A REVIEW OF ANN DAVIS "MORAL DILEMA"

ELUSIYAN FRANCIS T

INTRODUCTION

Uncertainty has been expressed by philosophers about the question of whether there is a genuine moral dilemma and basically this is what the exposition of DavisAnn deals with. The question of whether there is a genuine moral dilemma and if there is, what does it mean? This is an argument between the philosophers and morally engaged layperson. But philosophers according to AnnDavis who question the existence of genuine moral dilemma do not usually concern themselves with trying to disrepute the testimony of actual agents in the real world. Rather, what they are trying to do is challenge the supposition that appeals to peoples experiences (and report about their experiences) could ever be thought to provide sufficient ground for supposing that something constitutes a genuine moral dilemma. According to Ann the philosophical concern about the possibility of genuine moral dilemma which they said may lead to uselessness, incoherent and inconsistence of morality may probably be true, by the way, for the purpose of evaluating and revising our moral theories, but she opine that philosophers have been unable to deal with this issues that the agents face in moral dilemmas.

 A GENERAL OUTLOOK OF GENUINE MORAL DILEMA

For a particular state of affairs to be called a moral dilemma, the agent is faced with the issues of moral significance. The term dilemma means difficult to solve. It is therefore a datum, that choice which itself has solution is faced with the challenge of choosing between two mutually exclusive, equally attractive options, this limitation of choosing between the two is not as a result of the agent’s inability to reason, his psychological state and his weakness, though these are separate issues that cannot be overlooked. From the preceding, Ann presents to us that the limitations of the agent to choose between two enthralling but attractive options does not emerge as a result of the agent’s initial moral misconduct or prior experiences that fail to recognize the rules and features of morality, rather, the inescapability of this difficulty or predicament seems inherent human beings and as well it shows the definitive or connotation of genuine moral dilemma.

METAPHYSICAL AND LOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROSPECT OF GENUINE MORAL DILEMMAS

Though most philosophers have been concerned with the truth or falsehood of the logical and metaphysical claims about whether genuine moral dilemmas are possible, it may be worth considering the plausibility of a more modest claim, the claim that there are in fact few, if any moral dilemmas. This time around the philosophers embark on adopting a method called STRATEGY OF RETROSOECTIVE ASSESSMENT. This particular strategy involves the attempt to tender a disinterested, after the fact assessment of the agent’s options and their values seem to have a lot to commend it. The content of knowing the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas cannot be known prior to or independently of experience, in other words, cannot be proven by the nature of the agent’s moral experience. It is further expressed that the adoption of strategy of retrospective assessment enables the philosophers to alarm on the importance of being sensitive to the differences and complexities of the actual circumstances surrounding the emergence of a genuine moral dilemma.

It is by this strategy that they are capable of explaining the reason behind the agent’s belief that these circumstances make up a genuine moral dilemma, and as well point out the reason why the agent’s impressions were mistaken. It is equally expressed that the strategy of retrospective assessment draws some of their plausibility from our recognition of the superior epistemic value of after the fact analyses. This directly implies that the retrospection on an agent’s difficulty or unpleasant situation can be done in series of respect that are superior to the actual condition of the agent’s when deliberating or taking an action. This approach is more clearer and well informed than that of the agent’s, this is strictly because the other person’s retrospection is free from confusing state of mind.

It has come to a greater awareness that the method of retrospective assessment is familiar and intuitively plausible. This has enhances a greater comprehensive nature of human phenomena or simply put, the difficulty in the science of human nature that moral dilemmas seizure.

This same method also uncovers the fact that the mistakes of human are as a result of not being able to see beyond themselves, and this proposed the retention of ignorance and low epistemic values.

To Ann Davis, a mature reflective agent who cultivates a retrospective habit sees his past and that of others, therefore holding to that fact that his problem which seemed unsolved was as a matter of time and as well such problem is a finite one for that matter. Therefore, with the adoption of retrospective assessment method, we stand to voice out at the face of moral matters, most especially, the experience of dilemmas which seem insoluble with great consequence does not provide grounds for supposing that there are indeed genuine moral dilemmas.

 APPLICATION

Davis presents more affirmative answer to the question of whether there is possibility of genuine moral dilemmas, by taking into consideration the experiences of morally serious adults or mature human beings. What she tend to explain is that a logical implication and moral cannot dig out the reality behind the agent’s moral situations, rather a closer look into the agent’s situation and experience help to fish out the agent’s predicament.

Ann Davis preferred to end this write up by stating the fact that looking at some experiences of some morally serious adults; we seem to find some grounds for an affirmative. As well there could be a resemblance of genuine moral dilemmas, when a keen look and special considering or attention is paid on the agent’s particular circumstances, deliberations and on the phenomenology of moral difficult choices. Therefore, Ann Davis says “Yes I believe it is true that if we appeal to the moral experience of mature human beings, and to what might be called moral common sense, we will be inclined to conclude that there are genuine moral dilemmas.

Davis thereby back up her claim by considering the menace of September 11, 2011 at the world trade center, of which two good friends called Bob and Ted are victims of this. Unfortunately, these two good friends were in the twenty eight floor of the WTC when the first hijacked plane struck the office located closely to the tower. Over thousands of people were running for survive through an exit, in this plethora of situation for the survival of life. Unfortunately Ted is a fat man who was under medical care and attached on him are the heavy medical equipment and to get him out would require the hands of about six able persons apart from his good friend Bob. In this critical situation, what would Bob have to do? Knowing fully well that his survival is important those who liked him and as well his family members, thereby leaving him would be a betrayer of true friendship, and a well staying to struggle for the life of Ted could also cause him his life and as well the life of that Ted. Summarily, Bob chose to remain with Ted. This decision shows the kind of person Bob was, but the significance of Bob’s decision describes the situation as a genuine moral dilemma, which showcase a link of his moral identity. This is a very serious issue in which neither of the choices was truly identifiable as the better or morally preferable.

EVALUATION/CONCLUSION

HERESIES AND TERMINOLOGIES IN PATROLOGY

ELUSIYAN FRANCIS

 HERESY: Heresy is an opinion or belief that contradicts an established religious teaching. It is a theological doctrine or system that is officially rejected and condemned as false by ecclesiastical authority. It is any religious doctrine opposed to the dogma of a particular church, and a false teaching against the church.

APOLOGIST: This is a title of honour bestowed on one well versed in Christian doctrine and capable of defending it against attacks. It refers to Christian writers of the second century who defended the doctrines of Christianity and they defended the accusations and charges leveled against the church. They are the early Christian writers of the 2^nd century who refuted the pagan accusations against the church.

ARIANISM: An influential heresy denying the divinity of Christ, originating with the Alexandrian priest Arius (circa 250-circa 336). Arianism maintained that the son of God was created by the father and was therefore neither co-eternal with the father, nor consubstantial.

MONOPHYSITISM: From the Greek “monos” meaning “one” and “physics” meaning “nature”; mono-physitism is an erroneous or heretical view concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. A Christological position that Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. There are two major doctrines that can indisputably be called Monophysite (Eutychianism and Apollnarianism).

NESTORIANISM: The doctrine that there were two separate persons, one human and one divine, in the incarnate Christ. It is named after Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (428-31) and was maintained by some ancient churches of the Middle East. A small Nestorian church still exists in Iraq.

DUALISM: This is a doctrine that the world (or reality) consists of two basic, opposed, and irreducible principles of good and evil that account for all that exists. Dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings that caused the world to exist. Dualism is a view that reduces reality to two equally primordial and mutually opposed principles. This is a doctrine that asserts that the forces of good and evil are co-equal and co eternal.

AGNOSTICISM: The extreme view that knowledge of God is impossible, even with the aid of revelation, is the latest form of religious agnosticism, with special reference to theology, is a name for any theory which denies that it is possible for man to acquire knowledge of God. It may assume either a religious or anti-religious form, as it is confined to a criticism of rational knowledge or extended to a criticism of belief.

GNOSTICISM: A prominent heretical movement of the 2^nd century Christian church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esotericknowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

MARCIONISM: Marcionism was an early heresy led by marcion who proposed the first canon of Christian texts. The proposed canon consisted of the Gospel of Luke and several of Paul’sepistles; however, marcion edited the writings by deleting any references that appeared to approve of the Old Testament and the creator God of the Jews. Marcionism thus rejected the Old Testament God, claiming that Jesus represented the true sovereign God who was different from the God of the Hebrew people.

DONATISM            

Donatism includes a group of extremist seets, mostly in North Africa that emphasized asceticism and they valued martyrdom and found lapses of faith(even under torture or threat of death) inexcusable. The heresy involved their contention that the sacraments required a priest of pure moral character to be effective and only the pure (who has no lapsed under persecution) should be allowed in the church. They were opposed by Augustine of Hippo.

PELAGIANISM

Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid. This is named after British monk Pelagius(354-420) although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name, Pelagius taught that the human will as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life.

TURAFICATI AND CERTIFICATI

Certificati to certify or to register that someone is heretical. To attest, witness, approve or even confirm to as the truth or meeting a standard. TURA it means food frankincense divination. While FICATI means; lesser degree exorcists etc. The two join together means lesser degrees of exorcism or medication.

EUTYCHIANISM

This is an extreme form of monophysism; it asserts that Jesus Christ has two natures before the hypostatic union which was fused into one at his incarnation. This heretic teaching affirms only the divine nature of Jesus and denies his human nature, thereby denying the title of our lady as “theotokos”. This doctrine holds that the human nature of Jesus was fully absorbed into his divine nature at incarnation. This is an extreme form of monophysism.

APOLINARIANISM

 This is a heretical teaching that in Jesus Christ a divine nature took the place of the rational human soul and mind or mind of Christ and that the body of Christ was a spiritualized and glorified form of humanity. This doctrine heed that the divine logos embodied in human flesh but that Jesus had only one nature, a fourth century heresy that asserts that Jesus had a human body and human soul but no human mind.

MONTANISM

 This is a doctrine that preaches moral and ascetical rigorism. This doctrine denies the power of the church to forgive sins. This doctrine claims to be the oracle of the Holy Spirit and a possessor of true charismatic qualities and they believe that post baptismal sins could not be forgiven.

PATIENCE JONATHAN: A GREAT “THEOLOGIAN” THAT THE WHOLE NIGERIAN WOULD MISS SO MUCH

ELUSIYAN ‘TOLULOPE FRANCIS

In his book “Everyday greatness” Stephen covey says “we may think we have nothing to contribute. But the lessons of history are full of examples of the power that can come from the daily choices of a solitary individual”. The first lady even in her weakness with all passion and a kind of military zealousness had contributed immensely and meaningfully to the about to be concluded administration of Good luck Jonathan, and the modicum of decency of her imperial majesty cannot be over looked. Her popular aphorism “chai! There is God o” made me to call her “a great theologian”. This statement “chai!  There is God o” indeed serves as a manifestation of her person to the whole world, and that of cause clear the way for her popularity both within the shores of Nigeria and out of the country.

From the look of things one would see that this statement made by this very woman is such a wonderful one, a statement that is so pregnant with meaning, in fact it is indeed an historical statement that has no tendency of fading away in our memory as far as the administration of Good luck Jonathan is concerned.

I have come to notice the fact that every speech of this woman is always in affiliation with God. Perhaps, this very woman just wants us to have that consciousness of the higher being. However, so many Nigerians have turned her very ever pertinacious statement to something else in the entertainment industries. In fact, according to one of my lecturers, he said and I quote “that very woman, I mean that very woman, that one, hmmmmm, that woman called the wife of our president, the so called first lady, that maggot is supposed to be in theatre act”

Left to me as regard all the statement which had been projected by this woman, I think she is trying to say something like “these evils in our country is too much; the abduction of the chibok girls, bomb explosion here and there, confusion created and efforts made to even obliterate the country. So, for her, the causal agent of the confusion and tension in the Nigerian society do not have the fear of the Supreme Being. This is more or less the reason why she cried out loud for the whole world to know, if at all they have forgotten, or probably to remind them that there is one super-human, the Supreme Being, the God that is watching everybody. Her words apparently, linked to different aspect of our situations in Nigeria. For, corruption is everywhere, and to say that corruption is revolving round the state is an understatement; Politicians are keeping to themselves the public wealth, what belongs to everybody. That is greediness: chai! There is God o! So many graduates are outside without job and government is not even making a very huge effort to solve the problem, perhaps their own children are not within the state, how would they be affected? Hence, they find it very easy to be less concern: chai! There is God o! God is looking at all our activities. Amidst of these unpleasant situations, however, man must definitely survive. Today, so many fake pastors and churches have emerged, turning the churches to business centers, all in the name of “man must survive”, using the name of God to lie and manipulate people to earn money for living: chai! There is God o! Even the so called “free education” is no longer free, government schools and colleges no longer give text books that are supposed to be given to students for free , the books are now been sold to them and we were promised free education: chai! There is God o! Although this is mostly manipulated by teachers all in the name of “government is not paying us well” Looking at it critically, we have also discovered that even at the grass root the corruption is very much prominent. Chai! There is God o! Should I say something about security? Oh! I would describe the situation as a symphonic rhythm of violence and pestilence. It seems that we have been so much acclimated to horror and ferocity that violence, gunshots, bombings now constitutes melodic and harmonious renditions in our ears or bombs now sound like simple knockouts. The surfeit butchery, bloodbath and massacre by brave acts of terrorism is a slap on the government and indeed all of us. What more can we say? Chai! There is God o! Our nation is adrift and we are all dancing in a season of blindness to our own dirges. To borrow the words of  Niyi osundare, “the current image of Nigeria is that of a big for nothing country where  nothing works the right way, a country that is finding it increasingly difficult to govern itself” chai! There is God o!

Conclusively, I think the first lady is fed up with been a spectator and that is why she voiced out. Well, today! Whether we like it or not that statement is highly germuralized, because it is a statement that is very sensitive and in away geared towards awakening the consciousness of God in every individual. Whether it is accepted or not is not our concern in this very discourse, indeed what we have tried to do is to look at the statements in another mannerism, and not just the statements but also the personality of the woman in question both as the first lady of the country and as a very important personnel that had contributed immensely and comprehensively to the just about to be concluded administration which of course is part of our historical trajectory in Nigeria, and  which would continue to depict itself right from now and to the next generation. I want you to know that we all, as citizens of this noble country, have our fundamental human right to talk, to express our feelings, although there are limitations to that. We are free to express our selves not because we are in any position, but because we as human beings, have the right to do that when situations are unpalatable. It is on this note therefore that I would like to conclude with the words of Karl Marx “your right is your freedom and your freedom is a freedom of choosing and not a freedom of not choosing because not to choose is better than to choose not to choose.

IS PURGATORY IN THE BIBLE?

ELUSIYAN ‘TOLULOPE FRANCIS

INTRODUCTION

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," which is experienced by those "who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified" (CCC 1030). It notes that "this final purification of the elect is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1031). 

The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven. 

 TWO JUDGEMENTS

When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5). 

In his book The City of God, Augustine said that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59). 

 MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

One argument anti-Catholics often use to attack purgatory is the idea that the Catholic Church makes money from promulgating the doctrine. Without purgatory, the claim asserts, the Church would go broke. Any number of anti-Catholic books claim the Church owes the majority of its wealth to this doctrine. But the numbers just don’t add up. 

When a Catholic requests a memorial Mass for the dead; that is, a Mass said for the benefit of someone in purgatory; it is customary to give the parish priest a stipend, on the principles that the laborer is worth his hire (Luke 10:7) and that those who preside at the altar share the altar’s offerings (1 Cor. 9:13–14). In the United States, a stipend is commonly around five dollars; but the indigent do not have to pay anything. A few people, of course, freely offer more. This money goes to the parish priest, and priests are only allowed to receive one such stipend per day. No one gets rich on five dollars a day, and certainly not the Church, which does not receive the money anyway. 

But look at what happens on a Sunday. There are often hundreds of people at Mass. In a crowded parish, there may be thousands. Many families and individuals deposit five dollars or more into the collection basket; others deposit less. A few give much more. A parish might have four or five or six Masses on a Sunday. The total from the Sunday collections far surpasses the paltry amount received from the memorial Masses. 

 A CATHOLIC ‘INVENTION’

Fundamentalists may be fond of saying the Catholic Church "invented" the doctrine of purgatory to make money, but they have difficulty saying just when. Most professional anti-Catholics, the ones who make their living attacking "Romanism", seem to place the blame on Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from A.D. 590 to 604. 

But that hardly accounts for the request of Monica, mother of Augustine, who asked her son, in the fourth century, to remember her soul in his Masses. This would make no sense if she thought her soul would not benefit from prayers, as would be the case if she were in hell or in the full glory of heaven. 

Nor does ascribing the doctrine to Gregory explain the graffiti in the catacombs, where Christians during the persecutions of the first three centuries recorded prayers for the dead. Indeed, some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both written during the second century), refer to the Christian practice of praying for the dead. Such prayers would have been offered only if Christians believed in purgatory, even if they did not use that name for it. (See Catholic Answers’ Fathers Know Best tract The Existence of Purgatory for quotations from these and other early Christian sources.) 

WHY NO PROTESTS?

Whenever a date is set for the "invention" of purgatory, you can point to historical evidence to show the doctrine was in existence before that date. Besides, if at some point the doctrine was pulled out of a clerical hat, why does ecclesiastical history record no protest against it? 

A study of the history of doctrines indicates that Christians in the first centuries were up in arms (sometimes quite literally) if anyone suggested the least change in beliefs. They were extremely conservative people who tested a doctrine’s truth by asking, was this believed by our ancestors? Was it handed on from the apostles? Surely belief in purgatory would be considered a great change, if it had not been believed from the first. so where are the records of protests? 

They don’t exist. There is no hint at all, in the oldest writings available to us (or in later ones, for that matter), that "true believers" in the immediate post-apostolic years spoke of purgatory as a novel doctrine. They must have understood that the oral teaching of the apostles, what Catholics call tradition and the Bible not only failed to contradict the doctrine, but, in fact, confirmed it. 

It is no wonder, then, that those who deny the existence of purgatory tend to touch upon only briefly the history of the belief. They prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell. 

Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Look at it this way. If the limbo of the Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It proves there can be more than just heaven and hell. 

 ‘PURGATORY NOT IN SCRIPTURE’

Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, "The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory. 

Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage. 

Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43-45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation, Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine. 

Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians. 

 WHY GO TO PURGATORY?

Why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed, for "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects is, to some extent, "unclean." Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But that’s not sufficient for gaining entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely. 

Fundamentalists claim, as an article in Jimmy Swaggart’s magazine, The Evangelist, put it, that "Scripture clearly reveals that all the demands of divine justice on the sinner have been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It also reveals that Christ has totally redeemed, or purchased back, that which was lost. The advocates of a purgatory (and the necessity of prayer for the dead) say, in effect, that the redemption of Christ was incomplete. . . . It has all been done for us by Jesus Christ, there is nothing to be added or done by man." 

It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3-5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross. 

 NO CONTRADICTION

The Fundamentalist resistance to the biblical doctrine of purgatory presumes there is a contradiction between Christ’s redeeming us on the cross and the process by which we are sanctified. There isn’t. And a Fundamentalist cannot say that suffering in the final stage of sanctification conflicts with the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement without saying that suffering in the early stages of sanctification also presents a similar conflict. The Fundamentalist has it backward: Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. Rather, the cross produces our sanctification, which results in our suffering, because "[f]or the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb. 12:11). 

 NOTHING UNCLEANN

Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but actually being clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean. 

Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit." Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."