Audio only:
If Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is fully sufficient, does purgatory contradict it—or reveal how its power is applied? In this episode, Karlo Broussard breaks down the “ultimate insult” objection and show how Scripture and theology point to purgatory as participation in Christ’s work, not a denial of it.
TRANSCRIPT:
If Jesus’ death on the cross was sufficient to take away all sin, then why would anyone need to suffer after death, like in purgatory? Wouldn’t purgatory be an insult to what Jesus already accomplished?
Many Protestants think it would! But is that true? In today’s episode, I’m going to share my thoughts as to why I think it’s not.
Hey guys, Welcome back to the channel! So glad to have you with me. If you haven’t done so already, don’t forget to subscribe to the channel and hit that bell notification so you can be notified when new videos are released. Also, I’d like to invite you to consider helping keep this podcast going by financially supporting us on Patreon at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.
As I mentioned, many Protestants make this objection that purgatory is an insult to what Jesus did on the cross. But for the sake of simplicity, I’m going to stick with two: the late Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie.
In their book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, they put it bluntly on page 338: purgatory “denies the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death.” They even call it “the ultimate insult” to the cross.
For support, they quote verses like John 19:30—“It is finished”—and Hebrews 10:14—“By one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”
Now, it’s a bit unclear as to precisely what they mean by “sufficiency.” And whatever they mean by it will determine how we respond.
Let’s consider two possible meanings.
If by “sufficient” they mean that Christ’s death is powerful enough to atone for every sin—past, present, and future—without our suffering, then we wholeheartedly agree.
The Church has always taught that.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 411 that Christ, as the New Adam, “makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience of Adam.” Aquinas, in the third part of his Summa Theologiae, question 48, article 2, says Christ’s Passion
[PHONE READ]
“gave more to God than was to compensate for the offense of the whole human race,” and that “Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race.”
So yes—Christ’s death is powerful enough to remit every debt of punishment for sin—past, present, and future—without our suffering. He doesn’t need our suffering to atone for sin.But we believe that God, in His wisdom, has chosen to apply the graces of the cross in stages—through baptism, repentance, penance, and sometimes, through purgatory.
In baptism, all guilt of sin and punishment—eternal and temporal—are completely wiped away, without any suffering on our part. The Catechism teaches as much in paragraph 1263:
[PHONE READ]
By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
But for sins committed after baptism, we believe God wills a different order. The debt of eternal punishment is remitted when a believer shares in Christ’s Passion through repentance.
The debt of temporal punishment, on the other hand, is remitted when a believer shares in Christ’s Passion through suffering united with Him.
Again, not because God needs our sufferings. Rather, because he wills for us to share in Christ’s passion in this particular way.
So purgatory isn’t about Jesus not doing enough. It’s about God willing us to participate in what Jesus has already done in a particular way.
Now, by “sufficiency” Geisler and MacKenzie seem to mean something stronger—that God wills for believers to initially participate in Christ’s passion in a way that they never incur any debt of punishment for sin—whether temporal or eternal—after being initially justified. And, consequently, believers never have to suffer to discharge that debt.
If that’s what “sufficiency” means, then yes—purgatory would contradict it.But the question becomes: Is that really how Christ willed the fruits of His death to be applied?
That’s the real issue—not whether the cross was powerful enough, but whether God intends our participation in that power to include some temporal suffering for sin after being initially justified.
So, which is it?
Did God will an order where believers incur debt of punishment for post-conversion sins and remit such debt, at least the temporal debt, by sharing in Christ’s passion through their own suffering united to Him? Or did God will an order where they don’t?
Let’s look at the biblical evidence.
Take, for example, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. There, Paul describes a man who builds on the foundation of Christ with “wood, hay, and straw.”
These bad works are burned up when they’re tested by fire, and Paul says, as a consequence, he “suffers loss,” “though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”
Notice: this person is saved—he’s a Christian.
But he suffers because of his bad works.
That’s punishment. And it’s temporal, not eternal.
Even if someone argues this passage refers to a loss of heavenly reward, which Geisler and MacKenzie do on page 336 of their book, that loss still involves suffering on account of sin—which is precisely what we mean by punishment. And, again, given that Paul’s talking about a Christian, it’s temporal punishment.
We can also look at the Greek here for some evidence that this passage carries a punitive dimension. The phrase “he will suffer loss” translates the Greek word zēmiōthēsetai—that’s the future indicative of the verb zēmioō.
According to the well-respected Greek-English Lexicon—commonly referred to as BDAG—the word zēmioō means “to be punished” (pg. 428). So there’s definitely a sense of retribution built into the term itself.
Now, zēmioō doesn’t always have to be understood in a punitive way. For example, in Philippians 3:8, Paul uses it in the sense of simply “losing something.” But even if we take it that way in 1 Corinthians 3:15, the context still points to a loss that results from bad works—and that gives it a punitive character. This is why BDAG actually cites 1 Cor. 3:15 as an example for the punitive meaning of the word.
It’s also interesting to note that in the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament—zēmioō (which corresponds to the Hebrew word anash) is often used to describe a monetary fine (like in Exodus 21:22, Deuteronomy 22:19, and Proverbs 17:26) or punishment for an evil deed (as in Proverbs 19:9, 21:11, and 22:3).
Finally, we can also see the punitive character of this passage in the fact that the individual is temporarily detained from receiving the reward of heaven because of his bad works. He has to pass “through fire” to receive his salvation.
As we mentioned earlier, deprivation of a good on account of sin is a key element of punishment. And since this deprivation is temporary—it ends once the soul is purified—it follows that this is a temporary form of punishment.
So, 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 not only points to the purification of the individual, cleansing the soul of any remaining moral defilement, but also implies a suffering that discharges the debt of temporal punishment due to venial sins.
Okay, let’s turn to a second passage where we see that God has willed an order of providence in which believers still incur a debt of temporal punishment for post conversion sins: Hebrews 12:6.
The author tells us, “The Lord disciplines him whom he loves and chastises every son whom he receives.”
That’s every believer—every “son.”
And that word “chastise,” mastigoō in Greek, literally means “to beat with a whip, or scourge” with the connotation of, in the words of BDAG, “to punish with discipline in mind” (pg. 620). BDAG actually cites Hebrews 12:6 as an example for this meaning.
Hebrews 12:5 provides further support that the chastisement spoken of in verse six is in response to wrongdoing. It reads, “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him.”
The phrase “when you are punished” translates the Greek word elenchomenos (the present passive participle of elenchō), which necessarily is tied up with the idea of fault or wrongdoing. For example, according to BDAG, the word itself means “to convict or convince,” with the implication “to bring a persont o the point of recognizing wrongdoing” (BDAG, pg. 315).
So even the justified—those who are already children of God—experience corrective suffering.
Not because Christ’s cross was insufficient, but because God wills a particular order of providence in which he treats us as sons, shaping us into Christ’s image through discipline.
This clearly shows that temporal punishment still applies even after we’ve been justified.
So, if the Bible shows that God wills believers to suffer temporally for post-conversion sins, then the “sufficiency of the cross” objection collapses.
Christ’s death remains fully sufficient—He simply chose to apply its power in a way that involves our suffering, at least for getting rid of the temporal debt of punishment for post-conversion sins.
Now, recall I said that Geisler and MacKenzie appeal to several verses—let’s briefly look at each in turn.
In John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is finished.” The same idea is communicated in John 17:4, where Jesus says to the Father, “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work which you gave me to do.”
When Jesus said, “It is finished,” or when he spoke of his work being “accomplished,” He wasn’t declaring that every application of His redemption was complete, such that the debt of punishment of all future sins is remitted for the believer. That can’t be for the reasons I’ve given already.
Rather, Jesus was declaring his redemptive work was accomplished—the sacrifice was made and consequently the human race as a whole is reunited back to God with saving grace being made available for all humans.
That doesn’t exclude a believer’s later participation in that sacrifice through repentance or purification. The fruits of Christ’s redemptive work still must be applied. And, as I’ve argued, that application takes place in different proportions at different points in the believer’s life.
Okay, another biblical passage that Geisler and MacKenzie appeal to is Hebrews 10:14, where the author writes, “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” For Geisler and MacKenzie, if believers have been “perfected” in Christ, then there is no need for purgatory.
Here, “perfected” refers not to freedom from all debt of temporal punishment for future sins, but to the destiny God has prepared for the elect—their glorification in heaven.
For the author of Hebrews, our “perfection” mirrors the “perfection” of Christ mentioned earlier in Hebrews 2:10 and 5:9. As Aquinas explains in his Commentary on Hebrews, this refers to the fruit of Christ’s glorification—specifically, the glorification of His human nature, marked by freedom from suffering and death.
In the same way, the author is likely envisioning the fruit of glorification that awaits the elect, a perfection that will be fully realized when they enter heaven. That’s why he can speak of this perfection as something already accomplished—“he has perfected”—because from God’s eternal perspective, the glorification of the elect is a reality already willed and assured.
So, it’s perfection as promise, not as present experience.
Even Paul says, “Not that I am already perfect…” (Phil. 3:12).
So again, there’s no contradiction with purgatory.
Geisler and MacKenzie also appeal to Romans 8:1, where Paul writes, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Geisler and MacKenzie argue on page 337 that this verse proves “there is nothing left for us to suffer.”
The problem here is that Geisler and MacKenzie collapse “condemnation” into any kind of suffering—whether temporal or eternal. Now, it’s true that the Greek word translated as “condemnation,” katakrima, literally means “a penalty.” According to BDAG, the sense is a “judicial pronouncement upon a guilty person” (pg. 518), which could refer to either a temporal or an eternal penalty.
But I’d argue that the kind of “condemnation” Paul is talking about here refers only to the eternal penalty, not temporal ones.
Think about how Paul uses the same word elsewhere in Romans—specifically in 5:16 and 5:18. In both places, he’s talking about the katakrima—the “condemnation”—that came upon the human race through Adam’s sin.
Now, we know from Genesis that Adam’s fall brought both eternal punishment—spiritual separation from God—and temporal punishments, like toiling by the sweat of his brow, corruption, and death.
But when we get to Romans 8:1, Paul says that there is now “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” If we take that to include temporal penalties, we’d have to conclude that believers never experience corruption or death. But clearly, they do.
So, it makes far more sense to see Paul’s “condemnation” in Romans 8:1 as referring only to the eternal penalty of sin, not the temporal ones. And if that’s the case, then this passage can’t be used to disprove purgatory—because Paul simply isn’t talking about temporal suffering at all.
So, does purgatory undermine the sufficiency of Jesus’ death on the cross?
No—it reveals how that sufficiency is applied.
Christ’s death is completely sufficient.
But in His divine plan, God invites believers to participate in Christ’s sufferings, to take up our cross daily, and, if necessary, to be purified after death before entering the glory of heaven.
That’s not an insult to the cross—it’s an imitation of it.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today! If you found this video helpful, make sure to like, subscribe, comment below, and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And for more resources, check out my website at karlobroussard.com.
If you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
Lastly, I’d love for you to consider supporting me over on Patreon. I can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support. You can find me over at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out, and I’ll see you next time!