2: The Similarities Between Purgatory and Reincarnation

While Christians universally agree that sanctification, or holiness, is one of the goals of the Christian life, and that a Christian’s eternal state will be sinless, there are varying perspectives on how a Christian will become sinless. Protestants generally believe that upon death, a Christian, regardless of if they are “perfected” or “sinless”, goes straight to heaven and enters God’s presence. Catholics believe that when a person dies, God immediately judges them and determines if they go to heaven, purgatory, or hell.  If a Christian is not yet perfected, they will go to purgatory first for God to cleanse them of their sin. Once “purged” or “cleansed”, they will go to heaven.

C.S. Lewis, a theologian who is respected by both Catholics and Protestants, believed in purgatory. In his “Letters to Malcom”, he says, “Our souls demand purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'with submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleansed first.' 'It may hurt, you know'—'Even so, sir.'" He seemed to consider purgatory as a necessary grace of God to prepare someone adequately for heaven (Lewis, 2020). In addition to C.S. Lewis, many, many Christians throughout history, including many of the Church fathers, believed in some sort of purification after death, for example, Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine (“Catholic Answers”, 2020).

However, Scripture is the only fully reliable source of truth as to if something like purgatory exists. So: what does Scripture say? Catholics refer to Revelation 21:27 as a foundation for understanding purgatory: “Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Given that nothing impure will ever enter the New Jerusalem, all Christians must be completely pure to be in God’s presence. Catholics interpret this to mean if a Christian is not fully purified upon death, they need to go to purgatory first. Protestants see Christ’s death on the cross as sufficient for any “further purification” after death, so any believer will go straight to heaven. The difference comes down to: would God allow any Christian, not fully perfected, into His presence? Or would some sort of additional sanctification process be necessary for unperfected believers?

Praying for the Dead: 2 Maccabees 12:38-46

Purgatory is not explicitly stated in the Bible. 2 Maccabees 12:38-46, which is only in the Catholic Bible, gives evidence to praying for the dead. I personally believe the Catholic Bible is God’s inspired Word and Protestants were wrong to cut out the 7 books they did.

*Scroll to the end of this post for my defense of the entire Catholic Bible being God’s inspired word (this explanation is also in section 2 of this blog, "The Holy Spirit: God the Mother").

2 Maccabees 12:38-46 says,

^38 “Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath there.

³⁹ On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kindred in the sepulchres of their ancestors. ⁴⁰ Then under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. ⁴¹ So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; ⁴² and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly 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 as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. ⁴³ He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. ⁴⁴ For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. ⁴⁵ But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore, he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.”

This is an interesting passage. First, the reason these men fell was because of their sin. This indicates that their death was God’s judgment on their sin. This is affirmed in verse 41, which called God “the righteous judge”. Second, those who were alive interceded for them so their sin could be “blotted out” (verse 42) and gave a sin offering for them (verse 43). Maccabees notes their actions to pray for the dead as wise and necessary (verse 44) because these individuals would rise again. Their atonement for the dead was done so they might be delivered from their sin (verse 45). How would this practically happen? Catholics think through the “purging fire” of purgatory. The Catholic rationale is: if the dead are being prayed for, they are not in heaven or hell because in neither place would prayers be needed. This makes sense and is good evidence for some sort of “in-between” state for these people before the final judgment. As 2 Maccabees should be taken as God’s Word, prayers for the dead clearly indicate the dead are not in hell or heaven and so point to an “in-between” state of potential salvation, sanctification, and growth.

There is no reason why this passage could not refer to reincarnation instead of purgatory. Verse 44 indicates that these men, who died because of their sin, would “rise again”. Given this, it made sense to pray for them. The term “reincarnation” was not coined into the 19^th century (“Reincarnation: An overview”), so the word’s non-existence in the Bible is not proof that the concept itself is not biblical, and the reference to these men “rising again” could be a reference to reincarnation: rising again in another body. In another life, perhaps these men could be saved through knowledge of the gospel, the only way to be saved. The prayers offered for these men were effective. God heard them. The Bible declares it wise to pray for these dead men. But the Jewish atonements offered before Christ were never enough to pay for sin; only Christ’s atonement is sufficient to “fully blot out” sin. Perhaps this passage is indicating that these men will “rise up” via reincarnation, be given the gift of salvation through Christ in their new lives, be sanctified, and “fall asleep” [die] in godliness. God offers no hope for salvation other than through Christ, so these men’s prayers for the dead would be “superfluous” and “foolish” without the possibility of the dead men hearing the gospel and turning to Christ. Given that the prayers are not, presumably these men would hear the gospel and turn to Christ in the future.

This is where the Catholic argument for this talking about purgatory specifically is a poor one. While the passage clearly shows that praying for the dead is wise and efficacious, thus indicating a state of existence for the dead before hell or heaven, these men cannot be saved without the gospel of Jesus Christ, which they have neither heard or believed in. In order for these men to be saved, and for praying for them actually being profitable, these men must come back to earth in some way, hear the gospel, repent, and choose to follow Jesus. Men only return to earth in one way: through childbirth. Therefore, while reincarnation is not explicitly stated in this passage, it is a reasonable possibility. While purgatory points to an in-between state before heaven that these men would experience, given that prayer for them is efficacious, purgatory does not fully explain the passage as salvation for the dead men apart from the gospel is impossible. They died, judged in their idolatry, “without hope and with God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12). These were not Christians who needed to purge more of their sin, which is the general idea of purgatory. These men need God’ grace and died outside of God’s grace. Therefore, prayers would only be efficacious for these dead men if they would “rise” again (verse 44), repent, and believe in the gospel. This could happen through reincarnation.   

Maccabees 12:38-46 shows that death does not have the final word regarding someone’s salvation or sanctification. Prayers for those who have died is helpful for the dead who die in their sin. However, the Catholic understanding of Maccabees 12:38-46 falls short as these men who died in their sin can only be saved through the gospel of Jesus. The possibility of reincarnation is a more reasonable answer as to how prayers for the dead is not foolish. They will rise again (verse 44), which is the very reason given as to why prayers for the dead is wise, and in a new life may experience salvation. This passage never mentions a specific “period of purging” outside of living on earth by which these men would be made ready for heaven. That would be adding to the text. If you think I am adding to the text to suggest reincarnation, what other explanation is there for why praying for those who died in their sin is wise (verse 44)? Clearly, Maccabees 12 is showing that there is hope for salvation even for those who die apart from God.

Purging through Fire: the Necessity of Discipline

Some Catholics point to 2 Samuel 12:13-14 to make the distinction that, while Christ paid for all believers’ eternal judgment, God still employs discipline for sin that is necessary in purgatory. 2 Samuel 2:13-14 says, “Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan replied, ‘The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.’” While God forgave David and spared his life, there was still a consequence. In a similar way, while Christ did fully justify Christians on the cross, perhaps God would still give some sort of discipline/punishment like He does to David here. Christ’s sacrifice, moreover, does not erase the need for God’s discipline on His people, which He uses, as explained in Hebrews 12, to make them share in His holiness. Why, Catholics consider, would this sanctification process suddenly end due to death if the person was not fully sanctified? There must be some additional process for that person before reaching the New Jerusalem. This is seen, per C.S. Lewis’ quote, as something that is part of God’s grace, not painful judgment from a distant Father. 

Catholics hold that grace does not perfect a soul instantaneously and neither does bodily death. Cooperation with grace makes the soul perfect, and that has to be a choice. God will never override our nature or free will. If human souls are not made perfect in one life, they must go through purgatory for perfection to take place before going to heaven. From the Catholic perspective, forgiveness does not mean discipline/punishment is not needed due to our sin. God maintains His justice and love towards us in disciplining us and not ignoring our sin, even after we have been fully forgiven because of Christ.

Catholics point to 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 as a clear reference to purgatory: ^13 “their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. ¹⁴ If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. ¹⁵ If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.” Those who are not yet perfected, from the Catholic perspective, will be saved only “through the flames”. These “flames” point to purgatory, the necessary purging needed for any soul not yet perfected.  The “Day” is when a person dies and is judged by God.

Catholics understand that Christ died to redeem us from eternal death, not to spare us from all punishment/discipline. They understand that punishment/discipline from God is necessary in maintaining God’s justice and in Him sanctifying us in the context of us becoming His children through Christ. Purgatory is understood as God’s mercy: He forgives us, but we are not perfect/clean, so He sanctifies us until we are, even through a purging fire.

There is certainly nothing in the Bible that contradicts the basic concept of a “purging fire” for Christians, also known as “sanctification”. Protestants would agree with Catholics here. The difference is that Protestants do not think sanctification continues after death, and Catholics do. Those who escape “through the flames” (1 Corinthians 3:15) go through purgatory to complete sanctification. There is also nothing in the Bible that contradicts the Catholic idea that sanctification may continue after a person’s death if they are not fully pure. I just wonder if reincarnation might be what God uses as His “purgatory”.

Jesus certainly pointed to a temporary place of suffering for those who owe some sort of “debt”. Forgiveness of sin is compared to forgiving a debt. In the Lord’s prayer, Christians are instructed to pray to God, saying “Forgive us our debts [sins], as we also have forgiven our debtors [those who sinned against us]” (Matthew 6:12).  In Matthew 5:25-26 Jesus says, “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. ²⁶ Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” Jesus tells a similar story in Matthew 18:34-35, where a man is jailed “until he should pay all his debt.” Catholics consider this “prison” and “paying the last penny” to refer to purgatory, as this cannot refer to heaven, but cannot refer to hell, a place that is impossible to get out of. This must be some in between state: purgatory. Catholics reference Hebrews 12:11, “for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant”, affirming that purgatory is painful discipline from God the Father who loves the Church. Moreover, purgatory is necessary for many Christians so they can share in His holiness (Hebrews 12:10).

But what if this temporary place of suffering Jesus references are difficult life circumstances all humans go through, even in another life? What if, referring back to 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, God judges each person on their “day” (of death), and lovingly reincarnates them if they need more purification – salvation “through flames”?  Could purgatory be true in part, as 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, Matthew 5, and Matthew 18 all refer to temporary periods of suffering till one is “purged” or one’s “debt is paid”, but God’s “purgatory” be reincarnation?  All Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, acknowledge the need of sanctification and purity for being in God’s presence – moreover, becoming fully sanctified and like Christ is one of the goals of the Christian life – all Christians would agree.

Catholics ask a good question: how is this perfection achieved apart from additional purification (for most Christians)? I wonder if what Catholics are describing, and what they see evidence of in the Bible, is the reality of reincarnation.

Conclusion

The Bible, both the Protestant and Catholic version, does not contradict the general idea behind purgatory: that most souls need something beyond a single life to be completely perfected before entering God’s presence. While God could simply welcome any Christian into the new heaven and new earth without additional sanctification (the Protestant view), I think the Catholic perspective is more reasonable and the general concept does not contradict the Bible. Moreover, the Bible suggests that at least something like purgatory exists (2 Maccabees 12:38-46, 1 Corinthians 3:13-16, Matthew 5:22-26, Matthew 18:34-35, Hebrews 12, Revelation 21:27). Again, C.S. Lewis was a strong believer in purgatory. While he is only one man, Protestants and Catholics alike respect him and his teaching. Protestants, I think, have largely thrown the “baby out with the bath water” on the topic of purgatory. While I do not think the Bible proves the Catholic doctrine of purgatory outright, I think the general idea behind it, that additional purifying is generally needed after death before becoming fully like Christ, has both logical and Scriptural support.

The idea of purgatory is similar in some ways to the concept of reincarnation: that more than one life is needed for purification, or attaining oneness with God, or “the divine” in Eastern religions. In contrast to purgatory, reincarnation has much more Scriptural evidence, particularly given the lives of both John the Baptist and Jesus. Evidence for reincarnation in both of those individuals’ lives is explained later in this chapter. Certainly, the Bible passages Catholics use as evidence for purgatory could be used as evidence of reincarnation as those passages point to some in between state of purification between a person’s current life and heaven. Nevertheless, neither reincarnation or purgatory is a major doctrine described in the Bible. The lack of emphasis on reincarnation or purgatory is not evidence that they are not biblical, rather that God did not want purgatory or reincarnation, if one of them exists, to be a major focus.

To Catholics, I hope in seeing that reincarnation and purgatory are similar in some ways, you may be more willing to accept that reincarnation is biblical – though it is largely an Eastern religious belief, the general idea behind purgatory and reincarnation is similar. To any other Christians, I hope the biblical evidence is enough to convince you, though understanding its similarity to purgatory, given that purgatory is a historical belief held by many Christians, may hopefully result in more openness. Belief in reincarnation, as will be seen, is no peripheral issue but one that impacts knowing Christ, as I believe Jesus Christ is the Bible’s most clear example of reincarnation. It is also a belief that impacts hope in universal salvation, as if reincarnation does exist, universal salvation becomes understandably attainable. As already stated multiple times, even if reincarnation does not exist, the Bible is clear that God will accomplish universal salvation in some way as shown by the multiple passages affirming universal salvation, referenced in section 3 of my blog, "Universal Salvation".

***

*Defense of the Catholic Bible

Note: This explanation is important as I continue to reference the Catholic Bible as Scripture throughout this section. While what I conclude in this section of my blog could be proven without the "extra" Catholic books, my argument is certainly stronger by an affirmation that the entire Catholic Bible is God's Word. Please be open as you read this. As someone who grew up Protestant, I was very resistant to believing there could be "extra books" in the Bible, but researching the history behind why these books were removed changed my mind.

The Catholic Bible is longer than the Protestant Bible. I personally consider the 7 “extra” deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Bible to be God’s Word. These books were eliminated by Protestants, headed by Martin Luther, from the Bible over a millennium after Christians agreed on the biblical canon. If Luther’s directive was fully followed, Hebrews, James, and Revelation would have been removed. These deuterocanonical books are held to be God’s Word by not just the Catholic Church but also the Orthodox Church. Half of Christians take these books to be divinely inspired. History also shows these books that were taken out of the Bible were considered to be God’s Word by early Christians in the first 3 centuries, including many noteworthy Church fathers such as St. Augustine, St. Clement, Tertullian, and Origen who quoted and wrote about them as if they were inspired by God (Atkin, n.d.).

At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. These books make up the Catholic Bible today. This decision was agreed upon by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). The deuterocanonical books were in the first German translation of the Bible by Luther and in the first King James Version (1611), as well as the first Bible ever printed, the Gutenberg Bible. So, Protestants took out books of the Bible, Catholics did not add (Evert, 2024).

It is poor reasoning by Luther to the Catholic Church to say that the books should be taken out because they are not quoted in the Old Testament, because if this logic was followed, 10 other Old Testament books that Protestants adhere to would need to also be thrown out including Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Judges, Ruth, Lamentations, Zephaniah and the Song of Solomon (Krol, 2021). Absence of a quote in the New Testament does not mean a book is not inspired. What is more, the New Testament does make allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For example, in Hebrews 11:35, 2 Maccabees 7 is alluded to. Additionally, the first Christians used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which included the 7 deuterocanonical books. New Testament authors quoted freely from this Septuagint with these books – over 300 times (Evert, 2024). 

It is true that early Christians and Church fathers disagree on whether these books were divinely inspired. Some quoted the deuterocanonical books and some did not. Ultimately, however, the canon was decided in the 4^th century and affirmed by the Church as God’s Word for about a millennium before Luther removed certain books (Evert, 2024).

Protestants point to a Jewish council in 90 A.D. that rejected the deuterocanonical books as partial evidence that Christians should also reject their divine authority. However, this is a poor argument as this council was led by Jews who were rejecting the Christian faith. They rejected the deuterocanonical books and the whole New Testament as a result of this council. It makes more sense to consider the Old Testament that Jesus and his disciples referred to and read, and that Old Testament included the deuterocanonical books. The Church as a whole rejected this council as a Jewish council after Christ is not binding on Christ’s followers. What is more, that council was only a meeting of European Jews. African Jews, for example Ethiopian Jews, accepted these books as part of the Bible. The argument that “the Jews don’t accept these books” is not a good one, particularly as the same Jews who rejected the deuterocanonical books rejected Christ and the entire New Testament (Atkin, n.d.).

It made sense for the Christians to accept the deuterocanonical books because these books were in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world (Evert, 2024). There is no evidence the apostles ever rejected these books, and the authors of the New Testament, including Jesus, referred to these books in numerous instances (Admin, 2017) The website “Scripture Catholic” provides tens of examples of this (Admin, 2017). The early Church as a whole accepted these books as the Word of God. The Old Testament with the 7 deuterocanonical books was embraced and passed down by the apostles to early adherents of the Christian faith (Atkin, n.d.) and again, even directly referred to in Hebrews 11:35 by the writer of Hebrews (Atkin, n.d.).

The real reason the books were taken out was because Martin Luther disagreed with the Catholic doctrine taught in them. He also wanted to take out Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, which the Protestant Church did not agree with him on (Evert, 2024). Additionally, and ironically, some Protestants look to councils like Hippo (383) and Carthage (397) as proof that the New Testament canon is God’s Word, but these same councils affirmed the 7 deuterocanonical books. Protestants should be consistent (Atkin n.d.).

Given this history, I think my Catholic brothers and sisters are right regarding the canon of Scripture and that Protestants should reconsider Martin Luther’s decision to remove parts of God’s inspired Word.

*For a more detailed defense of the deuterocanonical books, see the book "Case for the Deuterocanon" by Gary G. Michuta. He addresses in depth both Church history (particularly how the vast majority of the early Church fathers believed the deuterocanon to be God's Word) and the biblical references in the New Testament to the deuterocanon. He fully convinced me that those books are God's Word.

How much should we trust the Church?

If you have read my blog posts in section 1, “Is Jesus God?”, perhaps you think I am not being consistent in my argumentation for the Catholic Bible being God’s Word. After all, I use the argument that we should trust the Church’s decision in councils where this same Church decided Jesus was God. How do we know when to trust the Church and when not to trust the Church? Am I being inconsistent in trusting the Church’s overall decision regarding God’s Word but not trusting the Church’s almost unanimous belief that Jesus is God? Am I forming my beliefs over what I want to be true, picking and choosing?

I think not trusting the Church’s interpretation of who Jesus is is different than not trusting the Church’s decision over what makes up God’s Word.  Ephesians 6 explains the armor of God we have as believers. We only have 1 offensive weapon: the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. My personal opinion is that the Church has been deceived regarding the divinity of Christ, and God allowed that, for reasons I do not understand. Concerning God’s Word, though, the Sword of the Spirit, the only offensive weapon we have, I do not think God would allow the enemy to tamper with that. He would not leave us defenseless in that way.

I trust God, and I trust God’s Word. I trust God’s character in guiding His Church in what is His inspired Word because our God would not leave us defenseless.  Concerning Jesus’ deity, I see that as different because that was the Church’s interpretation of God’s Word. If we have and know God’s Word, God has given us a way to always seek Him ourselves to see if the Church’s interpretation is correct. I am truly Protestant in the strictest sense: “sola Scriptura” without tradition. While I believe God uses the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and that is often right, nothing, no tradition or interpretation, is our measure of truth. Only God’s Word is. We should be like the Bereans, always earnestly searching the Scriptures to determine if what is told us, even by our Christian leaders, is true (Acts 17:10-15).

I have to trust something. If I have chosen, which I have, to not fully trust God’s Church, I need help elsewhere… and I find that in God’s Word. If Scripture could also be false, along with human tradition and interpretation, we would be in a sorry state indeed. But I trust God would not allow His Word to be tampered with, even if He would allow misinterpretation of it. How can He not? We are not robots, and we are all fallible and sinful, including our Christian leaders. We are bound to misinterpret. But we can trust the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, to ultimately guide us in all truth even as we do make mistakes along the way. And, I believe, we can trust His Word, though we need to be wary of poor and biased translations.

What is more, despite my personal deviation from what is considered orthodox, the truths I have come to embrace: namely, Jesus is not God, the Holy Spirit is God the Mother, and universal salvation is God’s plan for the world, have come from the Church, from my brothers and sisters in Christ. I study history and learn of Christians who agree. I read books by Christians now who agree. Given this, it is not that I do not trust God’s work in the Church: it is that, on some core beliefs of the faith, I disagree with the majority. I never would have been able to embrace those 3 core beliefs myself without the scholarship and faith of those in the minority Church. I believe that God has revealed Himself fully to the Church through His Word and through His people. I do not believe God has in any way abandoned His Church. I do believe that we need to learn from each other to fully see God: to learn from the minority Church.

Given all of this, I think it is very important for Protestants to reconsider the Catholic canon of the Bible. There is truth in those books that, I think, we need. One of those truths is further understanding that the Holy Spirit is our divine Mother. Luther would not have discarded those books if he had agreed with them theologically. Protestants have been very unwise to follow, largely, one man’s opinion on God’s Word in spite of the centuries of universal belief that God’s Word has 73, not 66 books. We have been missing out, as all of God’s words are infinitely precious.