A Free Grace Review of D. M. Panton's "The Truth on Purgatory"

Although D. M. Panton rightly decries the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory as unscriptural, he goes too far in his own interpretation—and indeed errs—when he asserts that Christians must undergo divine purging in the afterlife. What follows is a critical evaluation of Panton's thesis.¹

Panton conflates 1 Timothy 5:24 with Hebrews 9:27 simply because both passages contain the word "judgment." He argues that both refer to judgment in the afterlife, applying this to Christians specifically at the Judgment Seat of Christ (the Bema). That the Scriptures affirm a Bema Seat Judgment for believers is beyond dispute. However, Panton isolates 1 Timothy 5:24 from its immediate pastoral context—which addresses local church oversight in the present life—and misapplies it to the Bema. The foundation for his "Protestant Purgatory" framework is thus flawed from the outset; it relies on eisogesis (improper Bible interpretation) rather than exegesis, that is, deriving doctrine from a proper understanding of the text.

Furthermore, Panton misapplies Christ's words in Luke 12:47 to Church-age believers. The context of Luke 12 addresses Christ's Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation, not the Rapture of the Church.² While general principles apply across dispensations, ignoring the immediate dispensational context leads to severe theological missteps. Adherents of this non-traditional "outer darkness" or post-mortem chastisement position create an internal inconsistency within their system by superimposing Tribulation-era warning passages onto the Church, illustrating a fundamental flaw in their hermeneutic.

In his analysis of 2 Corinthians 5:10, Panton reads his thesis directly into Paul's statement that all must appear before the Bema to receive what was done in the body, "whether it be good or bad." Panton adds the commentary that "a believer's unconfessed and unabandoned sins appear there for chastisement." Yet this directly contradicts God's promise regarding the New Covenant: "their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 10:17). If this holds true for Israel, how much more for the Bride of Christ? As Paul writes, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7).

The "bad" (Greek phaulos) works in 2 Corinthians 5:10 are not unatoned sins, but worthless works evaluated in contrast to rewardable ones (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15). They represent fleshly or misdirected efforts (outwardly good works that were performed in the energy of the flesh), not sins requiring punitive retribution. At the Bema, the issue is service and rewards, not moral guilt. In ancient Greece, the Bema was the elevated platform where victorious Olympic athletes received their rewards—the exact imagery Paul draws upon. The Bema Seat of Christ is for reward, not punishment; thus, the opposite of receiving a crown is forfeiting the crown—not suffering chastisement. The believer's sin-debt was paid in full at Calvary (Jn. 19:30).

Ultimately, Panton's framework functionally treats Christ's atonement as incomplete regarding post-conversion sins. By teaching that Christ's blood merely provides the "basis" for further after-death purging through chastisement, Panton effectively compromises the finished work of Christ. Such a view stands in direct denial of Hebrews 1:3, which explicitly asserts that Christ "by Himself purged our sins" (Heb. 1:3).³ Scripturally, Christ's death is not merely necessary—it is entirely sufficient (Heb. 10:10-18). The blessed truth of Scripture is that Jesus fully bore our judicial punishment on the cross: "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed" (Isa. 53:5). To introduce a "second purging" after death diminishes the cross and misinterprets earthly pruning passages such as John 15:2, which refer to divine discipline in this life (cf. Heb. 12:5-6; Rev. 3:19), not punitive purging in the next.

ENDNOTES:

¹ D. M. Panton, "The Truth on Purgatory," The Millennial Kingdom website (originally published in The Dawn magazine, Vols. 13-14, c. 1937).

² John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH: Dunham Publishing Company, 1959), pp. 271–272.

³ Although Panton acknowledges Hebrews 1:3, he attempts to bypass its clear force by claiming that it merely provides the basis for cleansing—the necessary effect of which is that believers must ultimately purge their own sins through post-mortem suffering.