Are Indulgences Biblical?

If you would like a free newsletter on this or other subjects, just give us a call at Christian Answers. The phone number is area code 512 -218 -8022. That's 512 -218 -8022. Or you could email us at cdebater at aol .com.

That's cdebater at aol .com.

Debate Introduction and Speaker Credentials

Welcome. My name is Mark Gunning, and I am the moderator for today's debate. I think you will find this exchange to be very interesting and very important, for it touches upon the vital issue of how man is made right before God.

The thesis for today's debate is the Catholic doctrine of indulgences is compatible with the biblical teachings of justification and sanctification. Defending this position will be Dr. Fastigi. Denying this position will be James White.

Allow me to briefly introduce our speakers. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. James holds a bachelor's degree in Bible and a minor in Koine Greek from Grand Canyon University, and a master's degree in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary.

He is the author of seven books, including works on Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the translation and text of the Bible, and Christian theology. He has had the privilege of serving as professor of church history and an instructor in biblical Greek.

He is an ordained Baptist minister and has engaged in scholarly debates with Roman Catholic apologists all across the United States. Dr. Robert Fastigi holds a Ph .D. in theology from Fordham University in New York.

He is an associate professor of religious studies at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas, where he has taught since 1985. Dr. Fastigi and his wife, Kathy, have two children and are expecting their third.

Our debate today will be strictly timed and organized so as to ensure fairness. Both speakers will give 14-minute opening statements, Mr. White going first as he is defending the thesis, Dr. Fastigi going first as he is defending the thesis.

After the 14-minute statements, we will have four-minute rebuttals, then we will have a period of question and answer, again, timed and controlled, which will be followed by five-minute closing statements.

I hope you will listen closely as both of our participants have spent much time preparing to provide you with the best their position has to offer. With that, let us begin with Dr. Fastigi, your 14-minute opening statement, please.

Catholic Definition of Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit

Well, it's my honor to be here, and I really am happy to be able to defend the Catholic teaching about indulgences because this is a subject that is often misunderstood, and it is often misdefined. So I think we first have to begin with understanding what is meant by an indulgence according to the Catholic Church.

First of all, let's go into the Latin root of this word. The word indulgence comes from the Latin word indulgere, which means to show tenderness. Now, I think this is very important because we're talking about the way in which the Church, as the body of Christ, shows tenderness toward sinners.

And I would just ask you to think about this. There's nothing unbiblical about showing tenderness. In fact, it's commanded by Christ. In any case, how does the Church officially define an indulgence? I'm going to be referring to the Handbook of Indulgences, the norms and grants, which came out in 1968, and in the appendix to that there is Pope Paul VI's Constitution on Indulgences, Indulgentiarum Doctrina of 1967.

So these are my sources. But an indulgence is the remission in the eyes of God of the temporal punishment due to sins, whose culpable element has already been taken away. The Christian faithful who are rightly disposed and observe the definite prescribed conditions gain this remission through the effective assistance of the Church, which, as the minister of redemption, authoritatively distributes and applies the treasury of the expiatory works of Christ and the saints.

Now, in terms of this, we must make a very, very, very important distinction because many Protestants and even some Catholics do not make this distinction. An indulgence has to do with sanctification.

It has nothing to do with justification as understood in the classical Protestant sense because the definition itself says that the culpable element has already been taken away. And an indulgence, therefore, is dealing with, now, how does a person become totally purified?

Because sin has an effect that is not only eternal but also temporal. So this is a very important point, that indulgences do not merit the grace of justification. No indulgence can get a person into heaven.

A person could only get into heaven through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is what the Council of Trent teaches. This is what the New Catechism teaches. And many people have misunderstandings about this.

Furthermore, indulgences always rely on divine grace. Only those in the state of grace can receive an indulgence. And only saints who are, by definition, are in the state of grace can apply their sacrifices, their prayers, their merits to the treasury of the church and the heavenly treasury, the treasury of Christ and the saints, which is really the treasury of Christ because the saints are part of his body.

Scriptural Foundations for Purification, the Cross, and the Body of Christ

Now, indulgences are rooted in the biblical teaching, as I'm going to demonstrate to you. Indulgences, first of all, are rooted in the biblical teaching on the need for ongoing purification in the imitation of Christ.

Now, this is very important because our Lord, in the Gospel of Mark, when he's talking about what is a true disciple, what are the requirements for discipleship, he makes it very clear that discipleship entails the cross.

Jesus summoned them, summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. This same phrase is repeated in Matthew 10, Matthew 16, Luke 14.

Now, another important point is to link the carrying of the cross of Christ to our purification, our purification. Revelation 21, 27 tells us that nothing unclean could enter the kingdom of heaven. This goes back to Matthew 5, 8, where Jesus tells us, Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.

And then St. Paul is a very, very important factor in this understanding of the need for ongoing purification. In Ephesians chapter 5, verse 1, and listen carefully to this. He says, So be imitators of God as beloved children and live in love as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma.

Now, he's asking us to imitate God as beloved children. And how do we imitate God? We imitate God by imitating Christ, who loved us. And what did Christ do? He handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God.

Paul, in other parts, talks about this notion of the imitatio Christi, as it's been called in church history, the imitation of Christ, which is very, very important. First Corinthians 11, 1, he says, Be imitators of me as I am of Christ.

And then in 2 Corinthians 4, verses 10 and following, he talks about how we carry about in our bodies the dying of Jesus. He says, We are always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus.

Why?

So that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being given up to death for the sake of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

And then I think the key passage here to understand is Colossians 1 .24. We carry about in our bodies the dying of Jesus. We are meant to imitate God by love, and Christ provides the example by being a sacrifice.

We're called upon to carry our cross by Christ himself. And then Paul, in this magnificent passage in Colossians, a very important passage for understanding indulgences, tells us, Colossians 1 .24. Listen carefully.

The apostle says, Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ. On behalf of his body, which is the church, of which I am a minister in accordance with God's stewardship, given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past.

Now, this is a very delicate passage because someone might immediately say, Whoa, whoa, Paul is saying I am filling up in my sufferings what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ? What possibly could be lacking in the sufferings of Christ?

Well, the present Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, gave us an insight into this passage, which I think is quite profound. He says, In regard to the redemption of Christ, this good in itself is inexhaustible and infinite.

No man can add anything to it. But at the same time, in the mystery of the church as his body, Christ has, in a sense, opened his own redemptive suffering to all human suffering. In so far as man becomes a sharer in Christ's sufferings, in any part of the world and at any time in history, to that extent he, in his own way, completes the suffering of Christ through which Christ accomplished the redemption of the world.

Does this mean that the redemption achieved by Christ is not complete? No. It only means that the redemption accomplished through satisfactory love remains always open to all love expressed in human suffering.

In this dimension, the dimension of love, the redemption which has already been completely accomplished is, in a certain sense, constantly being accomplished. Christ achieved the redemption completely to the very limit, but at the same time he did not bring it to a close.

In this redemptive suffering through which the redemption of the world was accomplished, Christ opened himself from the beginning to every human suffering and constantly does so. So Christ opened himself up.

He, in terms of the ongoing realization of sanctification, we, as Paul, can open up our suffering to the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, the Church. Now, none of this has to do with earning justification.

It has to do now with completing the work which is that of sanctification and purification. That's why I stressed, you know, blessed are the clean of heart and nothing unclean can enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Body of Christ, Intercession, and Temporal Punishment for Sin

Now, another point very important. Our sharing in the life of Christ is something communal because we are members of the body of Christ. Romans 12, 4, 5, Ephesians 2, 16, Colossians 3, 15 all use this image of the body of Christ, but a very important part is 1 Corinthians 12, 26 where the Apostle Paul says, If one part of the body suffers, all the parts suffer with it.

If one part is honored, the entire body is honored. The grace of Christ works through us as members of his mystical body. Now, we cannot merit by anything we do the grace of justification, but it is God's choice to bring us into the body of Christ so that we, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3, 9, can be God's co-workers.

Or as he says, we are ambassadors of Christ for Christ as if it were God appealing through us. Now, how does this work? Well, there are prayers of intercession. Our prayers somehow can help people. As James 5, 16 says that, My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from the death and will cover a multitude of sins.

And this is repeated in 1 Peter 4, 8. So we're setting now the building blocks upon which the church's doctrine of indulgences is based. Now, since we're short of time, I'll just quickly go through a number of points.

Indulgences are also rooted in the biblical teaching on the temporal punishment due to sin. For example, 2 Samuel 2, 13 -14, the prophet Nathan tells David that his sin of adultery is forgiven, but there's still a punishment, namely the death of the son or the death of the child conceived in that punishment.

And then also Solomon has his many, many sins because his foreign wives cause him to make idols. So he has to bear a punishment from that even after he's told that he's been pardoned. Or in the book of Numbers, because of the sins of the Israelites, they are forgiven.

It says very clearly they are pardoned, but they will be deprived of seeing the promised land. And the same thing is said to Moses, Numbers 20, verse 12. So a sin can be forgiven, but there could still be some kind of punishment attached to it.

Now, in terms of this, indulgences then are rooted in the biblical teaching on the fact that we can participate in our own purification and that we could draw upon the spiritual benefits of others as Paul was able to link his sufferings to the sake of the body, the church, so the saints down through the centuries have been able to link their sacrifices, their sufferings, and so on, in the mystical body of Christ.

And the church now, in Matthew 16, 19, has the keys to this treasure to apply them to the faithful for their spiritual benefit. There's much more to be said, but I think I've touched on the basis.

James, your opening statement, please.

The Absence of Indulgences from Scripture and Early Christianity

Thank you very much. In concluding his review of the medieval doctrine of indulgences, Dr. Philip Schaff wrote,. The traffic in ecclesiastical places and the forgiveness of sins constitutes the very last scene of medieval church history.

On the eve of the Reformation, we have the spectacle of the Pope solemnly renewing the claim to have rule over both spheres, civil and ecclesiastical, and to hold in his hand the salvation of all mankind, yea, and actually supporting the extravagant luxuries of his worldly court with monies drawn from the trade in sacred things.

How deep-seated the pernicious principle had become was made manifest in the bowl which Leo issues, November 9, 1518, a full year after the nailing of the theses in the church door at Wittenberg, in which all were threatened with excommunication who failed to preach and believe that the Pope had the right to grant indulgences.

End quote. Now the castle church at Wittenberg was known for its relics and the indulgences attached to them. Included in these relics were three pieces of the city where the Virgin Mary was born, four pieces of her belt, two pieces of the veil of Mary which was sprinkled with the blood of Christ under the cross, two pieces of the earth of the grave of Mary, one piece of Jesus' diaper, one piece of the cradle, one piece of straw in which Jesus lay when he was born, and two pieces of the Mount of Olives.

An indulgence of 100 days was granted for each piece and there were 5 ,005 pieces in the collection. Such collections were to be found all through Europe. I believe that no Roman Catholic doctrine more clearly illustrates the difference between the biblical teaching on salvation and the Roman concept than the doctrine of indulgences.

The thesis statement of our debate is this, the Catholic doctrine of indulgences is compatible with the biblical teachings of justification and sanctification. I will demonstrate that the doctrine of indulgences is incompatible with the biblical teachings of justification and sanctification in the following ways.

I will demonstrate that the doctrine of indulgences is utterly absent from the inspired scriptures, those divine writings in which we have been given everything pertaining to life and godliness, 2 Peter 1 .3.

I will demonstrate that the doctrine of indulgences was utterly unknown by the early Christians and the early fathers of the Christian faith. Further, I will demonstrate that the doctrine of indulgences and its related doctrines stand contrary to the teachings of the Bible relating to sin, grace, faith, justification, and sanctification.

And finally, I will demonstrate that the doctrine of indulgences arises from a false gospel and a false hope. It is the fruit of a system that long ago abandoned the truth that is contained in the holy scriptures.

Let us first hear briefly what Rome says of indulgences today. For most Bible-believing Christians, I honestly believe just hearing the claims of Rome is sufficient to demonstrate the incompatibility of the gospel with this doctrine.

I quote from Indulgentiarum Doctrina, the Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, a post-Vatican II document dated January 1, 1967. We first note that the Roman Church admits disbelief in indulgences developed over time.

One might get a different impression at first, since the document makes claims such as the following, quote, they would appear to be solidly founded on divine revelation handed down from the apostles, end quote.

But the document is careful to avoid saying that the doctrine itself is ancient. Rather, it is based, allegedly, upon other beliefs that are allegedly ancient. So we are told that if, quote, we wish to understand exactly the doctrine of indulgences and its benefits in practice, we must remember truths which the whole Church, enlightened by God's word, has always believed, end quote.

Specifically, the document identifies these alleged truths as the belief in purgatory and the expiation of sins therein, the concept of penitential expiation, and the belief in the thesaurus meritorum, that is, the treasury of merit.

Now listen carefully to some quotations of this document. First note the concept of sin that underlies the doctrine of indulgences, quote, sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries, and trials of this life, and, above all, through death.

Otherwise, the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments. The reasons for their imposition are that our souls need to be purified, end quote. Interestingly, the only mention of Jesus Christ in the section entitled sins must be expiated is with reference to the love of God shown to us in Christ, not to his atoning or expiating work on behalf of his people.

Purgatory comes into discussion in these words, quote, the doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed.

They often are. In fact, in purgatory, the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repented but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt, end quote.

Later in this document, we read of, quote, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory, end quote. I pause only long enough to note that this refers to the concept of sadispatio, wherein the person undergoes the suffering of atonement which is meritorious in God's sight, a concept that I hope I only need mention is utterly foreign to the Christian concept of salvation.

When we read these words with reference to the saints, we must listen carefully, quote, they have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others, end quote. With reference to the treasury of merit, we read, quote, on the contrary, the treasury of the church is the infinite value which can never be exhausted, which Christ merits have before God.

This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them.

In this way, they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the mystical body, end quote. It should not be forgotten that Rome claims the treasury of merit from which these indulgences allegedly are derived is under the control of the Roman hierarchy.

The document plainly states, quote, in addition, we ought not to forget that when they try to gain indulgences, the faithful submit with docility to the lawful pastors of the church. Above all, they acknowledge the authority of the successor of blessed Peter, the key bearer of heaven, end quote.

Further, we note that the document lays great weight upon the value of indulgences and even goes so far as to say, quote, the beneficial institution of indulgences therefore does its part in bringing it about that the church might be presented to Christ without spot or wrinkle but holy and without blemish, excellently united with Christ in the supernatural bond of charity, end quote.

Here, the very purification of the church herself is connected with the practice of indulgences. The document goes on to establish rules whereby these indulgences can be gained, which include such items as this, quote, a plenary indulgence applicable only to the dead can be gained in all churches in public oratories and in semi-public oratories by those who have the right to use them on November 2nd, end quote.

Here, we have the very grace of God doled out bit by bit on particular days and through particular works of man. Thus, we have the doctrine of indulgences as it is still taught and practiced by Rome today.

Now, I must admit, it is hard to approach the doctrine of indulgences from the Bible. For the very same reason, it is hard to approach the topic of the Book of Mormon on the basis of the scripture alone.

Neither indulgences nor the Book of Mormon ever crossed the minds of the inspired writers and hence, they did not address such things. Of course, we do not find anywhere in scripture nor in the writings of the early fathers any mention of a belief in indulgences or a knowledge of their existence.

Indeed, the scriptures and the writings of the early fathers give us no hint of the concept of supererogation, the treasury of merit, or obviously, therefore, indulgences. The concept of purgatory is likewise missing in scripture, all efforts at reading it into various passages such as Matthew 12 and 1 Corinthians 3 notwithstanding.

And as William Babcock noted in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, the Latin noun purgatorium did not occur before the 12th century, nor does the idea itself in its full endogmatic form and then only in Latin or Western Christianity.

One will search in vain for the first volume of Quastin's Petrology for a reference to purgatory and the second volume provides us with only one reference and that to Tertullian's discussion not of purgatory but of purification.

Now, there were statements about purgatory by others, but even Augustine in his City of God said that the doctrine of purgatory is a matter that may be inquired into or left doubtful, hardly something that one would consider to be an apostolic tradition.

Hence, Dr. Fastigi finds himself defending a concept that, like the bodily assumption of Mary and the concept of papal infallibility, is a doctrine that has no basis in scripture and no basis in anything that can even remotely or honestly be called apostolic tradition.

Justification, Propitiation, and the Sufficiency of Christ's Work

But most importantly, we find the doctrine of indulgences and its related concepts of merit, supererogation, expiation of sins by suffering, etc., stands firmly against the gospel of God's free grace in Christ.

We read in chapter 5 of Paul's epistle to the Romans, verses 8 -11, that God demonstrates His own love toward us and that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more than having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

For if while we were sinners we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

This passage says that we are justified by His blood, not by anyone or anything else. It says that we are saved from the wrath of God through Him, not through Mary, saints, or our own sufferings. And if you don't want to identify the sufferings in purgatory as having anything to do with the wrath of God, what do they have to do with?

Oh, well, they're just for purification. Well, what is the punishment of sin if it has something to do with purification? We are said to have been reconciled already, not in the process of being reconciled.

Indulgences have no meaning in a relationship that has been reconciled. If we are already reconciled with God, why do we need to have transfers of merit from a treasury of merit into our lives? We have received the reconciliation in one, that is, in Jesus Christ and in Him alone.

Romans 3 .25 says that God displayed Jesus Christ publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. Where do we ever hear of our making expiation for sins, of our having propitiatory power? Propitiation is a stronger term than merely expiation, which is used in the Roman Catholic document.

Expiation speaks of the forgiveness of sins, while propitiation speaks of that as well as the turning away of God's wrath. Hence the believer is reconciled, for no punishments remain. He has peace, for the relationship is made whole and made right.

Hebrews 2 .17 says, I have to ask the question, did He? Or didn't He? If He has made propitiation for the sins of the people, why do I need indulgences, merit, or sadaspatio? Hebrews 7 .24 through 25 says,.

If Christ is able to save the uttermost, those who come unto God by Him, how can it be said that I must make expiation for my own sins, both on earth as well as in purgatory? And how can the intercession of other people somehow add to the work of Christ in my place?

Hebrews 10 .14 says,. Perfected for all time, yet still needing to expiate sins, endure punishments, and undergo sadaspatio, making indulgences helpful or necessary? No. Now someone will say, but doesn't the Bible speak of God chastening His children?

Yes, it does. Hebrews 12 .6 -8. Does this passage and others like it teach us that God is punishing our sins, leveling legal punishments against us? Are we to believe, as we read in Indulgentiarum Doctrina, Is it God's holiness and justice that brings the chastening of Hebrews 12?

Or is it His love and fatherhood? You see, the difference between Rome and the Bible is just this. While Rome teaches its followers that God's justice and holiness is bringing judgment to bear upon their sins, the Bible teaches that God's justice and holiness brought judgment upon Jesus Christ in the place of sinners.

The chastening that believers experience is not demanded by justice, as justice was fully satisfied in the perfect substitute, Jesus Christ. God chastens us as a father, conforming us to the image of Christ, of His beloved Son, not as a judge, exacting justice from us.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ presents a perfect, all-sufficient Savior, who endured the wrath of God in the place of His people. To Him all glory, honor, and praise is due, for He alone is Savior. Indulgences detract, and hence blaspheme the honor and glory of the Savior Jesus Christ, and hence must be repudiated by any person whose heart burns with love for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you.

First Rebuttal: Catholic Clarification on Justification and Purgatory

You have four minutes, Dr. Steege.

Well, I'm very sorry that my warning at the beginning of my presentation was not heeded. I specifically said that indulgences have nothing, nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with justification understood in the sense of earning the grace of justification, or earning our salvation.

It has nothing to do with that, and yet within my opponent's presentation he was continually making references to saving ourselves and so forth. I find that this is then simply a case of his deliberate attempt to misrepresent the position.

Now, so many things he said were historically inaccurate, it would take me so long to go through all of them. He says the East never had a notion of catharsis or purgatory. Well, the word purgatory in ancient Greek literature was catharsis.

Read St. Gregory of Nyssa's treatise on death. There he gives one of the strongest teachings on purgatory. As for St. Augustine, you misrepresent what he says. St. Augustine now quoting what he says really in the City of God, he distinguishes between the punishments on earth with the eternal punishment, but quote St. Augustine says, some suffer temporal punishment only in this life, others only after death.

Still others both in life and after death. So he clearly supported purgatory in spite of what my opponent tries to say. Then he starts to go on to this whole thing about doctrinal development, you know, that it wasn't there.

It was there in the concept of the fact.

That.

The good works we do, the prayers, the sacrifices we do, can be beneficial to members in the mystical body of Christ. See, I'll just read to you from St. Clement of Alexandria. It says, St. John the Apostle urges a young thief to repentance exclaiming, I will be responsible to Christ for you.

If necessary, I will gladly undergo your death, even as the Lord took on death for our sake. I will give my life as the substitute for yours. Or St. Cyprian says, we believe that the merits of the martyrs and the words of the just have great power before the judge.

But at the coming of the judgment day, when at the end of the present world, Christ's people will stand before his throne. Whatever the martyrs have entreated and the priests have done for them, can bring merciful forgiveness and be favorable on behalf of those who repent, work, and plead.

So the basis of the notion that our sacrifices and prayers can be of spiritual benefit to those in the mystical body of Christ has been there from the beginning. It's there in Paul's letter to the Colossians 124, which my opponent just simply chose to ignore.

Now, in terms of this expiation, we must make a distinction between the expiation of the eternal guilt and the expiation of the temporal punishment. Now, here's the key. Is there such a reality as temporal punishment?

Well, I'd like to point to a source that I don't normally point to, namely the Westminster Confession of Faith. But here, it's implied within the Westminster Confession of Faith, temporal punishment. Chapter 11, section 5.

He says, God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.

Now, what kind of punishment is this? Going from their understanding of justification, taking away all sin, here there seems to be this added punishment of falling out of God's pleasure and not having the light of his countenance.

Well, if it's not eternal punishment,.

It's temporal punishment. Is that it?

First Rebuttal Response: Justification and Colossians 1:24

Okay.

First of all, Dr. Vestigi says that I made a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the Roman Catholic position, but I think the person watching the debate knows that one of us read a lot of Indulgentiarum Doctrina, and one of us didn't, and I'm the one that was reading most of it.

Secondly, he said, I repeated that indulgences have nothing to do with justification. I wrote that down. It has nothing to do with justification in the classical Protestant sense, to which I then said, if indulgences expiate sin and if indulgences purify souls by the transfer of merit to an individual, they obviously have to do with the biblical doctrine of justification.

For as Paul says in Romans chapter 8, when he talks about the elect people of God, he says who's going to lay a charge against their account? Who's going to bring condemnation against them? It's Jesus Christ who justifies them.

So to simply attempt to define out of existence the idea that indulgences have nothing to do with justification is to again ignore the biblical teaching of what justification is. And that justification involves the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, which makes this whole idea of undergoing satispassio in purgatory and needing merits transferred from a mythical treasury of merit utterly and completely unnecessary and contradictory to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now, Dr. Vestigi then grossly misrepresented me while accusing me of having misrepresented the early church. If anyone would take the time to listen to the tape, I said that the fully developed dogmatic doctrine of purgatory did not appear in the West.

He changed that to the idea of catharsis. Now, that's a little bit of a debating trick. It's not what I said, and hence it's a misrepresentation. Maybe he just didn't understand what I was saying. I don't know.

But I didn't say that the idea of catharsis wasn't there. I said that the fully developed dogmatic teaching of purgatory did not enter into Eastern Christianity as it did into Western or Latin Christianity.

Then Dr. Vestigi said, well, you ignored Colossians 1 .24. Patience, Dr. Vestigi. We only have a small amount of time. Certainly, I'm well aware of the fact that the only passage of Scripture to which you can ever appeal is Colossians 1 .24.

But there are numerous problems. I would refer anyone to Dr. Lightfoot's discussion of Colossians 1 .24 where he goes into depth dealing with the issues about this issue, and I don't have time to read all of it.

But I'll just point out a couple of things. First of all, the term that is used when it describes the Lord Jesus Christ and His sufferings is the term flipsaone. It is not the term the sufferings of His cross, the sufferings of His death.

It is not the term that is normally even translated sufferings in that sense. It is a unique usage in regards to Paul. As Dr. Lightfoot points out, it is a gross misuse of this passage to attempt to read into this any type of expiation or satisfaction.

I'll read his own words. Thus the idea of expiation or satisfaction is wholly absent from this passage. Romanist commentators have found this passage an assertion of the merits of the saints and as a necessary consequence of the doctrine of indulgences.

They have not observed that if the idea of vicarious satisfaction comes into the passage at all, the satisfaction of St. Paul is represented here as the same kind with the satisfaction of Christ. However different it may be in degree.

It is sufficient to say that, so far as regards this particular passage, the Roman doctrine can only be imported into it at the cost of a contradiction to the Pauline doctrine.". What did Dr. Lightfoot demonstrate prior to this?

That the sufferings of Christ which are being referred to here are not the redemptive sufferings of Christ, which I even underlined redemptive suffering in the papal decree, the papal letter that Dr. Vestigi read.