The doctrine of Purgatory is Biblical

Thank you for your response, Pro.To start my argument, I would like to counter the brief introduction that my opponent brought up: We must notice that the context of Matthew 12:32 refers to the unpardonable sin itself, not purgatory. True, the Catholic interpretation is that some sins are forgiven after death, as supposedly implied by the "in the age to come" part. However, this would be ignoring the parallel passage on Mark 3:28-29. These verses say, "28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." "Jesus is not, then, referring to the possibility of cleansing in the future, but is instead speaking of an "eternal sin," one that has no forgiveness whatsoever. If the Roman interpretation of Matthew 12 is valid, *then Mark's rendition is not.* Obviously, this cannot be, hence, it is the Roman interpretation that must be rejected" (1). Like Pro said, it is written that God cannot look upon evil, therefore meaning that people must be holy and blameless in order for God to dwell with them. Pro also says that people are flawed by nature, but one key difference is that Lord Jesus Christ made everything much simpler. 1 John 1:7 says, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." So, I would like to ask you, Pro, if Jesus cleanses us from ALL sin, then how exactly is Purgatory "consistent" with the Scriptures? Here, we can see that this doctrine unfortunately implies that Jesus' sacrifice is insufficient. Moving on, the Catholic religion apparently teaches that believers would go to Purgatory if they committed a "non-deadly sin" and died without repenting of it (2). In the process, however, this teaching makes an unscriptural image of the varying degrees of sin (varying degrees like deadly and not deadly). While some sins are greater than others (some are so great and deadly that they even prompt God to take away the life of the unrepentant believer [3]), we must keep in mind that all these varying degrees are only applicable in the earthly sense. How do we know that the aforementioned verse is only referring to sins in an earthly sense? Well, Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Here, we can see that Paul made NO distinction between the levels of sin. He simply said that sin, regardless of its severity, leads to death/hell. To sum it up, a believer would directly go to heaven after death, considering that Jesus Christ cleanses us from ALL sin, and that the severity of sins do not matter in the eternal sense (4). Matthew 5Now, my opponent also says that Matthew 5:25-26 supports the idea of Purgatory. However, what my opponent seemed to miss here is the context. What was Christ actually talking about here? If one reads Matthew 5:22-25, then he would find out that it is talking about anger towards others (5). Here is what the passage says:"22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. 25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." Pro's interpretation of Matthew 5:25-26 could have made sense if the accuser was Satan, the judge was God, and the officer was an angel (6). However, that was not the case, because, well, the previous verses talked about the affairs of men, including instructions on how to deal with your foes.(Keep in mind that I have already made my response regarding Matthew 12 above.)1 Corinthians 3Next, we must notice that "work" is the key word. Nowhere does it say that the believer himself passes through the fire, but rather his works pass through the fire. Let's take a look at verse 15: "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." Here, we can see that it refers to the believer escaping through the flames, and not being cleansed through the flames (7). Pro also says that the "second case" cannot refer to heaven, "as one does not suffer loss in heaven." Here, Pro misses the part where a believer suffers loss in terms of his rewards. Some people in heaven have many rewards, whereas others have little to none. How do we know this? We know this because the passage (see 1 Corinthians 3:12-15) talk about believers' works pass through the fire to "test" how qualitative the said works are. Some of those works pass the "test" because their works are qualitatively sufficient (like gold, silver, and precious stones), and some do not. In other words, some believers "suffer loss" because their works are of poor quality (like straw, hay, wood, and other things that get burned), but they themselves are saved regardless.2 Maccabees 12 and 2 Timothy 1Finally, Pro brings up 2 Maccabees 12 (from the Apocrypha) and 2 Timothy 1 to say that prayers for the dead are offered up. This is problematic because Pro erroneously displays that 2 Maccabees is part of the Scriptures to begin with.The entire Apocrypha (including the Maccabees 1 and 2) was rejected by the Jews (8), who were entrusted with the oracles of God (see Romans 3:1-2), and was never quoted in the New Testament at all (9). If Pro wishes to use the verse from this book, then he would have to explain why it is considered as part of the Scriptures. Moreover, what Paul said on 2 Timothy 1:16-18 does not constitute a prayer. What he said was simply a wish or an exclamation (10). Regardless, I would like to ask you, ExsurgeDomine, why exactly did you think that Paul was offering prayers in these verses?ConclusionAs I have said in the beginning, I would like to thank Pro for his response. I also think I have provided enough Scriptural corroboration to justify the belief that Purgatory does not exist. Once again, I would like to ask Pro this question: How exactly is Purgatory "consistent" with the Scriptures if Jesus Christ cleanses us from ALL sin?Sources:1. http://vintage.aomin.org...2. http://www.staycatholic.com...3. http://www.gotquestions.org...4. http://www.gotquestions.org...5. http://www.creationliberty.com...6. http://www.coffeewithcalvin.com...7. http://www.gotquestions.org...8. http://www.blueletterbible.org...9. http://www.bible.ca...10. http://www.biblegateway.com...