The doctrine of Purgatory is Biblical

Matthew 12Firstly, I would like to point out that Pro used the non-sequitur term improperly. The term "refers to a conclusion that is not aligned with previous premises or evidence" (11). When I said that Matthew 12 was referring to the unforgivable sin itself (itself was and still is the keyword here), I made the indication that Purgatory was not in the equation at all. We could already see that Mark 3:29 says the unpardonable sin hath never forgiveness. Like you said, Pro, Matthew 12:32 does indeed say "in this age, or in the age to come" (which is a variant of hath never forgiveness conveying the same information). How do we know that it conveys the same (nothing additional) information? We know this because if Matthew 12:32 solely said, "in this age", then it would be referring to a temporary period of time (telling us that it is another version of the term "never"). On the contrary, we see that it says "in this age, or in the age to come", telling us that it is in fact not temporary. Since we now know that Matthew 12 is the same as Mark 3 (which talks about the unforgivable sin with no mention of Purgatory), we can logically deduce that Matthew 12 is exclusively referring the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit itself. In other words, if we were to say that Matthew 12 talked about Purgatory, then we would be rejecting Mark's rendition (1), as he just exclusively wrote about a sin that would never be pardoned. So, I ask you, Pro, would this really be non-sequitur? Could you really understand Matthew 12 to be saying that certain sins are forgiven in the age to come? Matthew 5Moving on, Pro says that the Lord is not concerned about worldly punishment, given that He said, "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. " Here, Pro misses that Jesus referred to the danger of the council after one says "Raca" to his brother on verse 22. So, in this case, the Lord was concerned about our earthly affairs. He, as usual, gave us words of wisdom in order for us to deal with our earthly issues. Also, my opponent says, "It is most peculiar to argue that he began warning against hell (cf. Matthew 5:22), then digressed briefly to give purely secular legal counsel (Con's interpretation of Matthew 5:26), before returning to hell once more (cf. Matthew 5:29). " Again, saying that Jesus' digression in between is peculiar is akin to talking as if he never mentioned the danger of the council at all. On the contrary, it seems reasonable that Jesus would talk about the legal counsel along with hell, since he mentioned both of the dangers (one is about the council for saying "Raca", and the other is calling someone a fool). 1 Corinthians 3Indeed, the verse does state, "he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. " However, notice that it says "as through fire", not that one is literally cleansed through the fire. This makes sense because when a believer's works are of poor quality, they would get burned in the flames. Even though his works get burned, the believer is still saved regardless. However, this is like if the believer passed through the flames (7), considering that the poor works are burned up and that there would be no high-quality works. The hypothetical believer would be like an unprotected man, since he is metaphorically not equipped well with high-quality works. Simply put, it all has to do with the word "as", which was unfortunately overlooked by Pro. Moving on, my claim that some have many rewards in heaven whereas others have none should not be described as "seems to consist of little more than speculation", because Matthew 6:20-21 says, "20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. " From these verses, we can conclude that some believers have certain levels of rewards, as indicated by the "there will your heart be also" part. Finally, I would like to say that heaven is not a reward, but it is a gift. One does not do works to go to heaven. "Ephesians 2:8-10 explains, "8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. " If we do works to be saved, then salvation is no longer free.2 Maccabees 12How is 2 Maccabees not in the Apocrypha, Pro? I would like you to elaborate on this on the next round. According to Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 2 Maccabees is included in the Apocryphal books (12). Moreover, I would like to ask Pro to show me a source where it says that the Jews rejected some thirty-four Old Testament books, instead of merely stating it with no substantiation. Even though Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon were not quoted, they were still accepted by the Jews, whereas the Apocrypha was neither quoted in the New Testament nor was it accepted by the Jews (13). So, do you see the difference here, Pro?2 Timothy 1Now, perhaps Pro's argument could have made sense if Paul referred to the Lord in second person. However, Paul referred to him in the third person. Given that it is in the third person, we can firmly say that there is no conclusive proof that Paul was even making a prayer. If Paul used second person, then we could at least have gotten the idea that Paul was trying to make an interaction with God. What we can conclude is that Paul simply made a statement expressing his desire in an exclamatory manner, with no indication that he tried to converse with God. (So, can you really say that it was addressed to God? ) Simply put, Pro arbitrarily made the hasty conclusion that he was actually praying, which is a logical fallacy. More RefutationsFurthermore, Pro's argument also could have made sense here if 1 John 1:7 said, "Jesus Christ cleanses us from ALL sin. " (If it said this, then it would have opened up the possibilities of many methods being used. ) However, the verse says it's the blood that cleanses ALL sin. When it says the blood cleanses us from ALL sin, it is referring to Jesus' crucifixion. So, we can safely say that there was only one method used, and that was His crucifixion. If we burn in Purgatory, then Jesus Christ's blood is no longer doing the cleansing; the flames would be doing the cleansing. Moreover, I will still repeat that there are varying degrees of sin in an earthly sense. For example, there are certain sins that prompt God to take away someone's life. A couple of examples of this would be the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and the case of a man (his heart was hardened beyond hope as he was unrepentant) having sexual relations with the wife of his father (14). The unpardonable sin would be another example of this, as it guarantees damnation. Since someone who commits this sin is beyond hope, we can connect this with what John said. On 1 John 5:16, he wrote, "I do not say that he shall pray for it. " So, we can indeed say that John was referring to a physical reality, therefore not contradicting my interpretation of Romans 6. If one says that John was likely talking about a spiritual reality just because he went on to say that a person without Jesus does not have life, then he would be making an appeal to probability. This is unfortunately another logical fallacy. ConclusionI would like to thank Pro again for his participation. I believe that he has made a strong response, and I believe that I have made a strong one as well. Sources:11. . http://examples.yourdictionary.com...12. . http://www.jashow.org...13. . http://pleaseconvinceme.com...14. . http://carm.org...