Purgatory: Contrasting Protestant and Catholic Perspectives: A Comparative Analysis of Jerry L. Walls and Karlo Broussard

Introduction: The Great Divide and Surprising Common Ground

The doctrine of purgatory has long stood as one of the most divisive issues between Protestant and Catholic Christianity. Since the Reformation, when Martin Luther declared purgatory “a deadly fiction of Satan,” Protestants have largely rejected this teaching as unbiblical and contrary to salvation by grace alone. Yet in recent years, some Protestant theologians have begun reconsidering whether there might be a biblical and theologically sound basis for believing in some form of postmortem purification.

Jerry L. Walls, a Protestant philosopher, represents this new openness. In his book “Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation,” he argues that Protestants can and should embrace what he calls a “sanctification model” of purgatory – one that focuses on spiritual growth and transformation rather than punishment or satisfaction for sins. As Walls explains in his introduction: “While I agree that scripture does not clearly support the doctrine by way of explicit affirmation, I believe that it does not rule it out either, and that texts cited to show this do not carry nearly as much weight as often claimed. More positively, I believe the doctrine is a reasonable inference from things that are clearly taught in scripture” (Introduction).

On the Catholic side, Karlo Broussard’s “Purgatory Is For Real” presents a comprehensive defense of the traditional Catholic teaching. Broussard, a staff apologist for Catholic Answers, argues that purgatory is firmly rooted in Scripture, tradition, and the consistent teaching of the Church. His book seeks to demonstrate that “purgatory is a beautiful gift of God’s mercy for which we should be thankful, a joyful truth of God’s purifying love” (Introduction).

What makes this comparison particularly interesting is that despite their different theological starting points, both authors reject certain historical extremes and move toward what might be called a middle ground. Walls distances himself from the medieval “satisfaction model” that dominated Catholic thinking for centuries, while Broussard emphasizes the more recent Catholic teaching that focuses on purification and transformation rather than mere punishment.

Part I: Understanding the Models of Purgatory

The Satisfaction Model vs. The Sanctification Model

To understand the debate between Walls and Broussard, we must first grasp the distinction between what scholars call the “satisfaction model” and the “sanctification model” of purgatory. This distinction is crucial because it shapes how each author approaches biblical texts, theological arguments, and practical implications.

Walls provides a helpful explanation of these models in Chapter 3 of his book. The satisfaction model, which dominated Catholic theology for much of history, holds that purgatory exists primarily to satisfy divine justice. As Walls explains: “The satisfaction model holds that even after sins are forgiven, there remains a debt of temporal punishment that must be paid. Purgatory is where this debt is discharged through suffering” (Chapter 3: Models of Purgatory).

This model has deep roots in Catholic theology. Broussard acknowledges this history, noting that Pope Innocent IV in 1254 taught about “the discharge of the debt of temporal punishment not fully discharged through works of penance in this life” and that souls undergo “purgatorial punishments” (Chapter 9: Purgatory in Magisterial Teaching). The Council of Trent further solidified this teaching, declaring that “the debt of temporal punishment may remain for some sinners after the debt of eternal punishment is ‘blotted out’ in repentance” (Chapter 9).

The sanctification model, by contrast, focuses on the need for moral and spiritual transformation. Walls champions this view, arguing: “Purgatory on this account is not in any way about satisfying divine justice or paying a debt of punishment. It is entirely a matter of continuing and completing the process of sanctification, of making us truly holy so that we can be fully at home in the presence of God and enjoy his presence with no troubling shadows to darken our fellowship with him” (Chapter 3).

Interestingly, Broussard’s presentation suggests that contemporary Catholic theology has moved significantly toward the sanctification model, though without abandoning the satisfaction element entirely. He quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which defines purgatory as a “final purification” for “all who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” so they may “achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (CCC 1030-1031). This language emphasizes purification and holiness rather than punishment and debt.

Walls’ Protestant Sanctification Model

Walls develops his sanctification model by starting with what he sees as a fundamental dilemma in Protestant theology. He notes that Protestants typically believe two things: first, that we are saved by grace through faith alone, not by works; and second, that heaven is a place of perfect holiness where no sin can enter. But this creates a problem: what happens to Christians who die before achieving perfect holiness?

The traditional Protestant answer has been that God instantly perfects believers at death. But Walls finds this problematic for several reasons. He argues in Chapter 2: “The typical Protestant view that we are perfected in the moment of death faces serious philosophical and theological difficulties. If God can perfect us instantly at death, why doesn’t he do so immediately when we first believe? And if sanctification requires our free cooperation throughout life, how can it be completed without our cooperation at death?” (Chapter 2: Protestant Objections and Alternatives to Purgatory).

Instead, Walls proposes that sanctification is necessarily a process that requires our free cooperation. He writes: “Virtue is what happens when the Spirit enables the Christian freely to choose, freely to develop, freely to be shaped by God, freely to become that which is pleasing to God” (Chapter 7: Looking Forward by Looking Back). This process, he argues, may need to continue after death for those who haven’t completed it in this life.

Walls is careful to distinguish his view from the satisfaction model. He explicitly states: “Its sole purpose is to allow the sanctification process to come to completion on the basis of its own internal momentum” (Chapter 3). There is no payment of debt, no satisfaction of divine justice – only the completion of the transformation that begins in this life.

Broussard’s Catholic Synthesis

Broussard presents a more complex picture that attempts to synthesize both satisfaction and sanctification elements. While he affirms the traditional Catholic teaching about temporal punishment, he emphasizes that this punishment itself has a purifying purpose. He explains: “The Catechism identifies the purging of unhealthy attachments as discharging such debt, it follows that the Catechism sees the purging of unhealthy attachments as purgatorial punishment. So, rather than purgatorial punishments being something distinct from the sanctification achieved in the purging of unhealthy attachments, the Catechism presents a view that the sanctification itself (purging of unhealthy attachments) constitutes the punishment, which in turn discharges the temporal debt for sin” (Chapter 9).

This is a subtle but important point. Broussard is arguing that the punishment and purification are not two separate things but are integrated. The suffering involved in being purified from our attachments to sin IS the temporal punishment. He quotes Pope John Paul II to support this view: “Temporal punishment itself serves as ‘medicine’ to the extent that the person allows it to challenge him to undertake his own profound conversion. This is the meaning of the ‘satisfaction’ required in the sacrament of penance” (Chapter 9).

However, Broussard also maintains traditional Catholic elements that Walls would reject. He affirms that:

• The faithful can help souls in purgatory through prayers, masses, and indulgences
• There is a real “debt of temporal punishment” that must be discharged
• This debt exists even after sins are forgiven
• The purification may involve actual suffering inflicted by God

Part II: Biblical Foundations

One of the most significant differences between Walls and Broussard lies in their approach to biblical evidence for purgatory. This difference reflects the broader Protestant-Catholic divide over the nature and extent of biblical authority.

Broussard’s Biblical Arguments

Broussard presents an extensive biblical case for purgatory, drawing from both the Old and New Testaments, including the deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept as Scripture but Protestants do not. His approach involves both inferential arguments from biblical principles and direct exegesis of specific passages.

In Chapter 3, “Purgatory Implied by Revealed Principles,” Broussard identifies six biblical principles that he argues necessarily imply purgatory:

1. A soul’s destiny is secure at the particular judgment: Drawing from passages like Luke 16:19-31 (the rich man and Lazarus) and Hebrews 9:27, he argues that each soul’s eternal destiny is determined at death.
2. It’s possible for a soul to have moral defilement and still be in friendship with Jesus: Using 1 John 5:16-17’s distinction between mortal and non-mortal sin, he argues for the Catholic concept of venial sin.
3. Sin causes unhealthy attachments to creatures: Based on Romans 7:15-23, where Paul describes being pulled toward sin against his will.
4. Sin incurs a debt of temporal punishment, even for Christians saved in Christ: He points to Hebrews 12:6 – “For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”
5. No departed soul with sin or the remnants of sin can enter the glory of heaven: Based on Revelation 21:27 – “But nothing unclean shall enter it.”
6. It’s likely some Christians die with sin or the effects of sin remaining in the soul: Given Proverbs 24:16 – “For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again.”

Broussard then examines specific biblical passages. His treatment of 2 Maccabees 12:38-45 is particularly important for the Catholic position. This passage describes Judas Maccabeus offering prayers and sacrifices for dead soldiers, “that they might be delivered from their sin” (v. 45). Broussard argues: “Judas and his soldiers couldn’t have thought their fallen comrades were in heaven because the bliss of such a state excludes all sorrow and sin. Nor could Judas and his soldiers have thought the departed souls were in hell, because no soul in hell can have its sins blotted out” (Chapter 4: Purgatory in the Old Testament).

Of course, Protestants don’t accept 2 Maccabees as Scripture, which Broussard acknowledges. But he also draws from accepted biblical texts. Regarding Matthew 5:25-26, where Jesus speaks of being thrown into prison until “you have paid the last penny,” Broussard argues that the context suggests this refers to postmortem punishment. He notes: “Jesus’ reference to the individual being judged worthy of hellfire suggests that Jesus is talking not only about earthly judgments, but primarily about afterlife judgment” (Chapter 5: Purgatory in Jesus’ Teaching).

Similarly, he interprets Matthew 12:32, where Jesus speaks of sins that won’t be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come,” as implying that some sins can be forgiven in the afterlife. “There would be no need for Jesus to exclude the sin against the Holy Spirit from being forgiven in the age to come unless it were possible that some sins could be forgiven in that age” (Chapter 5).

Most extensively, Broussard examines 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, where Paul speaks of works being tested by fire on “the Day,” with some being burned up while the person is still “saved, but only as through fire.” He argues: “Paul is talking about the Day of Judgment (‘the Day’) that comes after death (see Heb. 9:27). He speaks of ‘fire’ as ‘testing’ the quality of a person’s works and burning up his bad works… This state of existence can’t be heaven because the individual has the defilement of bad works and is suffering loss. Nor can it be hell because Paul says the person ‘will be saved’ (v.15). A state of purification in the afterlife that’s neither heaven nor hell—that’s purgatory!” (Chapter 6: Purgatory in Paul’s Teaching).

Walls’ Approach to Scripture

Walls takes a notably different approach to the biblical evidence. He is much more cautious about claiming direct biblical support for purgatory, acknowledging that “scripture does not clearly support the doctrine by way of explicit affirmation” (Introduction). Instead, he argues that purgatory is “a reasonable inference from things that are clearly taught in scripture.”

Rather than detailed exegesis of particular passages, Walls focuses on broader theological principles and logical inferences. He emphasizes three main biblical themes that he believes point toward purgatory:

1. The necessity of holiness for heaven: Walls points to passages like Hebrews 12:14 – “Pursue peace with everyone, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” He argues that if holiness is truly necessary for heaven, and if many Christians die without achieving perfect holiness, then some process of postmortem sanctification seems necessary.

2. Salvation as transformation, not just forgiveness: Throughout his book, Walls emphasizes that the biblical picture of salvation involves real transformation, not just forensic declaration. He quotes 2 Corinthians 5:17 – “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” – and argues that this new creation must be completed before we can enter heaven.

3. The role of human freedom in sanctification: Walls places great emphasis on passages that speak of our cooperation with God’s grace. He notes Paul’s exhortation to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12) and argues that if sanctification requires our free cooperation in this life, it’s reasonable to think it would require our cooperation if it continues after death.

Importantly, Walls explicitly addresses and critiques some of the biblical arguments against purgatory. Regarding the common Protestant appeal to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43), who was promised to be with Jesus in Paradise “today,” Walls notes that this doesn’t necessarily preclude purgatory. The thief might have been fully sanctified through his suffering and repentance, or “today” might not refer to literal time as we experience it.

Part III: Historical and Traditional Evidence

Broussard’s Appeal to Tradition

As a Catholic apologist, Broussard places great weight on the testimony of early Christianity and the consistent teaching of the Church throughout history. Chapter 8 of his book, “Purgatory in Early Christian Testimony,” provides extensive quotations from the Church Fathers to demonstrate that belief in purgatory or something very much like it was present from the earliest centuries of Christianity.

He begins with early Christian gravesite inscriptions from around 150 AD, which include requests for prayer. One inscription reads: “I pray you, O brethren, to pray when you come here, and to ask in your common prayers the Father and the Son. May it be in your minds to remember dear Agape that the omnipotent God may keep Agape safe forever” (Chapter 8). Broussard argues that such requests would be meaningless if the dead were already in heaven or hell.

Broussard then provides quotations from numerous Church Fathers:

Tertullian (c. 160-220 AD) wrote about offering sacrifices for the dead and praying for deceased spouses: “A woman, after the death of her husband… prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Chapter 8).

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258 AD) taught about a postmortem state of purification: “It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, then cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering” (Chapter 8).

St. Augustine (354-430 AD) explicitly taught about “purgatorial torments after death” and stated: “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” (Chapter 8).

Broussard argues that this widespread belief among early Christians is significant: “With such widespread belief, we have to ask, ‘Could the Christian Church err in such belief and practice?’ If we answer yes, then we have to say the universal Church erred for centuries. But that would entail a failure on Jesus’ part, since he promised, ‘The powers of death shall not prevail against [the Church]’ (Matt. 16:18)” (Chapter 8: Conclusion).

He then traces the doctrine through official Church teaching, from Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century through the Council of Florence (1439), the Council of Trent (1545-1563), and up to the current Catechism. He emphasizes that the Council of Florence infallibly defined the doctrine: “if those who are truly penitent die in the love of God before having satisfied by worthy fruits of penance for their sins of commission and omission, their souls are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments” (Chapter 9).

Walls’ Historical Analysis

Walls also provides a historical survey in Chapter 1, “A Short History of Purgatory,” but his approach and conclusions differ significantly from Broussard’s. While he acknowledges that prayers for the dead and belief in postmortem purification appeared early in Christian history, he argues that the specific doctrine of purgatory as later defined by the Catholic Church was a medieval development.

Walls makes several important historical observations:

1. Early diversity of belief: He notes that early Christian beliefs about the afterlife were quite diverse and often vague. The specific Catholic doctrine of purgatory, with its detailed theology of temporal punishment and satisfaction, developed gradually over centuries.

2. Eastern vs. Western development: Walls points out that Eastern Christianity developed different views from Western Christianity. While Eastern Orthodox churches pray for the dead, they have generally rejected the satisfaction model of purgatory that dominated in the West.

3. Medieval elaboration: The detailed geography of purgatory, its connection to indulgences, and the mathematical calculation of temporal punishments were medieval developments that went far beyond anything in the early Church.

4. Protestant precedents: Importantly for his argument, Walls notes that some Protestants have accepted versions of purgatory. He quotes Martin Luther’s early view: “The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason” (Chapter 2).

Walls also discusses C.S. Lewis’s famous defense of purgatory in Letters to Malcolm, where Lewis writes: “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 cleaned first'” (Chapter 6: C.S. Lewis and the Prospect of Mere Purgatory).

This historical analysis leads Walls to conclude that while the general idea of postmortem purification has ancient roots, the specific Catholic doctrine of purgatory is not necessarily binding on all Christians. He argues for what he calls “mere purgatory” – a minimal doctrine that Protestants and Catholics might agree on.

Part IV: Theological and Philosophical Arguments

The Problem of Sin and Sanctification

Both Walls and Broussard agree that there is a fundamental problem that purgatory addresses: the gap between the holiness required for heaven and the actual spiritual condition of many Christians at death. However, they frame this problem somewhat differently.

Broussard frames the issue in terms of Catholic theology’s distinction between mortal and venial sin. He explains: “A venial sin is a sin that ‘allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it’ (CCC 1855)… The rationale behind this teaching is that charity orders us to God as our life’s goal, or final end. That order can be either completely destroyed or merely disturbed by sin” (Chapter 10: Thinking Through the Theology of Purgatory).

He argues that many Christians die with venial sins unrepented or with the effects of sin (unhealthy attachments to creatures, debt of temporal punishment) still present. Since “nothing unclean shall enter” heaven (Revelation 21:27), these must be purged after death.

Walls frames the problem more broadly in terms of the incomplete sanctification that characterizes most Christians. He doesn’t focus on the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins but rather on the overall process of becoming holy. In Chapter 3, he writes: “Simply to look at people with any degree of realism at all is to grasp the necessity of such a process. It does not replace grace by works, but allows the former to achieve its full victory precisely as grace.”

This difference in framing is significant. Broussard’s approach requires accepting the Catholic framework of mortal vs. venial sin and temporal punishment. Walls’ approach requires only acknowledging that most Christians aren’t perfectly holy when they die.

The Role of Human Freedom

One of Walls’ most important arguments concerns the role of human freedom in sanctification. This is where his Protestant perspective leads him to conclusions that many of his fellow Protestants would find uncomfortable.

Traditional Protestant theology, especially in the Reformed tradition, emphasizes God’s sovereignty in salvation. Many Protestants believe that God can and does instantly perfect believers at death through a unilateral act of divine power. Walls challenges this view on philosophical grounds:

“If God can perfect us instantly at death, why doesn’t he do so immediately when we first believe? And if sanctification requires our free cooperation throughout life, how can it be completed without our cooperation at death?” (Chapter 2).

He develops this argument extensively in Chapter 4, “Personal Identity, Time, and Purgatory.” He argues that genuine moral transformation requires the free cooperation of the person being transformed. Just as we cannot be forced to love someone, we cannot be forced to become holy. Holiness is not just the absence of sin but the presence of virtuous character, and character by definition must be freely developed.

Walls writes: “Virtue is what happens—I know many in the Reformation tradition shudder at the thought of the very word ‘virtue,’ but there is no help for it if we are to be true to Scripture and to trinitarian theology—when the Spirit enables the Christian freely to choose, freely to develop, freely to be shaped by God, freely to become that which is pleasing to God” (Chapter 7).

Broussard doesn’t emphasize human freedom as much as Walls does, but he does discuss why certain things aren’t simply remitted at death. In Chapter 10, he addresses why venial sins aren’t automatically forgiven at death: “Consider that venial sin is an obstacle on the path to God. The removal of an obstacle requires a movement on the part of the mover against the obstacle… Just as the tree branch requires a contrary movement in order for it to be removed… so too the guilt of sin requires a strong movement of the will against it in order for it to be removed. That strong movement is charity, expressed as an act of contrition (sorrow for and detestation of the sin).”

This suggests that even from the Catholic perspective, there is recognition that the human will must be involved in the purification process.

The Nature of Time and Personal Identity

Both authors grapple with difficult questions about time and personal identity in purgatory, though Walls addresses these more extensively as befits a philosopher.

In Chapter 4, Walls discusses various views of personal identity and their implications for purgatory. He notes that different views of what happens between death and resurrection affect how we understand purgatory:

• Dualism: If humans have immaterial souls that survive death, purgatory could be a state of the soul between death and resurrection.
• Materialism: If humans are purely physical, purgatory would have to occur after the resurrection.
• Thomistic hylomorphism: The soul survives but is incomplete without the body, existing in an unusual state until resurrection.

Walls argues that purgatory is compatible with various views of personal identity, though some fit more naturally than others.

Broussard addresses the question of time in purgatory in Chapter 10. He quotes Pope Benedict XVI: “It is clear that we cannot calculate the ‘duration’ of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart’s time, it is the time of ‘passage’ to communion with God in the Body of Christ” (Spe Salvi, 47).

Broussard explains that some theologians speak of “discontinuous time” in purgatory – where each thought is its own spiritual instant that might correspond to days or years of earthly time. He notes: “With regard to the souls in purgatory, one spiritual instant of suffering may be several days (or years) in our earthly time” (Chapter 10).

The Justice vs. Mercy Debate

A crucial philosophical difference between the authors concerns the relationship between divine justice and mercy in purgatory.

Broussard maintains the traditional Catholic position that purgatory serves the demands of divine justice. He explains the concept of “temporal punishment” as suffering that must be endured to satisfy God’s justice, even after sins are forgiven. In Chapter 10, he writes: “The debt of temporal punishment is the temporary pain or suffering due to a sinner for turning to a created good outside God’s ‘order of justice’ for human beings.”

He defends this by arguing that sin creates a “breach of order” that “can’t be left alone, since the things of divine providence can’t be left in disorder.” God must restore order by ensuring the sinner experiences pain proportionate to the illicit pleasure taken in sin.

Walls strongly rejects this satisfaction model. He argues in Chapter 3 that the satisfaction model faces serious problems: “The demands of justice, it seems, are a different sort of requirement than the necessities of character growth and spiritual healing. A person might undergo an appropriate punishment that would satisfy justice, but still have a significant way to go by way of rectifying his character flaws. On the other hand, his character flaws might be healed well before he has served a sentence sufficient to satisfy the requirements of justice.”

Instead, Walls sees purgatory purely as God’s merciful provision for completing our sanctification. Any suffering involved is not punishment but the natural consequence of being purified – like the pain of physical therapy after an injury.

Part V: Practical and Pastoral Implications

Prayer for the Dead

One of the most significant practical differences between Protestant and Catholic views of purgatory concerns prayer for the dead. This practice, central to Catholic piety, has been largely rejected by Protestants since the Reformation.

Broussard strongly defends prayers for the dead, both from Scripture and tradition. He argues that such prayers can actually help souls in purgatory by shortening their purification. In Chapter 10, he explains several ways this might work:

“One mode is by way of intercessory prayer. Just as I can request that God help you grow in holiness in this life, by giving you graces to repent of your venial sins, to reorder your will toward him, and to inspire you to perform penitential actions to discharge your debt of temporal punishment, I can request that God help you in the next by bringing your final purification in purgatory to completion.”

He also discusses how Catholics can offer Mass, indulgences, and works of satisfaction for the dead: “By virtue of the bond of charity, the satisfactory value of one Christian’s penitential works can be applied to another Christian for the discharge of his debt of temporal punishment.”

Walls takes a more cautious approach to prayers for the dead. As a Protestant, he’s aware that this practice has been viewed with suspicion since the Reformation, often associated with abuses like the sale of indulgences. However, he’s somewhat open to the practice, particularly as exemplified by C.S. Lewis.

In discussing Lewis’s views, Walls notes that Lewis prayed for the dead and found deep meaning in the practice: “Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead” (quoted in Chapter 6).

However, Walls is careful to distinguish between praying for the dead as an expression of love and believing that such prayers actually change their situation. His sanctification model doesn’t require or particularly support the efficacy of prayers for the dead in the way the Catholic model does.

The Question of Assurance

Another practical difference concerns the assurance of salvation. Protestant theology has traditionally emphasized that believers can have assurance of their salvation based on faith in Christ. The doctrine of purgatory potentially complicates this assurance.

Broussard addresses this concern by emphasizing that purgatory is only for those who die in God’s grace – it’s not a second chance for salvation. He writes: “The souls in purgatory are ‘locked on’ to God as their ultimate life’s goal… the souls in purgatory must know they’re saved” (Chapter 10). In this sense, souls in purgatory have absolute assurance of eventual salvation, even if they must undergo purification first.

He even describes purgatory as containing great joys: “Perhaps the greatest of joys for the souls in purgatory, what Fr. Jugie calls the ‘gift of gifts.’ There is tremendous peace and joy in knowing that you no longer have to fight to overcome sin and worry about losing the ultimate good that we long to fully possess: God” (Chapter 10).

Walls similarly emphasizes that his version of purgatory doesn’t undermine Protestant assurance of salvation. Those who trust in Christ are assured of eventual complete salvation. Purgatory is simply part of the process by which God completes what he has begun. He might say that we can be assured of salvation without being assured that we’ll skip purgatory.

Impact on How We Live

Both authors argue that belief in purgatory should affect how Christians live their daily lives, though in somewhat different ways.

Broussard emphasizes how purgatory should motivate pursuit of holiness now to avoid or minimize purgatorial suffering later. In his chapter “A Joyful Truth: The Pursuit of Holiness,” he writes: “The doctrine of purgatory can serve to motivate us to do what we can in this life to purge ourselves of those things that impede us from immediate entrance into heaven: the guilt of venial sin, unhealthy attachments to creatures, and the debt of temporal punishment due for past forgiven sins.”

He encourages practices like:

• Daily examination of conscience and acts of contrition
• Frequent reception of the sacraments, especially confession and Eucharist
• Acts of penance like fasting and almsgiving
• Accepting suffering in life as purification
• Gaining indulgences for oneself and others

Walls focuses more on how purgatory changes our understanding of sanctification as a process that requires our cooperation. Rather than seeing holiness as optional (since we’re saved by faith alone) or impossible (since we’ll be perfected at death anyway), belief in purgatory emphasizes that growing in holiness is essential to our salvation journey.

He would encourage Christians to:

• Take sanctification seriously as necessary for heaven
• Cooperate actively with God’s grace in becoming holy
• Not presume on instant perfection at death
• View trials and difficulties as opportunities for growth

Part VI: Points of Convergence and Divergence

Surprising Areas of Agreement

Despite their different theological starting points, Walls and Broussard agree on several important points:

1. The necessity of holiness for heaven: Both affirm that we cannot enter God’s presence while still attached to sin or carrying moral defilement. As Broussard puts it, “nothing unclean shall enter” heaven (Revelation 21:27).

2. The incompleteness of most Christians at death: Both acknowledge that most Christians die without having achieved perfect holiness. They’re realistic about human sinfulness and the slow process of sanctification.

3. The inadequacy of certain traditional Protestant alternatives: Both find problematic the idea that God simply declares us perfect while leaving us actually unchanged, or that he unilaterally perfects us without our cooperation.

4. The move away from purely punitive models: Neither author embraces the medieval satisfaction model in its starkest form. Both emphasize transformation and purification over mere punishment.

5. The mystery of the process: Both acknowledge that we don’t know exactly how postmortem purification works. They use metaphors and analogies but recognize the limits of our understanding.

6. Purgatory as ultimately good news: Both see purgatory as an expression of God’s mercy, not his harshness. It’s God’s way of ensuring that we can ultimately enjoy perfect communion with him.

Irreconcilable Differences

However, significant differences remain:

1. The role of temporal punishment: Broussard maintains that there is a real debt of punishment that must be paid to satisfy divine justice. Walls rejects this entirely, seeing any suffering as medicinal rather than punitive.

2. The efficacy of prayers and works for the dead: Broussard believes the living can actively help the dead through prayers, Masses, and indulgences. Walls is skeptical about whether our actions can affect the dead’s situation.

3. The basis of the doctrine: Broussard sees purgatory as divinely revealed through Scripture and Tradition, infallibly defined by the Church. Walls sees it as a reasonable theological inference that Christians are free to accept or reject.

4. The necessity of the doctrine: For Broussard, belief in purgatory is required for Catholics as defined doctrine. For Walls, it’s a helpful but optional belief that makes good sense of other Christian commitments.

5. Sacramental vs. non-sacramental approach: Broussard’s view is tied to Catholic sacramental theology – confession, Eucharist, indulgences. Walls’ view requires no particular sacramental framework.

Part VII: Critical Evaluation from a Protestant Perspective

As an evangelical Protestant examining these two perspectives, I find myself more convinced by Walls’ sanctification model, though I appreciate Broussard’s thorough scholarship and irenic tone. Let me explain why I find Walls’ approach more compelling while acknowledging the strengths of Broussard’s position.

Strengths of Walls’ Approach

1. Theological simplicity: Walls’ model requires fewer theological commitments. We don’t need to accept the Catholic framework of temporal punishment, treasury of merit, or indulgences. We simply need to acknowledge that sanctification is a process requiring our cooperation.

2. Focus on transformation over transaction: The sanctification model emphasizes becoming actually holy rather than paying debts or completing transactions. This seems more consistent with the New Testament’s emphasis on being transformed into Christ’s image (2 Corinthians 3:18).

3. Preservation of human freedom: Walls’ emphasis on the necessity of free cooperation in sanctification respects both divine sovereignty and human agency. God doesn’t force holiness upon us but works with us to achieve it.

4. Ecumenical potential: A mere sanctification model could potentially be accepted by Christians across denominational lines without requiring them to adopt specifically Catholic doctrines.

5. Consistency with Protestant soteriology: While challenging some Protestant assumptions, Walls’ model remains consistent with justification by faith. Purgatory doesn’t earn salvation but completes the transformation salvation initiates.

Concerns about Broussard’s Position

While I respect Broussard’s careful argumentation, several aspects of his position raise concerns from a Protestant perspective:

1. The debt of temporal punishment: The idea that God requires additional punishment even after forgiving sins seems to compromise the completeness of Christ’s atonement. If Jesus paid the full penalty for our sins, why is additional payment required?

2. The role of human works: The Catholic system of indulgences, penances, and works of satisfaction seems to give human works a role in salvation that Protestants find troubling. Even if these works are done by grace, they still seem to make salvation partly dependent on human effort.

3. Biblical interpretation: Many of Broussard’s biblical arguments depend on debatable interpretations. The passages he cites have been understood differently by Protestant scholars for centuries. The fact that 2 Maccabees is his strongest text is problematic since Protestants don’t accept it as Scripture.

4. The authority question: Broussard’s ultimate appeal to Church authority to settle the question is precisely what Protestants reject. We believe Scripture alone is the final authority for doctrine.

Remaining Questions

Even accepting Walls’ model, several questions remain:

1. Is postmortem sanctification necessary? While Walls makes a strong case that instant perfection at death is problematic, it’s not impossible. God could preserve our essential identity while perfecting us if he chose.

2. What about those who die suddenly? If cooperation is necessary, what happens to those who die without warning and can’t cooperate in their purification?

3. How long does it take? Without the Catholic framework of specific punishments for specific sins, how do we understand the duration of purgatorial purification?

4. Is consciousness maintained? Does the soul remain conscious during purification, or might the process occur below the level of consciousness?

5. Universal or only for some? Do all believers go through purgatory, or might some be sufficiently sanctified at death to enter heaven immediately?

Part VIII: Biblical Support – A Comprehensive Table

Both authors reference numerous biblical passages in their arguments. Here is a comprehensive table organizing the biblical evidence, including texts from the deuterocanonical books that Catholics accept:

Biblical Reference	Text	Relevance to Purgatory	Used By
Old Testament
2 Maccabees 12:43-46	“He then took up a collection… to provide for a sin offering… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin”	Direct evidence of prayers and offerings for the dead to remit sins	Broussard (primary)
Proverbs 24:16	“For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again”	Shows even the righteous sin repeatedly	Broussard
Isaiah 4:4	“When the Lord shall have washed away the filth… by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning”	Purification through fire imagery	Both
Isaiah 6:6-7	“Seraph… touched my mouth with it and said: ‘… your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for'”	Purification by fire	Broussard
Malachi 3:2-3	“He is like a refiner’s fire… he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver”	God as purifier through fire	Both
New Testament – Gospels
Matthew 5:25-26	“You will never get out till you have paid the last penny”	Temporary imprisonment until debt paid	Broussard (extensive)
Matthew 5:48	“Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”	Perfection required	Both
Matthew 12:32	“Will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”	Implies some sins can be forgiven after death	Broussard (primary)
Luke 12:47-48	“That servant who knew his master’s will… will receive a severe beating”	Degrees of punishment	Broussard
Luke 16:19-31	Rich man and Lazarus	Immediate judgment after death	Broussard
Luke 23:43	“Today you will be with me in Paradise”	Used against purgatory (addressed by both)	Both (defensive)
New Testament – Pauline
Romans 7:15-23	“I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate”	Ongoing struggle with sin	Broussard
1 Corinthians 3:11-15	“If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire”	Primary text – purification by fire after death	Both (extensive)
1 Corinthians 15:51-52	“We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”	Instant transformation (used against purgatory)	Protestant objection
2 Corinthians 5:8	“Away from the body and at home with the Lord”	Used against purgatory (addressed by both)	Both (defensive)
2 Corinthians 5:17	“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation”	Transformation in Christ	Walls
2 Corinthians 7:1	“Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit”	Need for cleansing from defilement	Broussard
Philippians 1:23	“My desire is to depart and be with Christ”	Used against purgatory (addressed)	Both (defensive)
Philippians 2:12	“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”	Cooperation in salvation	Walls
Colossians 1:24	“I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”	Participation in redemptive suffering	Broussard
New Testament – General
Hebrews 9:27	“It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment”	Judgment immediately after death	Both
Hebrews 12:6	“For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves”	Divine discipline for sin	Broussard
Hebrews 12:14	“Pursue… the holiness without which no one will see the Lord”	Holiness necessary for heaven	Both (central)
Hebrews 12:22-23	“The spirits of just men made perfect”	Perfection of souls in heaven	Broussard
James 1:14-15	“Sin when it is full-grown brings forth death”	Stages of sin	Broussard
1 Peter 1:7	“That the trial of your faith… though it be tried with fire”	Purification through trial by fire	Both
1 Peter 3:19	“He went and preached to the spirits in prison”	Postmortem state	Broussard
1 John 1:9	“If we confess our sins, he… will cleanse us”	Need for cleansing	Both
1 John 5:16-17	“There is sin which is not mortal”	Distinction between mortal and venial sin	Broussard (central)
Revelation 21:27	“Nothing unclean shall enter it”	Perfect purity required for heaven	Both (central)

Part IX: Theological Implications and Contemporary Relevance

The Question of Development of Doctrine

One of the most significant issues raised by comparing these two works is the question of how doctrine develops over time. Broussard and Walls take very different approaches to this question.

Broussard accepts the Catholic understanding of doctrinal development, articulated by John Henry Newman and others. On this view, doctrines can become more explicit and detailed over time while remaining essentially the same. The acorn becomes an oak tree, but it was always an oak in essence. Thus, while the detailed Catholic doctrine of purgatory may not be explicitly in Scripture, it legitimately develops from scriptural seeds.

He defends this approach in his treatment of early Church testimony: “Our survey above of what some Orthodox and Protestant Christians believe concerning purgatory suffices to show that belief in purgatory is not just a Catholic thing, even among Christians. It crosses boundaries into a variety of Christian confessions. That should give a Christian who denies purgatory reason to pause and reconsider his rejection of the doctrine: ‘Why should I reject purgatory when so many Christians, past and present, believe it?'” (Chapter 2: Conclusion).

Walls, representing a Protestant perspective, is more cautious about doctrinal development. While he acknowledges that doctrine can be legitimately inferred from Scripture, he maintains that such inferences should be held more loosely than explicit biblical teaching. His “mere purgatory” represents what he sees as a legitimate inference that doesn’t go beyond what Scripture warrants.

This difference is crucial because it affects how much detail we can confidently assert about purgatory. The Catholic tradition, accepting development, can speak confidently about indulgences, temporal punishments, and the efficacy of specific prayers. The Protestant approach Walls represents must remain more agnostic about such details.

The Ecumenical Dimension

Both authors show concern for Christian unity, though they approach it differently. Walls explicitly frames his project in ecumenical terms, seeking a version of purgatory that Catholics and Protestants might both accept. His “mere purgatory” is deliberately minimalist to allow for the broadest possible agreement.

He writes optimistically about the potential for agreement: “The current pope, Benedict XVI, has attempted to articulate the heart of the doctrine in a way that will have ecumenical appeal, and that will be consistent with the fundamental theological conviction that salvation is by grace through faith” (Chapter 3).

Broussard, while irenic in tone, is less focused on finding common ground and more on defending the full Catholic position. However, he does note areas where Protestants have moved closer to Catholic positions: “There are many other modern Protestants who affirm the existence of purgatory whom we could survey, but such a survey goes beyond the scope of this chapter” (Chapter 2).

The ecumenical question is whether Christians can agree on a basic doctrine of postmortem purification while disagreeing on details. Walls thinks yes; Broussard seems less certain, given his insistence on elements like temporal punishment that Protestants find objectionable.

Pastoral and Practical Considerations

Beyond the theological debates, both authors recognize that beliefs about purgatory have significant pastoral implications. How we understand the afterlife affects how we comfort the grieving, how we face our own mortality, and how we pursue holiness in daily life.

Broussard emphasizes the consoling aspects of purgatory. In his section “A Joyful Truth: Consolation for Believers,” he writes: “The doctrine of purgatory provides consolation for a believer because it offers hope that our loved ones who die with imperfection aren’t forever excluded from heaven” (A Joyful Truth). He sees purgatory as good news for those who worry about loved ones who died in imperfect spiritual states.

He also stresses how purgatory motivates holy living: “The doctrine of purgatory inspires us to pursue holiness… Whether someone is perfectly motivated by love and desires to be immediately with the Lord upon death or someone is less motivated by love and more by the fear of intense purgatorial sufferings, the doctrine of purgatory can serve to motivate us to do what we can in this life to purge ourselves” (A Joyful Truth: The Pursuit of Holiness).

Walls focuses more on the philosophical coherence that purgatory brings to Christian theology. Without it, we’re left with the dilemma of how unholy people become holy enough for heaven. He sees purgatory as solving this dilemma in a way that respects both divine grace and human freedom.

From a pastoral perspective, I find both approaches helpful but incomplete. Broussard’s emphasis on consolation is important, but it can become problematic if it leads to presumption or to treating purgatory as a safety net that makes holiness less urgent. Walls’ philosophical approach is intellectually satisfying but may not provide sufficient pastoral guidance for everyday Christian living.

The Challenge to Protestant Theology

Walls’ work represents a significant challenge to traditional Protestant theology, particularly Reformed theology. His argument that sanctification requires free cooperation even after death challenges several Protestant assumptions:

1. The sufficiency of justification: Traditional Protestant theology has emphasized that justification (being declared righteous) is sufficient for salvation. Walls argues that sanctification (becoming actually righteous) is also necessary.

2. The nature of divine sovereignty: Reformed theology emphasizes God’s sovereign control over salvation. Walls’ emphasis on necessary human cooperation challenges monergistic (God-alone-works) understandings of salvation.

3. The completeness of Christ’s work: Protestants have traditionally emphasized that Christ’s work is complete and sufficient. While Walls affirms this, his model suggests that Christ’s work must be appropriated through a process that may extend beyond death.

These challenges have not gone unnoticed in Protestant circles. Some Reformed theologians have pushed back against Walls’ arguments, insisting that God can and does perfect believers instantly at death without compromising their identity or freedom. Others have been more receptive, seeing Walls as recovering an important emphasis on holiness that has been neglected in some Protestant traditions.

The Contemporary Context

Both books must be understood in the context of contemporary Christianity’s struggles with questions of salvation, holiness, and the afterlife. Several factors make their discussion particularly relevant:

1. Declining belief in hell: As fewer Christians affirm traditional doctrines of eternal punishment, questions about gradations of afterlife states become more pressing.

2. Emphasis on God’s love: Contemporary theology’s emphasis on divine love makes harsh views of instant judgment problematic and postmortem purification more attractive.

3. Psychological insights: Modern psychology’s understanding of how slowly people change makes instant perfection at death seem less plausible.

4. Ecumenical dialogue: As Christians seek unity across denominational lines, finding common ground on disputed doctrines becomes more important.

5. Near-death experiences: Popular accounts of near-death experiences often include elements suggestive of purification or life review, making purgatory more culturally plausible.

Part X: Responding to Common Objections

Both authors address numerous objections to purgatory, though from different angles. Let’s examine how they handle the most common criticisms:

Objection 1: “Purgatory Denies the Sufficiency of Christ’s Atonement”

This is perhaps the most serious Protestant objection. If Christ paid the full penalty for our sins, why do we need purgatory?

Broussard’s Response: He argues that the Catholic Church fully affirms the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. He quotes the Catechism: “Christ, as the New Adam, ‘makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience of Adam'” (CCC 411). The issue isn’t the sufficiency of Christ’s work but how it’s applied. Christ chose to involve us in our own redemption, allowing us to “complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Colossians 1:24) – not because his work was insufficient, but because he graciously allows us to participate.

He explains: “Christ wills that we participate in his atoning work, at least with regard to discharging the debt of temporal punishment due for sin. And by voluntarily embracing our suffering for the sake of discharging our debts of temporal punishment, we imitate Christ, who voluntarily embraced suffering to make satisfaction for the debt of sin” (Chapter 3).

Walls’ Response: Walls sidesteps this objection by rejecting the satisfaction model entirely. In his sanctification model, purgatory isn’t about paying any debt or satisfying justice – it’s simply about completing the transformation that salvation initiates. Christ’s atonement makes this transformation possible, but doesn’t eliminate the need for our cooperation in becoming holy.

As a Protestant, I find Walls’ response more satisfying. The satisfaction model, even in Broussard’s nuanced presentation, seems to make Christ’s work incomplete in a troubling way.

Objection 2: “The Bible Promises Immediate Presence with the Lord”

Passages like 2 Corinthians 5:8 (“away from the body and at home with the Lord”) and Philippians 1:23 (“to depart and be with Christ”) seem to promise immediate heavenly bliss.

Broussard’s Response: He carefully analyzes these passages, arguing that they don’t necessarily exclude purgatory. Regarding 2 Corinthians 5:8, he notes: “Paul doesn’t say ‘to be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord.’ Paul simply says, ‘While we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord’ and that ‘we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord'” (Chapter 7). The desire to be with the Lord doesn’t mean there’s no intermediate purification.

Regarding Philippians 1:23, he argues: “The conceptual unity that the two concepts have (departure from this life and union with Christ) doesn’t mean they must be simultaneous in time” (Chapter 7).

Walls’ Response: Walls similarly argues that these passages express Paul’s desire and ultimate destination without giving a detailed timeline. He also notes that even if union with Christ begins immediately, this doesn’t preclude a process of purification in Christ’s presence.

Objection 3: “The Thief on the Cross Went Straight to Paradise”

Jesus told the repentant thief, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43), suggesting no purgatory.

Broussard’s Response: He offers several possibilities: (1) “Paradise” might refer to the “dwelling place of the righteous dead,” not heaven itself; (2) The thief might have been completely purified through his suffering and perfect contrition; (3) The duration of purgatory isn’t measured by earthly time, so purification could occur and he could still enter paradise “today” in a meaningful sense.

Walls’ Response: Walls suggests the thief might have been fully sanctified through his repentance and suffering, making purgatory unnecessary in his case. This doesn’t mean purgatory is unnecessary for everyone.

Objection 4: “Purgatory Is a Medieval Invention”

Critics argue that purgatory wasn’t taught in the early church but developed in the Middle Ages.

Broussard’s Response: He provides extensive evidence from the Church Fathers showing that prayers for the dead and belief in postmortem purification date to the earliest centuries. While the detailed medieval system may be later, the essential doctrine is ancient. He quotes numerous early sources, including Tertullian (c. 200 AD): “That allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:25-26]… is extremely clear and simple in its meaning… he deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of Hades, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection” (Chapter 8).

Walls’ Response: Walls acknowledges that the specific Catholic doctrine developed over time, but argues that this doesn’t invalidate the general concept. Many doctrines, including the Trinity, developed gradually. The question isn’t whether the full doctrine was present from the beginning, but whether it’s a legitimate development from biblical principles.

Objection 5: “Hebrews Says We Die Once, Then Judgment”

Hebrews 9:27 states: “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment,” which seems to exclude purgatory.

Broussard’s Response: This verse affirms that judgment comes after death, which Catholics fully accept. Purgatory is part of that judgment – it’s the state of those judged worthy of heaven but needing purification. The verse doesn’t say judgment is the only thing that happens after death or that nothing can happen between death and final glory.

Walls’ Response: Walls notes that this verse is about the finality of death and the certainty of judgment, not about the precise sequence of afterlife events. Purgatory doesn’t contradict this verse any more than the particular judgment contradicts the final judgment.

Conclusion: Toward a Protestant Appreciation of Purgatory

After carefully examining both Walls’ and Broussard’s arguments, I find myself convinced that Protestants should seriously reconsider our traditional rejection of purgatory – though not necessarily in its full Catholic form. The sanctification model that Walls proposes offers a theologically coherent and biblically defensible understanding of how we become holy enough for heaven.

The strength of Walls’ approach lies in its philosophical rigor and its respect for both divine grace and human freedom. He shows convincingly that the traditional Protestant alternative – instant perfection at death – faces serious difficulties. If God can perfect us instantly without our cooperation, why doesn’t he do so now? And if holiness requires our cooperation in this life, why wouldn’t it require our cooperation if the process continues after death?

Broussard’s book, while representing a different theological tradition, actually reinforces many of Walls’ points. His extensive biblical argumentation, while not all equally convincing from a Protestant perspective, demonstrates that the concept of postmortem purification has more scriptural support than many Protestants realize. His treatment of early Church history also shows that prayers for the dead and belief in purification were not medieval innovations but ancient Christian practices.

However, I remain unconvinced by the satisfaction model’s emphasis on temporal punishment and debt payment. This seems to compromise the completeness of Christ’s atonement and to reintroduce a form of works-righteousness that the Reformation rightly rejected. The idea that we must pay part of the penalty for our sins, even if that payment is enabled by grace, sits uncomfortably with the Protestant emphasis on salvation by grace alone.

The practical implications of accepting a Protestant version of purgatory would be significant but not revolutionary. We would need to:

• Take sanctification more seriously as necessary for our ultimate salvation
• Recognize that the process of becoming holy may extend beyond this life
• Be more humble about the state of departed believers, recognizing they may still be undergoing transformation
• Possibly reconsider our stance on prayers for the dead, at least as expressions of love and hope

At the same time, we could maintain core Protestant convictions:

• Salvation is by grace through faith, not works
• Christ’s atonement is complete and sufficient
• Scripture is our final authority for doctrine
• We have assurance of ultimate salvation through faith in Christ

The conversation between Protestant and Catholic perspectives on purgatory reveals both the continuing divisions within Christianity and the potential for greater understanding. While we may never agree on all the details, we can perhaps agree on the essentials: that God is committed to making us holy, that this process requires our cooperation, and that God’s purifying love will complete what it has begun, whether in this life or the next.

As C.S. Lewis beautifully expressed it, and as both authors quote: “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 cleaned first.'”

In the end, whether Protestant or Catholic, we all long for that complete cleansing that will make us fit for the presence of our holy God. The doctrine of purgatory, especially in its sanctification form, speaks to that universal Christian longing. It reminds us that God’s work in us is not finished at conversion or even at death, but continues until we are fully conformed to the image of Christ. That is indeed good news – a joyful truth that both traditions, in their own ways, affirm.

© 2025, LearnTheology.com. All rights reserved.