argue that purgatory is rare in the Church Fathers,

that Catholics are misinterpreting the Church Fathers to support purgatory, and that it Purgatory is not well supported by the Church Fathers. I never said any of those three things. You can go back and watch the video that I made. I wasn't saying purgatory is generally rare. I was arguing for a particular historical interpretation of how it develops. And I don't think that was unclear from what I said in the video. And throughout the video, the first sentence of my video referenced how Catholic apologists

frequently say that belief in purgatory was universal or nearly universal. it's sort of this consensus view that can go back to the apostles and so forth. And people do say that. And I was responding to that and offering an alternative view of how the idea of purgatory develops in the early church. So is purgatory rare in the church fathers? Well, it depends on how you define the term, which is what I'm going to speak to next, and then it depends on where and when you look.

If you take a minimalistic definition of purgatory as just some kind of post-mortem cleansing fire. And then you're looking in the mid, you're getting into the mid patristic era, you know, fourth century, for example, and you're looking especially in the West. Not only is it not rare, you'll find that language all over the place. That's part of what I argued. It becomes very common in the wake of Clement and origin. So that's sort of a misrepresentation of my view. Same with the idea that I'm arguing that Catholics misinterpret the fathers in general. Well, it depends on which Catholics. Part of what I said several times is that Catholic scholars are often more careful than Catholic apologists.

So it's unfortunate for this to be the initial comment of the video because it frames everything else that then follows. And it sets up the discussion along an inaccurate line of disagreement. Makes it sound like Gavin is saying purgatory is rare in the fathers, and Trent is saying it's not rare. And then the discussion proceeds along those lines. Again, for clarity, what I'm doing is responding to the Catholic claim that is made by apologists that belief in purgatory is universal or nearly universal throughout church history

and instead, and offering an alternative account of its historical development. I can summarize it in like three broad strokes. First, belief in purgatory is not representative of the earliest span of church history. Second, as you get into the patristic era, multiple competing ideas of what happens to a Christian when they die, develop, And third, the idea of post-mortem purgatorial fire gradually comes to predominate in the West and develops over a period of time into what we call purgatory today. Now, I'll come back and flesh that out and try to justify that interpretation a little later. Right now, I'm just trying to explain what it is. Because in order to assess my view, it needs to be understood accurately.

And this is kind of the first major concern I have about Trent's response video. And I'm going to come back to this at the end of this video. Second major big-picture sort of concern or observation. The definition of purgatory. So Trent made a distinction between the core essence of purgatory and the secondary details. Take a listen. East and West might differ on secondary details how to describe it, but the core essence of purgatory, that there is a post-mortem purification of sin after death is something you can trace all the way back

through the church fathers, back to the apostles, and even before that. So the core essence of purgatory for Trent is just this idea, I think this is fair to his comments there and elsewhere, of post-mortem cleansing of some kind. That's kind of the core essence. And then he's saying people agree on that, but there's just differences in how the details of how it's understood. And people in the comments have said something similar. Now, in a moment, in my third comment in this video, I'm going to argue that people don't agree, even on the basic idea of post-mortem cleansing. And I'm going to give five categories of example

that make it very clear that that's not a sort of common consensus view or a universal view, post-mortem cleansing. Before that, I want to make just a more basic point, and that is we need to accurately define what is purgatory. What's the core essence, and then what are the secondary details, and what's the cutoff line between the two? and by what criterion do we make that cutoff and on what authority do we distinguish the core essence from the secondary details. Now, I think Trent's definition is far too minimalistic.

He drew his definition from paragraph 1030 of the catechism, which I also quoted, and it talks about those who die in God's grace and friendship, but are still imperfectly purified, need to go through purification before they're ready for the joy of heaven. But I think we just have to look at the full expression of what the Catholic Church has officially taught about purgatory. So that means looking also at paragraphs 1031 and 1032, which flesh that out in various ways. For example, commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance for those in purgatory, and also paragraph 1472, which is the

treatment of indulgences. And this describes purgatory specifically as a place of temporal punishment. and you get the whole distinction between temporal punishment and eternal punishment, which is an official part of Catholic theology. And then you have to look at the Council of Trent and the Council of Florence as well, I think, because those are identified in the catechism as where the Catholic Church has defined her understanding of this doctrine. And this is what I was trying to labor in my first video in that first section, that purgatory has a context.

It's not just post-mortem cleansing. There's more to it. there's a sort of soterological context to it that has to do with salvation. That's what soteriological means. And you can't just shave that off without consequence. Now the reason you couldn't say, so for example, the Council of Trent also talks about sacrifices, we do masses and so forth that can help those in purgatory. Now, the reason you can't just say, okay, yeah, the Catholic Church teaches these other things, but those are just part of the secondary details. They're not part of the core essence. It's because the Catholic Church has anathematized people who,

don't affirm various aspects of these supposed secondary details. For example, Canon 30 of the Council of Trent's decree on justification says, if anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received, the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world or in the other in purgatory, before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, let him be anathema. And there's many other things we could look to where this broader context for the kind of punishment that purgatory is, is a part of the system. It's definitional to the thing itself. So I would say we should distinguish between the core essence of purgatory and the secondary

details of purgatory as Roman Catholic official teaching has done so. And when we do that, we see there's at least three other elements that belong to the core essence. I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. I'll try to leave some wiggle room and how this is all understood, but there's some other things that are pretty important to the idea of purgatory. So number one is what I labored in my initial video, that the suffering of purgatory is punitive and expiatory. That is, it delivers punishment, temporal punishment,

and it affects the extinguishing of guilt. Okay, and that's very clear on sort of all the major locations of official Catholic teaching on this doctrine, even Vatican 2. Number two, that the activities of living Christians help those in purgatory. That, again, is pretty consistent, pretty universal, you know, so the role of indulgences, for example. And number three, that purgatory should be spoken of as with fire. Now, whether you interpret that fire literally or metaphorically is fine, that's open. But paragraph 1031 of the catechism notes that this is the language of the tradition, for this post-mortem cleansing.

So now, again, I'm trying to not be unreasonable here. You can still speak more broadly of just the basic idea of post-mortem cleansing, but just call it post-mortem cleansing. Don't call it purgatory or at least clarify that we're using the word purgatory then in a non-technical kind of anomalous sense. So then if you're making historical claim about development, you could say, this church father affirmed something that's anticipatory of purgatory, of something like that or something like that.

I'm not saying you can't draw a connection between the broader basic idea and the, you know, purgatory as such. I'm just saying we can't conflate them. Now, the reason I'm going on about this is I think this is so important for this discussion and this whole question of how common is purgatory in church history

because if you reduce the idea down to just any kind of post-mortem cleansing, then it's a lot more realistic, though still impossible, as I'm about to show, to try to amass consensus for it in patristic sources. So, for example, Trent referenced Mark of Ephesus as being in line with the core essence of purgatory in some way, even though he rejects the idea of fire and the idea of any external punishments. But so Mark affirmed internal punishments, so, you know, regret and fear and so forth, which is what I meant in my video when I was talking about.

Mark doesn't have suffering there. But Mark set that view over and against the Western conception of purgatory. This was an alternative to purgatory. So I think Trent is downplaying the differences between the East and the West on this issue. Pergatory, far from being a unanimous kind of idea throughout church history, it's been a leading point of division between the East and the West that needed to be overcome at the Council of Florence along with three other issues. The filiocque, the papacy, and the issue of Levin v.

and bread in the Eucharist. Now, I think Trent is wanting to say something like, well, yeah, there's differences, but they're more in the semantics and the details of kind of how it's understood. So, for example, here's how he puts it at one point in the video. A lot of the disputes between the Western and the Eastern Church, they often come down to whether certain semantic differences can be overcome that don't necessarily reflect these insurmountable, unfixable theological divisions. Sometimes you could just leave them alone and let each group sort it out as they see fit on matters of doctrine the church is not defined. But the differences have been insurmountable because they're more than just semantic. The material concept of

purgatory involves more than just general cleansing from sin. That's just what the word purgatory means. You can't just shave off the satirological context of purgatory. This is why the Eastern Orthodox don't say, oh, generally and historically. They don't say. Maybe a particular person could say it. But the traditional and mainstream view would be not to say, oh, we agree with the Roman Catholic Church on purgatory. We just differ on the details of how it's understood. Rather, they reject the idea.

This is, as I quoted from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in my initial video, they link purgatory with indulgences and say both are intercorrelated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the ancient church. Or even in Trent's video, he showed a clip of Josiah Trenum, an Eastern Orthodox Christian speaking about this. And in that clip, Trenum said, purgatory is as much nonsense as is the idea of immediate entry into heaven. So for an Orthodox Christian like Josiah Trenum, my view, immediate entry into heaven, is as erroneous as Trent's view, purgatory. So you can't say, oh yeah, you know, the East and the to agree on the basic idea of purgatory, just not on the details. They don't agree on,

they agree on some kind of post-mortem cleansing, but purgatory is more than mere post-mortem cleansing. That's why it's not unanimous. It's a dividing issue throughout church history. Now, in the third section of my video here, what I want to show is that even if we accepted a more minimalistic definition of purgatory as mere post-mortem cleansing of any kind, fire or not, punishment or not, leave all that open, it's still not anywhere near universal or nearly universal or anything like that. And I would say to answer Trent's challenge on this about other doctrines, because this is a fair appeal that we should be consistent in how we look at how different doctrines develop. I would say this is very different from something like the doctrine of the Trinity.

And I can flesh this out more if it'd be helpful, but I think the doctrine of the Trinity is firmly embedded in the New Testament. I regard it as a kind of motif within the New Testament. And I think it's Catholic, lowercase C, in its reverberations. I think you can see from the earliest of times among the Apostolic fathers, you might see a little variation or error in the details, but you don't have a wildly alternative idea or a whole period of church history that has no attestation of it and that kind of thing. So purgatory is very different from the Trinity.

And let me show that in five examples of where even the bare idea of post-mortem cleansing is not representative of how Christians have always thought. First, let's consider, so five examples here. First, let's talk about the late second century testimonies that spill over a bit into the third century. So in my video, I had discussed theologians like Hippolytus, Irenas, Tertullian, etc. So, for example, I noted how Hippolytus opens his against Plato on the cause of the universe by saying, but now we must speak of Hades in which the souls of both the righteous and the unrighteous are detained. And then after this he proceeds to talk about, he describes it in great detail.

You can go back and see the full quote. It's a dark place under the earth. It's happy for the righteous, unhappy for the unrighteous. There's an angel at a gate. You go down. There's a fork in the road after the gate. The righteous go to the right. The unrighteous go to the left.

Listen to how he describes what this is like for the righteous. And there, the righteous from the beginning dwell, not ruled by necessity, but enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings, which are in their view, and delighting themselves with the expectation of others ever knew, and deeming those even better than these, and that place brings no toil to them. There there is neither fierce heat nor cold nor thorn, but the face of the fathers and the righteous is always seen to be smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location, and we call it by the name Abraham's bosom. I don't think I need to explain the various ways that Abraham's bosom, as envisaged by

Apolitus is different from purgatory or any notion of post-mortem cleansing, because it'd be like trying to describe how pain and pleasure are different, or how hot and cold are different. This is a qualitatively different conception of what happens to a deceased Christian. Now, I don't recall that Trent responded to this passage directly. He pointed to some other second century texts that talk about prayer for the dead. And then he at one point stated that there's ambiguity at this point in history because it's earlier on. We need to be careful about how we interpret these texts. I actually don't think that Hippolytus is ambiguous. I think he's very clear to the point of vivid detail. But it's also interesting to ask, why would there be ambiguity at this time in history?

You're just a few generations from the apostles. If the apostles taught the idea of purgatory, wouldn't you expect that it becomes more clearly attested as you go back? Maybe there could be misunderstandings of it that need to be ironed out, but why would there be so little attestation of it early on and such wildly different alternative ideas? Even the other texts that Trent cites from the second century are very different from what will later be spoken of as purgatory. And again, this is very different from something like the Trinity.

Now, Trent raises a great point that Tertullian, because Tertullian and Ironaeus are very similar to Hippolytus on this point. But Tertullian does have a passage in Chapter 58 of On the Soul that speaks about discipline for some of those in Hades. And I've read through that chapter many times and I can't tell whether it's talking about the righteous or the unrighteous. So let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's the righteous in support of Trent's perspective.

So you could argue maybe that Tertullian's perception of purgatory is, or Tertullian's perception of the bosom of Abraham is closer to purgatory than Hippolyt. or something like that, even though throughout chapters 55 to 58 of Tertullians on the soul and elsewhere in his writings, the overwhelming description of this place is joy, consolation, refreshment. His other term for it is paradise, for example. But even so, let's suppose you say, but yeah, but there's this passage about discipline. Even so, it's still a qualitatively different idea from purgatory. This is a place for everyone, not just imperfectly purified Christians, perfectly purified Christians as well go to this place for Tertullian and Ireneus and Hippolytus.

And it's not a place you go to prepare you for heaven. It lasts for everyone, the same duration of time, all the way up to the final resurrection. And those points are consistent between Tertullian and Ironaeus and Hippolytus. So this conception of an interim state of refreshment for the righteous is not just different in secondary details from purgatory. You don't have a conception of post-mortem cleansing. These three figures alone at this time in history are enough to undermine this claim of universality for post-mortem cleansing. This is a basically different idea in what it is, who goes there, how long it lasts,

what is its purpose, and so forth. All right, second example. Let's go a little further into the third century now and talk about Cyprian. Trent argued that the passage in Letter 55 that is under discussion here is talking about purgatory, and he quoted various scholars to that effect. I'm persuaded that Cyprian is talking about the penitential discipline of the church in this life, and I think the context of the letter makes that very clear. It's about the readmittance of the lopsie into the church, people who've lapsed.

And I think most scholars recognize that. What you could argue is that that penitential process continues on after the grave. But Cyprian never says that. That's reading into what he says. Here's how Brian Daly, who's a Catholic scholar, puts this, nor does Cyprian seem to have envisage the possibility of a temporary, purgative suffering for certain classes of sinner after death. A certain passage in Epistle 55 apparently refers in its context to the public penitifference,

practiced by Lopsie who have been readmitted to church life. Cyprian stresses elsewhere, in fact, that once we have departed from this life, there is no longer any place for repentance and no possibility of making satisfaction. That last little bit there that Daly is quoting is from Cyprian's writings from his two Demetrianus, and Trent responded to that by saying

that the denial of post-mortem repentance is not at odds with purgatory. And I get that. But that's missing the argument here. The argument is not from that passage is not from the first part of that sentence about post-mortem repentance. It's from the second part that says there's no satisfaction for sin in the next life. And that's what a Catholic scholar like Daly will look at and conclude, Cyprian doesn't seem to have a conception that the penitential process is going to go beyond this life into the next life.

And I think that interpretation of Cyprian fits far better with the other writings that I've drawn attention to. For example, we looked at his treatise to Fortunatus, where he recounts how Paul went to heaven, okay? And then he says, who then does not with all his powers labor to attain to such a glory that he may become the friend of God, that he may at once rejoice with Christ, that after earthly tortures and punishments he may receive divine rewards? What a dignity it is, and what a security to go gladly from hence, to depart gloriously in the midst of afflictions and tribulations, in a moment to close the eyes with which men in the world are looked upon, and at once to open them to look upon God and Christ, of such a blessed

departure. How great is the swiftness. You shall be suddenly taken away from the earth to be placed in the heavenly kingdoms. Now in his response, Trent drew attention to the language of martyrdom in the context here, which is a very fair point. But I don't think he engaged with the argument that I referenced from Eliezer Gonzalez, namely, and I'll put this up, you can see at the very end of this quote, the stated criterion for entry to heaven for Cyprian is not martyrdom, but an unspoiled faith and an unharmed virtue of mind. Those are those final Latin words up there. And he also appeals to his readers, who doesn't want this? It's the same appeal that I referenced in on mortality, chapter 22, where he's speaking to Christians, trying to encourage them with the

Christian hope we have in the face of death. And he says, in the first person plural, we pass by death immortality, we would not hasten to better things. He talks about, there's various other phrases in there that you think, it doesn't sound like he's restricting this to a certain subset of Christians, like martyrs and saints and a few others or something like that, or perfectly purified Christians, or any group, it sounds like he's speaking to Christians about Christian hope. Now, one of the things, and this goes beyond Giuseprian to a broader point

that Trent made a couple of times, that believing in purgatory doesn't mean you think every Christian goes to purgatory, so you can still account for this language of immediate entry to heaven that you occasionally see. Well, of course, but the point that I'm making is that the language of immediate entry into heaven in Cyprian, in Gregory of Nazianzianzis, and in others I've pointed to, is held forth as a common Christian hope. And that is at odds with purgatory. On the other text I cited, on mortality, Trent responded by saying that this was to uplift Christians

to, in a time of plague, he referenced Benedict's view that Christ himself is the fire of purgatory. And he says that the absence of a reference to purgatory is not the same as a denial of purgatory. Now, I want to try to be as fair as possible, and I do, you know, it is, I never want to overstate something. So it is true that linguistically, we need to be careful here. Like, for example, the metaphor I thought of is I could say, after work, I will be at home, right? And that doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of a 20-minute commute between the two. Language can work like that. But I don't think that way of explaining these passages can work because of the specifics of Cyprian's language.

Let me put up this phrase again. And note the adverbs here. This is from the 11th treatise. In a moment, you close your eyes and you're not looking at the world anymore. And at once you open them and you're looking upon God and Christ, he speaks of this as a blessed departure. you're suddenly taken from the earth to be placed in heavenly kingdoms, you know, suddenly at once. The adverbs here seem to rule out. See, in other words, it's not just that Cyprian doesn't mention purgatory, it's that his language

seems to suggest an immediacy to this transition. Same with on mortality. He talks about this death as a departure and translation to the abode of Christ and so forth. If Cyprian had some conception of purgatory, this language would be misleading to the Christians hearing it. So, for example, here's a metaphor. Suppose you are going under for surgery. The doctor's putting you to sleep, and he's trying to encourage you before that and lift up your heart and saying, you know, don't worry, you'll close your eyes for the surgery, and at once, in a moment, open them to wake up to health.

You'll pass through the surgery into health. The surgery is a translation to health. Okay, this kind of language. I know that sounds kind of weird. But that's the language. So you're going to hear that and you're going to get one expectation in your mind of what that means, right? Now suppose you wake up and there's six months of painful convalescence. You could justifiably say, hey, I could not possibly have gleaned this from what you told me. This is a disruption of the hope you led me to believe in. Right? So also for Christians with Cyprian's writings. I think they could just be. justifiably say, even if you allow for a Benedict's view, which is a pretty significant development in the idea here. But even if you allow for that, it's still a disruption of what people would gather from Cyprian's writings. But I don't think Cyprian concocted this idea just on his own. I think he's articulating the view that is held out in the New Testament that is best supported among the Apostolic Fathers, for example. I tried to be careful with the Apostolic Fathers,

because I think you could, if you believe in purgatory on other grounds, I think you could reconcile the Apostolic Fathers to that. I don't think they're conclusive. So I was just trying to be careful with them. But I think that their language is suggestive of and consistent with belief in immediate entry to heaven. I think that's the most natural reading. And certainly I don't see anything like purgatory in that earliest span. So I think Cyprian is representative of the earliest Christian hope of immediate entry into heaven. All right, let's push into the third example, pushing a little further now into the fourth century. And let's talk about Assyriac fathers. I had mentioned Afrahat's view of soul sleep. The statement, the interim state

between death and resurrection is a happy sleep for the righteous and an unhappy sleep for the unrighteous. And just to repeat, here's the passage I quoted where he describes the righteous sleep. And even though he is soundly sleeping in his dream, he sees something like what his lord is about to give him whatsoever he has promised him. And he rejoices in his dream and exalts and is gladdened. Now, in response, Trent pointed out that the Syriac fathers had a different view of human constitution, body, soul, spirit, and then here's how he follows up on that. But these Eastern Syriac authors, they didn't think that the human soul went to be with God at death.

The spirit went to God. The soul stayed, you know, the soul was in a state of slumber, and it slept until the final judgment, which soul sleeves something we don't believe now. But writers in this tradition, like Ephraim of Edessa, he did believe in post-mortem, purification. And the problem here is that when you try to use an argument from silence against Ephraim, which is what Dr. Orton is doing, trying to say, well, Ephraim didn't believe in purgatory because he doesn't mention it in this text over here. Arguments from silence don't work if you can find a clear counter example where the writer does mention the thing they're allegedly

silent about. After that, Trent went on to quote from the passage in Ephraim, the Syrian, where he quotes the text in Second Maccabees about praying for the dead and talks about praying for the dead for the remission of their sins. Now, a couple thoughts here. First, I'm not sure whether Trent maybe is confusing, Ephraim and Afrahat. He says that I quote, try to use an argument from silence against Ephraim, end quote. The passage I read was from Afrahat. I didn't say anything about Ephraim specifically, though I will in a moment. I don't know. Maybe he was responding to my general claim about the Syriac fathers and soul sleep or something like that. But the second, and more to the point, this is one of several occasions where,

curiously, Trent suggests I'm making an argument from silence. He'll do the same thing with Cyril of Alexandria and others. An argument from silence is when you say, Afrahat never mentioned purgatory, therefore Afrahat doesn't believe in purgatory. That's not what I'm doing. I'm quoting Afrhat in his very clear, unambiguous view of happy soul sleep. and I'm noting that that ain't purgatory.

That's a qualitatively different idea. These are not just different in secondary details. Happy soul sleeve versus purging fire are different in the core essence. Now, Trent pointed out how Ephraim believes you pray for people for their guilt to be cleansed. Let me articulate a danger here that I'm going to return to later, and that is glossing over the differences between different kinds of prayer for the dead and what you're praying for. praying for forgiveness is not the same as praying for the purgation of sin. The cleansing and forgiveness are not the same thing. And so I'm going to come back to that point in a second,

but let's just be really clear about what Ephraim's view is, and it is not purgatory, it's not post-mortem cleansing. It's nothing like that. Again, qualitatively different, as different as Hippolytus' vision of the bosom of Abraham is different. Ephraim's view is a little different from Offerhats. He thinks there's a separation of body and soul at death. He thinks of the soul and body as like needing one another. So without the soul, the body, he thinks of the waiting period as you're kind of in this mute, dumb state, just sort of waiting.

It's really interesting. He uses different metaphors, blind and mute. He talks about it like a baby before the baby's born. It's really interesting. But the location of the soul sleep for the righteous. This is not purgatory or anything like that. There's no cleansing going on. Here's how he describes it.

Thus, in the delightful mansions on the borders of paradise, do the souls of the just and righteous reside, awaiting there the bodies they love so that at the opening of the garden's gate, both bodies and souls might proclaim amidst Hosanna's, Blessed is he who has brought Adam from Shewell and returned him to paradise in the company of many. Okay, number one, that's not purgatory. That's not just different in matters of secondary detail. It's just a different idea.

Number two, I'm not arguing from silence. I'm not arguing that because Ephraim doesn't mention purgatory or something like that, I'm arguing from his positive vision that he does articulate of what he does believe. When people say in the comments, things like, well, yeah, Ortland is showing that there's some diversity in the details, but the core essence is there. It'd be like saying, yeah, the North Pole and the Amazon rainforest are a little different in the details, but they have the same core essence. It's like, no, they just don't.

The Syriac idea of soul sleep in its various iterations, and it's interesting to note how that tradition of thought develops, and you get the toll houses and all these other interesting ideas, is a qualitatively different idea than the idea of purgatory, and the fact that both involve prayers for the dead doesn't take away the differences. Pleasant soul sleep on the outer rim of paradise, and being purged of sin and fire are not just different as a matter of detail.

They're different in the fundamental idea. And this is another example of where just that alone shows that claims of universality are erroneous. All right. Fourth example, I want to talk about the eulogies a little bit. I brought up from Ambrose's eulogy of Theodosius and Gregory of Nazianzis for his brother Cesarius. Now, Trent cautions, because both of these speak of this person as in heaven, and yet they pray for the person at the same time. And the main point was I was trying to say, you can pray for people in heaven, because people often make this appeal that, you know, what are you praying for if they're already in heaven? Now, Trent cautions in his response about getting theology from eulogies, and he says they often are emotional, they often use rhetorical language.

I don't want to dismiss that point because eulogies are a little different, but I would actually flip that and say, from another angle, they're going to give you a very important, uniquely important testimony to how Christians function, to what was the common Christian hope given in real life ministry situations? What would a pastor say to grieving Christians? As opposed to some, though not all, the other texts, that are more speculative, theoretical. Now, I've done a lot of memorial services and funerals, and one of the things you're always careful about is you don't want to give false hope. You don't want to make claims beyond what you know of the person. So, of course, you're not going to positively say someone is in purgatory, but you're also not going to go on in great detail, as Ambrose does, saying they're in heaven if you don't know that.

It would be completely irresponsible pastorily for Ambrose to say that Theodosius has entered the city of Jerusalem. He abides in the light and glories in the assembly of the assembly of the, saints, he rejoices in the fruits of a divine reward, et cetera, if he didn't actually believe theodosius is in heaven. Now, Trent raises the possibility that theodosius as an emperor is not representative of common Christian hope and experience. And that's fair enough, but I don't think that works because there's so many other eulogies that are about non-emperors and no one who would be in that class. Moreover, often the eulogy will turn the hope that is said with reference to the deceased as being in heaven into the hope for all the listeners,

into the common Christian hope. I'll show that for a second in Gregory's eulogy, but let me just reiterate and underscore the main point that I was trying to derive from these eulogies, and that is, I'm not trying to build a whole theology just on the eulogies alone. I'm trying to point out that there's such a diversity of different reasons to pray for the debt, because Ambrose is praying for Theodosius while saying he's in heaven. So he says, on the one hand, he now enjoys perpetual light and lasting tranquility. And on the other hand, right after that, he says, give perfect rest to thy servant Theodosius.

On the one hand, he says, by my tears and prayers, I shall lead the man unto the holy mountain of God. And then right after that, he says, he now abides in the light and glories in the assembly of saints. There he now embraces Gratian. He possesses Gratian, another Christian. there he possesses rest for his soul and so forth. So Trent brought up examples of times where prayers for the dead do indicate a belief in post-mortem purification. Totally valid. That's a totally valid point.

I'm not saying they never could. You have to look at the context and then you have to look at the content of the prayers. So he mentioned Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius, for example, as examples of where praying for the dead indicates a belief in post-mortem purification. That's not at odds with my case. I would totally grant that point. I'm not saying they never could do that. I'm saying you cannot argue from prayers for the dead unto belief in post-mortem purification, certainly not unto belief in purgatory. And yet people make this appeal over and over. If you're lactantious, as we'll see in a moment, you pray for the dead though they're in a place of waiting. If you're off for hot, you pray for those in their

happy soul sleep. If you're Hippolytus, you pray for those enjoying the bosom of Abraham and the joys of that place. If you're John Chrysostom, you pray for the damned to mitigate their suffering. I'll come back to that. If you're Ambrose, you pray for your friend Theodosius, even though you think he's in heaven. This has made even more clear with Gregory and his eulogy because he prays for Caesarius, his younger brother, even while speaking of him as currently in heaven, but then he turns that into a hope for all his listeners. I'll start reading a little bit before the quote starts on your screen. Is this inadequate for our consolation?

I will add a more potent remedy. I believe the words of the wise that every fair and God-beloved soul, when set free from the bonds of the body, it departs hence, at once enjoys a sense and perception of the blessings which await it, and as much as that which darkened it has been purged away or laid aside, I know not how else to term it, and feels a wondrous pleasure and exultuous, and goes rejoicing to meet its Lord, having escaped, as it were, from the grievous poison of life here, and shaken off the fetters which bound it, and it goes on and on, talking about the joy of the bliss of where it's going.

He also, throughout this eulogy, uses this regular contrast between the pilgrimage of our life here, and then afterward God receives us into glory. Now, I didn't really catch a response to this passage from Trent. He talked about the Cappadocians as a group. He made some comments about universalism, and then he referenced another. passage in Gregory that talks about a baptism of fire. Now, I'm not certain personally whether that baptism of fire is talking about something in this life or the next. But if you take it as post-mortem, what you'll notice, and I'll put it up, is that it's said about those who don't

follow Christ's way, but go their own way. This is another important difference that we want to not gloss over. For the contemporary idea of purgatory, it's the place where most Christians are going to go, all imperfectly purified Christians. In some of the patristic texts, though not all, it's the exact opposite where the expectation is that the common Christian hope will be entered to heaven immediately, but then there's an allowance for some exceptional circumstance. But I think the common Christian hope that Gregory has is indicated in his language of every God and beloved soul departs and at once in Joyce. Again, it's the same thing as with Cyprian. any listener of this eulogy would be misled by these words if there is such a thing as purgatory. All right. Fifth example, and I'm going to try to talk quickly, partly because I've got to be home

soon, and partly because my battery doesn't have a ton of life. If this video dies, I'll stop and finish it later. But forgive me for talking so fast. I'm trying to get through a lot of information here. Fifth example is John Chrysostom. And I'm not going to cover all the Eastern fathers or other Eastern fathers, but I do think John is not alone in this. I think this is a view, not universally in the East. That's one of the misrepresentations that I saw in William's video. I'm not saying it's everywhere, but it's a view you find among Eastern fathers in the patristic era. So, you know, for example, a trend sort of bracketed off the testimony of pseudogestine on the grounds that it's pseudonymous, but he utilized the testimony of apocryphal texts like

the Acts of Paul and Thecla. A text can be relevant as historical evidence, even if it's not an ecclesial authority. So when pseudo-justin says that after the departure from the body, a separation of the just from the unjust immediately takes place, for they are conducted by angels into places worthy of them, the souls of the just are conducted to paradise in the company and sight of angels, the vision of the Savior Christ. We shouldn't put too much weight on that, but it tells us what some people evidently thought. And so we shouldn't just dismiss it either, especially if it's corroborated by other testimonies, as I think it is in the East, and John is a good example. Now, I had brought up a number of passages where John affirms immediate entry into heaven for deceased believers. I also pointed out that John believes in praying for the damned.

So I think, you know, I pointed out 1 Corinthians 3, the fire of 1st Corinthians 3 for John Chrysostom is the fire of hell. He says, pray for everyone, pray for the damned to mitigate their suffering, and then pray for the righteous. And he affirms they go immediately to heaven. And I pointed out, that seems to be a sort of standard view among scholars. I gave a couple of examples of that. Trent made some comments and forgive me if I miss anything or this was towards the end of his video

and I listened to his video in the car a bit, driving a bit, so I hope I haven't missed something here. But he made some comments, something about the idea of post-mortem salvation came up. I just want to clarify, I never had a thought of that with John. When he says, pray for the damned, he's talking about not for their salvation, but to mitigate their suffering. On the main point here, in terms of immediate entry into heaven, one of the points Trent made, if I remember correctly, is that it's not that the righteous are immediately saved to heaven. It's that their salvation to heaven is secure. But I don't think that fits with John's language. Let me put up the phrases he uses in Acts 9 that I referenced earlier when he's talking about a Christian death.

He says, as if leaving her dwelling, the soul goes forth, speeding on her way to her own Lord, and do you mourn? For as the sun arises clear and bright, so the soul, leaving the body with a pure conscience, shines joyously. When the soul, having quitted the body, is departing in company with angels, think what the soul must then be. In what amazement, what wonder, what delight. Why do you mourn? So for John here, the soul of the Christian at death is speeding to her lord, shining joyously like the rising departing in the company of angels, etc. This is common language in his sermons for what happens to a Christian when they die and the soul and body are separated. In his sermon on Philippians 3, he speaks of death as a coming to life, talking about the passage,

about how departing to be with Christ is better. In his sermon on 1st Corinthians 15, I won't go through all these. The big one is his sermon on Philagonius, where he speaks of him as already currently in heaven. And then he turns this into the hope of all of his listeners at the end of the sermon. He basically says in the last few sentences, may we all attain to this? And it sounds like John understands that the soul goes straight to heaven to be with God upon death. As I said, this is a view. You find a lot in the scholarship.

You see it in others will draw it from his sermons, John's sermons, on the parable of the rich man in Lazarus. If someone doesn't agree with this, my challenge would be, give me a way John could have said it. What wouldn't be an argument from silence? What would be a way, how could you express an immediate translation from earth to heaven? That would be more clear than how John has done it. So in some, I'd say these are five examples of where even the bare, minimal idea of post-mortem cleansing of some kind is not universal among the fathers. There's a number of different kinds of alternative ideas.

Okay, fourth and final section of this video, just some general historical remarks, I realize I'm not, there's a lot in Trent's video I have not commented on. Sorry for that. I just can't cover everything. It was a three-hour video. But let me say some general remarks of where there's a lot in his video that I would agree with. And I think it fits with my historical interpretation. And I, and this is coming back to the issue of framing where we disagree. I also think Trent just made a number of good points I want to acknowledge. I always want to try to be willing to adjust or acknowledge a good point. I think he's got a very reasonable interpretation of Augustine. With Augustine and Ambrose, I'm personally uncertain how to delineate their views in detail

because to me there's some passages that sound one way and then you read other passages and it kind of sounds another way, so it's a little bit tricky. There's also some little wrinkles and nuances in their view. Augustine seems to emphasize more about cleansing fire being about vindicating God's justice. I'm also not sure kind of like, do they expect that this is? the common Christian experience, or did they just leave allowance for it and so forth? But certainly, Ambrose and Augustine have a conception of post-mortem cleansing fire. I would also concede Ambrosiaster, whom Trent brought up is having that. I wouldn't concede Jerome on that. But as

you push forward in the wake of origin, who had influence in both the East and the West, though he's in Alexandria, origin had a significant influence in the West as well. So you're getting into like the mid-patristic era in the West, like the fourth century, it's consistent with the historical interpretation I've argued that you find post-mortem cleansing fire, even if all the details are not ironed out, even if there's variation. But that's consistent with what I've argued. I would acknowledge that. You know, Trent expressed surprise that I didn't interact more with Clement of Alexandria. That's because it's not in dispute. I went back and read Clement just to make sure I can concede this, but certainly, you know, the language might be a little different,

but Clement does clearly affirm some kind of suffering in the next life when he uses the imagery of fire. So that's not in dispute. And this becomes common after origin. I also want to, before I'll say more about that, I want to acknowledge another good point that Trent had about Cyril of Alexandria. He drew attention to a passage that I was not familiar with in his commentary on Luke 12, where Cyril does talk about post-mortem cleansing. My only pushback would be, this is another example of where I'm not sure whether he's talking about the general Christian experience for anybody who's not perfectly purified, like you're just your average Christian, who's in the mid-process of growth, you know,

or if he's talking, it looks to me like more, he's talking about more of an exceptional circumstance of someone in this kind of outstanding sin and unrepentance where, because he talks about, if I can find it, I don't know if I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I don't have it in front of me. I'll put it up on the screen. He talks about seizing on the grace of Christ, which delivers us from all fear and torment. And then we've got the other passages in Cyril, the one I cited, and another one where he talks about praying for the dead who are alive with God. And the passage I cited is like Gregory of Nazianzianzzi and Cyprian, and that there's a kind of immediacy reflected in the language. He seems to be saying the soul speeds on to the Lord at death.

So there's a little bit of wiggle room in terms of to what extent would Cyril's idea of post-mortem cleansing be the common experience or an exceptional experience and things like that. Nonetheless, I would concede that Cyril affirms some kind of post-mortem cleansing. And there's lots of other points where I could agree with particular points that Trent raised. But here in this final section, I'm trying to just give a general response. But I would agree with those without damage to my thesis. Again, this is where the framing of our disagreement is so important. However, my general pushback or general concern about Trent's interpretation of this development of purgatory is we need to be careful not to downplay the diversity in the ideas of post-mortem cleansing fire when they do come in, how different they are, and the development in the idea of post-mortem cleansing fire. As though as soon as you get Clement of Alexandria, this is like that's purgatory, the doctrine.

of purgatory. So just to point out some of these areas we need to be careful. With origin, I had argued that we should be, you know, don't just slap origin onto a list of other quotes proving purgatory as Catholic websites often do because he's got a fundamentally different conception of it. And because he's a universalist and Trent had argued well, the core idea is there. He gets it wrong on who goes there, but the concept itself is in origin. but that depends on what we mean by the concept itself. Trent had quoted from paragraph 1030 in the catechism, which talks about purgatory as for all who die in God's grace and friendship,

but still imperfectly purified. Well, Origin couldn't sign on to that. The whole idea of purgatory is it's a particular kind of punishment that's different than hell. It's four people already saved to prepare them for heaven, and it's emphasized that this is distinct from hell. Origins' view, in effect, collapses hell and purgatory. It's not for those who are in God's grace and friendship.

It's for everybody. Additionally, Origin doesn't have any conception of our activity helping those in this post-mortem cleansing fire, to my awareness. I think these are areas where we need to be careful. We need to acknowledge the development. For example, I think it would be a more responsible statement to say, origin articulates something that's anticipatory of purgatory. Or if you don't want to make a historical claim, you could say, origin articulates something that's similar to purgatory.

But if all you do is just quote origin as though that's the same thing, it's misleading to people. Similarly with Lactantius, his idea of purgatory is not at death. It's something that's at the end of history at the final judgment. In the divine institutes, he says, nor, however, let anyone imagine that souls are immediately judged after death, for all are detained in one and a common place of confinement, until the arrival of the time in which the great judge shall make an investigation of their desserts. I think Trent acknowledged this point that there's this difference in lactantius,

but he would say, well, that's kind of the same basic idea, but different in the details. And I'd say, these details are pretty important. If you're praying for someone, it's going to be, you're going to pray totally differently if you think they're in purging fire versus if you think they're just in a place of detainment, like lactantius thinks. So these are examples of areas where there's tremendous diversity and development in this idea of post-mortem cleansing fire once it does come in. Okay. So, and it takes time to sort of coalesce into a singular picture and then into a singular idea and then develop into the full idea of purgatory proper, which again is not accepted in the east.

So let me kind of conclude here by offering kind of stepping back from everything I've said this far. Let's look at the big picture, you know, and what does all this boil down to? To do that, let me show a final video clip from Trent's video where I give my summary of my argument and then Trent responds. I thought this was a very telling and very interesting and very significant point of his response, and it gets to this issue of framing. So take a listen. Here's my conclusion of the church history section.

In light of A, the incredible diversity of the church's thought about the experience of the believer upon death, and B, the significant differences between patristic conceptions of purgatorial fire and the later medieval system that develops in relation to that in the West. When people say things like all the church fathers believed in purgatory or purgatory is universal through our church history, it's the person who is saying that, who is taking the church fathers out of context or who is picking and choosing among the fathers. Those are charges often leveraged against me and other Protestants. We pick and choose. It is exactly the opposite. It is the Catholic apologist, not the Catholic scholars.

The Catholic apologists who make these overstatements, like everyone believed in purgatory, they're the ones picking and choosing and taking out of context. My position, namely that there's a complicated development, that is the position that's trying to look at the whole picture and let every patristic voice be heard. I agree, and that's why I think it'll be helpful for you to see the other church fathers and writers that I cited on this response to offer balance. All the ones we've gone through, origin, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Apophanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Capodotian fathers, So Ephraim the Syrian, Gregory Great, Augustine, seeing so much that's there, I think that it shows that the historicity of the doctrine of purgatory and the church fathers, there is extremely strong evidence for this doctrine.

Now, when Trent starts off there saying, I agree, I'm really curious what he agrees with, because that was my summary of my whole argument. After that, he went on to sort of basically say the case is really strong. You know, he mentioned some of the fathers he brought into the discussion, and again, he did a great job. A lot of research made a lot of valid points. But let me leave aside the fact that some of those fathers aren't witnesses to purgatory. Like he mentioned Ephraim, we've seen that Eiffra, we've seen that EFRA,

from, you know, he believed in soul sleep on the outer rim of paradise. That's not purgatory. But leaving that aside, there's still this issue of framing there. Because he summarized it as extremely strong. Well, that's different from universal. So here's what I would say. Even if we reduce the idea of purgatory to mere post-mortem cleansing of some kind, and we reduce the claim from universal to simply extremely strong. The historical evidence just doesn't support that. It certainly doesn't support the idea that purgatory is universal. There are various forms of belief in post-mortem cleansing that are widely affirmed throughout the patristic era. But such an idea, post-mortem cleansing has no attestation that I'm aware of early on, like among the apostolic fathers.

it's not the view of the late second century theologians like Hippolytus, Iroen, it's not the view of early theologians like Cyprian, it's not the view of the Syriac fathers like Afrahad and Ephraim, and it's not the view of various Eastern fathers like John Chrysostom. Moreover, among those who do affirm a post-mortem cleansing, there are multiple competing views of what that means, and in the West, those ideas gradually coalesce into the idea of cleansing fire, and then that develops and takes time to develop into the full-orbed idea of purgatory.

And that idea is rejected as such in the East. Now, in recognizing that complex, I realize that that's recognizing complexity there. I'm not just trying to throw smoke. I read comments from people who are sincere, and I understand they believe in Catholicism. They feel my videos are kind of attacking their beliefs, and I understand that. I understand that that can be unpleasant. And I think sometimes people think I'm just trying to make things complicated or something like that or throw smoke.

I'm really not trying to do that. I'm just trying to be historically accurate. In my opinion, the historical evidence is genuinely messy and complicated and diverse, and it's okay to recognize that. And the recognition of complexity does not mean, as Trent at one point referenced, that therefore the church fathers are a contradictory mess of confusion or something like that, or that the Holy Spirit left off guiding the church. Those are not the only two options, that either A, the consensus of the fathers supports

neatly one contemporary view or one contemporary church, or B, the fathers are a confused mess, and the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the church. Those are not the only two options. We can recognize the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, even while we recognize the Holy Spirit the church is not perfect and the church has errors. And we can recognize that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church and the church fathers are wonderful men of God and they're wonderful women of God and the patristic era we can learn from. But they don't neatly line up for one contemporary church. We can recognize that. And many Catholics recognize that. What I'm arguing for in my videos,

my first one in this one, is similar to, not identical, but pretty similar to what a lot of Catholic scholars would say. Here's Daly's conclusion. While it is true, that the notion of purgatory as a separate interim state for some souls is first found in developed form in Western medieval theology, its roots clearly lie in both the Greek and Latin patristic tradition. Yet it is equally clear that many patristic authors oppose such a notion as compromising the finality of death and the judgment of God. Controversial in the early church, the notion of purgation after death, was to remain controversial in the ecumenical discussions of the Middle Ages and the post-Reformation West. I think that's a much more reasonable way to defend the

historical record of purgatory as a Catholic than this claim that purgatory is universal or nearly universal or it's this consistent view that traces all the way back to the apostles or something like that. The evidence just doesn't support that. All right, I made it to the end without my camera dying, so that is good. I want to say thanks to Trent again for a charitable and and well-constructed video. I admire Trent. I really think it'll be productive and also just enjoyable to talk. So that will be great, Lord willing. Thanks to everybody else for watching this video and making it. Let me know in the comments if you made it to the end. Also, let me know what you think in the comments. Is there anything major that I left off? Is there anything major that

some historical source I should have looked into? I know this wasn't comprehensive. that I'll try. I don't always have time to respond to comments, but this week I have a little more time, so I'll try to do that more. All right. Thank you, everybody, for watching. God bless you.