The Great Debate VI - Purgatory - Stravinskas

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated and is protected by copyright laws of the

United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated is prohibited.

I'm going to cut to the chase here tonight and I'm going to start introducing the folks who are going to be actually involved in this event tonight.

First, I'd like to introduce to you Dr. James White, the evangelical debater.

Dr. White is one of several pastors at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church in Arizona where he also serves as director of a theologically reformed apologetics organization called

Alpha and Omega Ministries. He's the author of 17 books including The Roman Catholic Controversy, Mary Another Redeemer, Answers to Catholic Claims, and The Potter's Freedom.

A New Testament Greek scholar, he also served on the translation team for the New American Standard Bible Update. Here he is, ladies and gentlemen,

Dr. James White. Now, I'd like my friend

Arnold Pilsner of Americans United for the Pope to step up. He is going to introduce to you our Roman Catholic debater,

Father Peter Stravinskas. Arnold, ladies and gentlemen, Arnold Pilsner. Thank you,

Chris. It is my pleasure this evening to welcome and introduce to you

Father Peter Stravinskas. Father Stravinskas is the founding editor of The Catholic Answer, a widely read magazine that answers questions about the

Catholic faith. Father is also the author of 21 books and more than 500 articles which explain the

Catholic faith. As an apologist, he participates in debates around the country to let people know what the church teaches and to answer their questions.

Father Stravinskas is the founder and head of Newman House, which is an association of priests who specialize in teaching at the elementary, high school, and university levels.

He likewise serves as adjunct professor of education at Seton Hall in South Orange, New Jersey.

Adjunct professor of education in classics at Holy Apostle Seminary, and adjunct professor of humanities at the

Graduate School of Drew University. Father has conducted retreats and lectured in 70 dioceses of the

United States and overseas. Father was born in Newark, New Jersey, where he attended parochial, elementary, and secondary schools and then entered the seminary in 1968, and he was ordained a priest in May of 1977.

He has taught and administered Catholic education institutions at the elementary, secondary, and university levels.

Father holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in classical languages and French from Seton Hall University, a

Master of Arts in school administration, a Master of Arts in biblical theology, a

Doctor of Philosophy in school administration, and a license of sacred theology and systematic theology.

Father is the author of many books that answer a wide variety of questions commonly asked about the

Catholic faith. Tonight, Father will speak about the church's teaching about purgatory and its biblical foundations.

I want to personally welcome and thank Dr. James White for being with us again this evening.

I thank Dr. White for all that he has done to make this debate in the past a dignified, informative, and lively exchange each year.

My final thanks to Chris Arnson for all the hard work he does each year to make the great debate a huge success.

Thank you, Chris. Now I'd like to introduce to you our moderator.

We are very privileged to have Dr. Warren Frazina of Hofstra University as our moderator.

He is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies and Acting Dean of the Honors College at Hofstra University.

He earned the PhD in theology, philosophy, and the history of religion at the University of Chicago's Divinity School.

He writes on Chinese Confucianism and American philosophy and teaches courses in Eastern religion, religion and the news media, and American philosophy.

Here he is, Dr. Warren Frazina. I would just like to let both of our debaters know that I care deeply about your safety tonight because you never know in a situation like this when you have a mixed group what kind of explosive situation you might have.

And today, serving as bodyguards for Dr. White, we have the Christian Motorcycles Association of America.

And I want to be clear to all of you that I care deeply about the safety of Father Stravinsky's as well, so we do also have a bodyguard for him.

I was just wondering, has Mother Angelica arrived yet? Don't laugh.

I saw her once throw an ornery Jehovah's Witness through a plate glass window, so believe me, she can take care of herself.

Well, I hope you're all prepared for an exciting and edifying debate. This is a very important issue we're hearing about tonight, folks, the issue of purgatory because it addresses the very nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Last week, when I opened up the debate on homosexuality, a liberal minister in the audience who may even be here tonight, let me know if you see a glowing orange dot on my forehead, but he was very upset merely because I said at the opening statements that only one side can be right at this debate tonight.

And it was totally baffling to me that he would be so upset being a liberal, that I said only one side could be correct.

And I actually responded to him in a letter and said to him, well, how much of the evangelical view that unrepentant homosexuals who do not come to Christ are damned, how much of that do you believe in?

How much of that are you willing to concede is correct? Obviously, as a liberal, he would not concede to any of that.

So this was merely obviously a smoke screen. He knew only one side in that debate could be correct.

And the thing that I feel at ease about tonight is that I know that both

Father Stravinskis and Dr. White know that this is not a gray area. Only one side of this issue can be correct.

And I ask of you all to really pray seriously as you listen to these men, and when you leave here, pray with diligence and fervency with open

Bibles about this matter, because it is indeed a serious one. And now I'd like us all to bow for a silent word of prayer before we begin.

Amen. Thank you very much. I will now turn the debate over to our moderator, Dr. Warren Frisina. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. It's good to see some of the faces from last week. It's a pleasure to be back with you again today.

As I said last week, I spend my life in universities, and the heart of universities is inquiry, and one of the best things about inquiry is when two people engage in serious and impassioned debate on important questions.

So it is a pleasure to be back. Let me remind the folks who were here last time and tell those for whom this is their first visit what our format is.

We'll begin with opening remarks. Each of our speakers will have 30 minutes. That will be followed by 15 minutes of rebuttal.

Each will, in turn, have 15 minutes to speak. We'll stand up and stretch, take a 10 -minute break after that.

Then we'll begin the cross -examination periods. There will be two cross -examinations.

The person who is doing the cross -examining will be able to ask whatever questions seems appropriate to him.

The person responding will be expected to answer the questions but not ask any new questions.

That opportunity will come when he gets the turn to ask questions. Both those sessions will go 25 minutes.

We'll take a second round of cross -examinations, again, each with 25 minutes. Then we will have final remarks, 10 minutes from Father Stravinskas and 10 minutes from Reverend White.

Oh, I'm sorry. Then there's one last step here. We didn't have this last week. There will be time for questions from the audience after that.

So I want you to be thinking about the kinds of questions you'd like to ask. Also keep in mind that when that time comes, we want you to ask questions rather than make long, extended speeches, so that our speakers can have an opportunity to respond to those issues that are so important to everybody.

Okay? My job is really easy today. I have this little mechanical timer. We set it. I don't have to do much.

They pretty much know what's going on. We just push two 5s and then two 0s.

Oh, I'm sorry, 30 minutes. That's right. The first is, thank you very much. See, I don't have this gig down yet. 3 -0 -0 -0, and our first speaker tonight will be

Father Stravinskas. Thank you.

As a Johnny come lately to the great debate, I hesitate to say at the outset that I really wish the title of this would be a little different.

I would frankly prefer something like The Great Conversation or The Great Dialogue. Why?

Well, because I think we should have learned a lesson from history that, for example, the medieval disputations with the

Jews did little to bring them to Christ or to his church, and nor did their 16th century equivalent do all that much for Martin Luther.

In our own time, however, we have found a couple of very promising things occur.

First of all, the Catholic dialogue with the Nestorian Church, which broke from Catholic unity about 15 centuries ago, has, as a matter of fact, resulted in a theological consensus, poising us for serious talks on organic reunion.

And secondly, the very impressive fruit of the Lutheran -Catholic dialogue, which has been the joint declaration on justification.

I think these results were achieved because we decided to set aside an approach which might be termed a theology of confrontation in favor of a theology of convergence, which should not be confused, however, with compromise.

In other words, what I hope is that we can try to find some language which stresses important areas of agreement, which can then help us move more confidently into areas of continued disagreement.

Another point I'd like to raise from the beginning is the importance of recalling that Dr. White's theological agenda has far more in common with that of Catholicism than perhaps either he or I might be tempted to admit.

For example, an acceptance of a religion with a transcendental horizon, the maintenance of a stance which operates from the centrality of divine revelation rather than some sort of erector -set approach to the formation of theology, a firm adherence to most of the doctrines which the 19th century evangelicals termed the fundamentals.

So, for example, the inerrancy and inspiration of sacred scripture, the divinity of Christ and his virginal birth, the atoning value of Jesus' death along with his bodily resurrection, and the glorious return of Christ.

Which leads to my next point. We Catholics here need to applaud Dr. White's commitment to doctrine because no ecumenism worthy of the name is possible without taking seriously doctrine and theology.

Otherwise, we're all reduced to some kind of vague do -goodism. And so we need to present the truth in love.

Our goal should never be simply to get another notch in one's apologetical belt.

After all, it is possible to win an argument or a debate and lose souls in the process, either one's own or someone else's.

Therefore, it's necessary to try to understand what's really being said rather than listening for key words or slogans which would just manifest a gotcha attitude.

And that would demonstrate, of course, an interest in neither truth nor love. With those principles in place, allow me to share with you three stories about purgatory and Protestants.

First, some years ago, when Jimmy Swaggart and I were theological pen pals before his fall from grace, which we need to explain,

I guess, if salvation is assured once one is justified by faith alone. But that's a topic for another moment.

But at any rate, he and I got on to the topic of purgatory and prayers for the dead. He assured me that if he lived to be 100, he could never accept the doctrine of purgatory.

A bit tongue -in -cheek, I responded, Brother Swaggart, on your deathbed, you're going to be praying there's a purgatory.

I'm not sure he quite got my point. Two. At about the same time,

I was party to a conversation with the great Dr. James McCord, longtime president of Princeton Theological Seminary.

Another priest asked him about Protestants and the doctrine of purgatory. Somewhat glibly, he replied,

Father, our Reformed theology tells us there is no purgatory.

But I can assure you that every Protestant I know prays for his deceased relatives and friends.

Third. John Henry Cardinal Newman, the bicentennial of whose birth we commemorate this year, at the age of 15, embarked on a decades -long journey, in the words of his motto, ex imaginibus erumbris in veritatem, from images and shadows into the truth.

For many years on his theological sojourn, Newman stood by the teaching of the 39 articles of religion of the

Anglican Communion, one of which describes purgatory as a pernicious doctrine.

With much prayer, intense study of the whole thrust of sacred scripture, as well as the convincing witness of the

Fathers of the Church, he ended up writing one of the finest works on purgatory written in Christian history,

The Dream of Gerontius, which rivals the depth and beauty of Dante's appreciation of purgatory in his

Divina Commedia. These vignettes are fairly typical of where most

Protestants are on the theological radar screen regarding our topic this evening.

Those who hold and live their opposition, those who maintain one position in their head and a different one in their heart, and those who come to a completely opposite stance after a period of time, sometimes after years of study and prayerful reflection.

So, having backed into the issue, let us ask and answer directly just what purgatory is, relying on the

Catechism of the Catholic Church. We read, All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation.

But after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter heaven.

The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on purgatory, especially at the councils of Florence and Trent.

The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire.

Here is cited 1 Corinthians 3 .15 and 1 Peter 1 .7.

Then, quoting a passage from Pope St. Gregory the Great, which in turn is a comment of his on Matthew 12 .31,

we read, As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that before the final judgment there is a purifying fire.

He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come.

From this sentence, we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The Catechism goes on. This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in sacred

Scripture. Quote, Therefore Judas Maccabeus made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

From the beginning, the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers and suffrage for them, above all the

Eucharistic sacrifice, so that thus purified they may attain the beatific vision of God.

The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead.

At that point, we're treated to an excerpt from a homily of St. John Chrysostom on 1

Corinthians, in which the Great Eastern Father quotes Job 1 .5.

Chrysostom urges his listeners in these words, Let us help and commemorate the dead.

If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why should we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation?

Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

In just three short paragraphs, the whole doctrine is set forth, which we might summarize in this way.

First, the Church sees her position as consonant with the Scriptures as they have been received and interpreted within the tradition from time immemorial.

Second, some of the elect, perhaps many, need post -death purification.

Third, there is a hierarchy of sin found explicated clearly in 1

John 5 .17 such that lesser sins can be atoned for after death.

Fourthly, prayer for the dead, especially the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice for them, is not a novelty of the

Catholic Church, but goes back to the earliest days of Christianity, and that in turn has its roots in the

Judaism lived by our Lord. The current teaching is in the trajectory with the entire tradition, beginning with catechum inscriptions as well as with fathers like Tertullian around the year 200,

Cyril of Jerusalem, 350, Gregory of Nyssa, 380,

Epiphanius of Salamis, 374, Chrysostom, 398, the

Liturgy of Serapion, 350, and Augustine in 392. One should notice that the authorities cited reflect the broad sweep of Christian theology from East and West alike as found on the three continents where the

Church existed at that time, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Furthermore, I've deliberately refrained from citing anyone beyond the 4th century because the preponderance of evidence at that point then becomes unbelievably unwieldy.

These early indicators of how the Church understood the afterlife and the standard exegesis of various pericopes was then crystallized in the teachings of the

Councils of Lyon in 1274, Florence in 1439, and Trent in 1563.

Very simply put, that is the broad picture of the Catholic position on purgatory.

Now because Catholic theology is of one piece, a seamless garment, if you will, this necessarily touches on a host of other issues as well, like the communion of saints, like intercessory prayer, like the nature of justification, and how one achieves justification, salvation, etc.

I find it significant that we do not discover any opposition to the doctrine of purgatory until the 16th century for all practical purposes.

A couple of heretical, marginal groups here and there, but as a matter of fact, they dissented on a host of issues with which

Dr. White himself would not be comfortable dissenting either. It's significant, for example, that when

Martin Luther posted his 95 theses to the cathedral door, absent from that list was an attack on the doctrine of purgatory.

And over 30 years later, at the Augsburg Confession, absent from a list of neuralgic issues was any discussion of purgatory.

Indulgences, yes, but not purgatory. Very simply, I think we have to come to the conclusion that the novelty in regard to purgatory is not the

Catholic position on it, but those who would dissent from it. To discover 16, 17, or 20 centuries after the fact that there's a problem with a teaching is, as a matter of fact, a novelty.

Thank you. Reverend White.

Good evening. Thank you for being here. I would like to apologize ahead of time. Should I join my brother

Chris in a massive fit of coughing, we seem to share much in common, and sadly we seem to be sharing an allergic reaction to something in the

Long Island air as well. Of course, I come from Arizona, and that means there's all sorts of stuff in your air that I don't encounter but once a year, and so it wreaks havoc.

It is good to see you all here this evening. I commend you for being here.

Each year I try to commend the audience for being concerned about issues of truth.

There are so few in our society who care about these things today that it is indeed heartening, no matter what side you are on, to see someone who is concerned about truth.

I'll admit that my encounter last week in debating with a liberal on a subject of homosexuality made me look forward to this evening because I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it significantly easier to deal with someone who actually believes in truth than someone who does not.

I've often said when someone says, how do you witness to someone from the Christian Science Church? And the Christian scientists don't believe that any of this is real.

We're all an illusion. I've often said, well, I'm really not sure. I suppose you could punch him in the nose, say, does that hurt?

Okay, there's a place to start. Probably might not work very well, but I have a hard time with those who don't believe that truth exists.

I have a hard time dialoguing in that area. This evening, we address a momentous topic.

There have been those who have been going, ah, purgatory, didn't they get rid of that at Vatican II? So they didn't show up tonight.

In reality, I think that this subject this year applies with clarity the vast differences between our two sides that we saw last year in the debate on justification.

I believe that we see here the difference between the theocentric position that I presented then that is focused upon what

God has done in Jesus Christ and his sovereign decree and the issue of sacramentalism and the concept of grace that is inherent therein.

Now very few in our society today know the history of the development over time of this doctrine of purgatory.

So let's review that then look at the scant number of biblical passages that Roman Catholicism has cited in defense of this doctrine and close by noting the vast number of biblical passages that teach contrary to the fundamental elements of the

Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, most especially the teaching of Holy Scripture that Christ's death is complete, perfect, finished, and fully propitiatory.

Now the idea of suffering for sins after death before entering into a state of bliss is really nothing new.

Historians have identified such a concept in many of man's religions.

The sole Jewish source that is cited by Roman Catholicism in defense of this particular concept even by the 1994

Catholic Catechism as we just heard read is 2 Maccabees 12 39 -45.

Now I'm not sure how many of you have been reading 2 Maccabees of late but in that story we read of a group of Jewish fighters all of whom were idolaters.

They carried pagan idols under their clothing and according to the story God struck them down as punishment for their idolatry.

Now this uninspired book rejected as canonical by such notable early fathers as Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, the

Bishop of Alexandria, and Jerome as well as Pope Gregory the Great and at least 50 other major ecclesiastical writers up to the time of the

Reformation including Cardinal Cayetan, the prelate who interviewed Luther, says that the

Jewish leader offered prayers and sacrifices for these dead soldiers.

It seems that any connection at all with death is sufficient at this point for obviously since idolatry is a mortal sin and would send one not to purgatory but to hell itself this passage is hardly supportive of the doctrine we examined tonight.

At the very best it would have to be said that the passage indicates an error in thinking on the part of the

Jews but given its highly unusual and idiosyncratic nature and the fact that no canonical scripture supports it its very use begins to illustrate for us the highly questionable nature of purgatory as a dogma of the

Christian faith. When we come to the earliest centuries of the Christian church we find no doctrine of purgatory.

What we find fairly early on are prayers for the dead often cited even by my learned opponent this evening as evidence of at least an implicit concept of purgatory.

Yet as historians such as Lagoff point out these primitive prayers are actually contradictory to the modern concept of purgatory.

They pray for their loved ones that they might have refrigerium, refreshment and yet this is couched in terms of the pleasures of paradise, a state defined as peace and light.

Mormon comments that refrigerium referred to heavenly happiness and that quote among later

Christian writers refrigerium is used in a general way to denote the joys of the world beyond the grave promised by God to the elect end quote.

Neal upon collating and studying ancient liturgical sources concluded quote that prayers for the dead have been from the beginning the practice of the universal church but number two and this without any idea of a purgatory of pain or of any state from which the departed soul has to be delivered as from one of misery end quote.

The ease with which modern apologists for Roman Catholicism point to these prayers without taking serious note of their character and the lack of a meaningful context by which to make them truly supportive of their case should give us reason to examine their claims more carefully.

Indeed upon making reference to making oblations on the anniversary of someone's death frankly admitted quote if you look in scripture for a formal law governing these and similar practices you will find none.

It is tradition that justifies them custom that confirms them and faith that observes them end quote.

What a strange strange statement if in fact the passages Roman Catholic apologists cite are in fact relevant.

Evidently Tertullian recognized that this was merely a practice not a doctrine let alone a dogma.

How time transformed this simple practice into something wholly different. The chief architects of the earliest concepts that led to purgatory only decrease our confidence in the doctrine.

In the east we have Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Both wrote extensively and much of what they said would not be believed by almost anyone here this evening

Catholic or Protestant. Both engaged in allegorical interpretation that was devoid of meaningful exegetical content and while Origen did know both

Greek and Hebrew his view of scripture as having all sorts of levels of meaning led him to ignore the literal historical grammatical meaning and focus upon an allegedly higher spiritual meaning.

Both likewise were influenced more by Plato than they were by Paul leading to a strange and in fact unorthodox theology.

Both men were led into wild speculations especially in regard to the idea of a corrective punitive cleansing of the soul.

This idea came primarily from Greek philosophy and dualism surely not from scripture.

At the same time non -canonical Gnostic influenced works such as the

Apocalypse of Peter or the Apocalypse of Paul likewise present a concept of the afterlife derived not from the

Bible but from Greek philosophy. These works despite their non -canonical status deeply influenced the rise of purgatorial thinking in the

Middle Ages. In the West we find Augustine strangely giving credence to a concept of purgation as well though as he likewise believed in predestination and election and the idea that saving faith is a gift of God he melded these concepts into a strangely inconsistent whole that led him to believe that such sufferings would only avail for the elect and none others.

He was influenced in his thinking by his mother's dying request to be remembered in his prayers. But most importantly we find a full half millennia after the founding of the church

Gregory, Bishop of Rome known as Pope Gregory the Great today this man's theology was a mess quite simply.

He was at best a semi -Pelagian who gave tremendous weight to the idea of merit and works.

He did not believe man was dead in sin but only wounded or sick. He was ignorant of both

Greek and Hebrew and knew absolutely nothing of biblical backgrounds as well. He would not have made out of any decent undergraduate

Bible program today I can guarantee you that. Yet he wrote extensively putting his manifest ignorance on paper.

One of his works completed after he became Pope was a work on Job filled with the most inane and silly allegorical interpretation.

Schaff gives us an illustration of Gregory's thinking in this work. Here's some of the words. The names of persons and things, the numbers and even the syllables of the book of Job are filled with mystic meaning.

Job represents Christ. His wife the carnal nature. His seven sons, seven being the number of perfection, represent the apostles.

And hence the clergy. His three daughters, the three classes of the faithful laity who are to worship the trinity of course.

His friends are the heretics. The 7 ,000 sheep, the perfect Christians. The 3 ,000 camels, the heathen and Samaritans.

The 500 yoke of oxen and 500 she -asses again represent the heathen. That was

Gregory's interpretation of the book of Job. Ironically this same work contains

Gregory's rejection of Maccabees as a canonical work. But it was another work of Gregory, interestingly enough cited by the

Catholic Catechism called The Dialogues, that is of importance to us tonight. These dialogues between Gregory and the

Roman Archdeacon Peter abound as Schaff says, quote, in incredible marvels and visions of the state of departed souls, end quote.

Gregory admits that he is transmitting hearsay only and did not himself see any of these alleged visions.

This is the work however that becomes foundational to the development in the middle ages of the doctrine that became dogma at the

Council of Florence yet 900 years in the future. And so we have the beginnings of what would eventually become the modern dogma of purgatory.

Scattered references from Origen the allegorist who believed that even Satan himself would be saved and who likewise believed in the pre -existence of souls.

Tertullian who became a Montanist, Augustine who was deeply influenced by his mother's request and whose exegesis of Matthew 12 ignored the simple parallel passage in Mark 3, that as we shall see renders

Matthew 12 irrelevant to its use by Rome today. And most importantly Gregory, who could not even read the original languages, offered allegorical interpretation the place of true exegesis and who passed on hearsay stories about visions of the afterlife that became central to the development of the concept of purgatory during the middle ages.

Indeed did not Peter warn us about what happens when untaught and unstable persons distort the scriptures?

He certainly did. Now time precludes delving much into the development of the actual dogma of purgatory primarily in the 12th century and its elevation to the status of dogma by the council of Florence in the 15th century.

A council history shows to have been political in nature, one that could hardly be said to have seriously considered anything of an exegetical or biblical nature.

Indeed, Florence if you've read the history of it spent more time worrying about where to put the chairs for the seating of the

Greek delegates than it did on the study of the Bible. Yet the modern Catholic Church views

Florence as the 17th ecumenical council and the modern catechism relies upon Florence and Trent, as we've heard, to define purgatory in section 1031 despite the fact that it was likewise

Florence that gave us these words words which are so easily understood in their original context but which ring so very hollow in today's ecumenical setting.

These are the words, quote, It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the

Catholic Church not only pagans but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the

Church of benefit for salvation and do fastings almsgiving and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the

Catholic Church, end quote. I don't know about you but such a history does not recommend it to my thinking as something worthy of my faith and assent.

I cannot help but think of the words of Scripture, to the law and to the testimony if they speak not in accordance to this word there is no light in them,

Isaiah 8 20. And so we now turn to the few passages that have been pressed into service by Rome to substantiate the dogma that is purgatory.

I hope you have your Bibles with you this evening. 2 Maccabees chapter 12 has already been addressed in the few comments that I made earlier in regards to idolatry.

Matthew chapter 12 verses 31 to 32 say, therefore I say to you any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people but blasphemy against the

Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man shall be forgiven him but whoever speaks against the

Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven him either in this age or in the age to come. The assertion is that the phrase either in this age or in the age to come indicates the possibility of the forgiveness at least of temporal punishments of sin in the age to come after this life.

The problem with that is that a basic work of exegesis is that when you are studying especially the synoptic

Gospels you see if there is a parallel passage that will help to shed light upon what is being intended.

There is a parallel passage it is Mark chapter 3 verses 28 to 29. Here we read, truly

I say to you all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men and whatever blasphemies they utter but whoever blasphemes against the

Holy Spirit never has forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin.

There is the meaning of what Jesus is saying in Matthew 12. He is not in any way shape or form suggesting the possibility of forgiveness in a future age.

He is saying that the sin is an eternal sin. It is an unforgivable sin and that of course is the context of Matthew chapter 12.

It is the unpardonable sin. The next passage to look at is 1 Corinthians chapter 3 and I think we will probably end up spending most of our time here in the biblical discussion because it is foundational to the concept.

But as no text exists without a context, please note that there is a context to this passage it begins in verse 8.

Now he who plants and he who waters are one but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

For we are God's fellow workers, you are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder

I laid a foundation and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid which is

Christ Jesus. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident.

For the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss.

But he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Now context is the determining factor here.

Paul is talking about ministers in the church. In the previous section he's been talking about he and Apollos and Cephas and others.

And he said he has laid a foundation. Let a man be careful how he builds upon the foundation that Paul has laid.

The two individuals who are tested are leaders in the church who had good and godly motivations in what they did and leaders in the church with bad motivations.

See the problem is we can't always tell which one's which. We can't in this life necessarily see the motivations that fill the heart of man.

But there will come a day when those motivations will be revealed. Each leader's work is tested.

It is their work that is tested, not their souls. There's nothing here about temporal punishments of sins.

Notice that even the godly leader, every godly leader is tested in this way.

Are we to believe that every godly leader will go to purgatory? There are no saints who have done anything in the church?

Certainly not. Notice the text says it is the quality of their works that is tested, not punished.

There's a vast difference between testing the quality of a work or punishing someone for the temporal punishments of their sins.

The fire reveals of what sort is the work. It tells us what we can't see now.

Is it made of gold? Is it made of precious stones? Did it have the right motivation? Or is it wood, hay, and straw?

Merely something a person did for their own benefit and their own glory. All leaders face this test, not merely those with temporal punishments.

The fire reveals, does not purge, and is used on all, and hence cannot be a reference to purgatory in any way, shape, or form.

To suffer loss is to lose reward in the passage, not experience satispassio, the suffering of atonement, which is what one experiences in purgatory.

Hence, as Roman Catholic McBride admits, there is for all practical purposes no biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory.

This is not to say that there is no basis at all for the doctrine, but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it."

What then in the last ten minutes that we have together is the biblical case against purgatory?

I believe that the entire doctrine is based upon unbiblical and anti -biblical concepts.

Time is short, very short, so let's summarize the problems. Fundamentally, there are errors concerning sin.

For example, there is the distinction of sin into mortal and venial categories, and already 1

John 5 verses 16 -17 has been made reference to, which speaks of a sin unto death and a sin not unto death, but even as Roman Catholic exegete

Raymond Brown admits, this passage refers to a form of apostasy, not anything else.

In fact, he says, "...we should avoid identifying sin unto death with mortal sin and a sin not unto death with venial sin."

That's a Roman Catholic exegete making that statement. There's also errors in confusing

God's fatherly chastening of his children with judicial temporal punishments that must be propitiated before we enter into the presence of God.

There is a vast difference between the fact that God conforms us to the image of Christ, that he disciplines us, as we read in Hebrews chapter 12 verses 4 -11.

Notice very quickly some of those words from Hebrews 12, "...you have not yet resisted the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin, and you have forgotten the exhortation which has dressed you as sons.

My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by him.

For those whom the Lord loves, he disciplines, and he scourges every son whom he receives."

That is discipline, not judicial punishment for the temporal punishments of sins.

And there is a vast difference between the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying us and conforming us to the image of Christ, and the idea that we cannot enter into his presence because we die justified, yet impure.

An athlete that disciplines himself in training is obviously not punishing himself.

That discipline leads him toward ever higher achievements, and that is what we experience in the

Christian life. But this single error leads to an even worse error, the functional denial of the all -sufficiency of the work of Christ in behalf of his people.

And here is the true reason why we must gather together this evening, and why those who said, ah, that doesn't sound like an interesting topic, obviously don't understand what the topic speaks to to begin with.

Peter taught in 1 Peter 2, 24 that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross.

If we believe in a substitutionary atonement, we cannot believe in the teaching of the

Council of Trent that says it is possible to die justified, yet impure.

Those two words don't go together. The biblical teaching is found in these words, 2

Corinthians 5, 21. He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, in our place, substitutionary atonement, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

And don't be confused. The word we might become does not indicate some uncertainty. It is a purpose clause.

The reason that he became sin was so that we would become the righteousness of God in him.

That righteousness that is ours admits of no imperfection. The reason that we have peace with God is because the righteousness that has been imputed to us is perfect and whole.

Paul brought this out in Romans 4, verses 6 -8, when he said, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom

God credits righteousness, imputes righteousness, legizimai is the

Greek term, to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works, blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, not held against them, so that there's temporal punishments to be paid, and whose sins have been covered, if they're covered as they were on the mercy seat, how can

I have to suffer for them before I can enter into God's presence? Verse 8 says, blessed is the man whose sin the

Lord will not take into account. The non - imputation of sin is the very foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It helps us to understand how it is that we can have true shalom, true peace with Him.

And yet, we are told that we must undergo satispassio, the suffering of atonement and purgatory, before our souls are cleansed, and we can then enter into the presence of God.

That means that we would stand before God. And when you take into consideration the entire sacramental system of the

Roman Catholic Church, you would be standing before God, cleansed in the righteous deeds of Christ, Mary and the saints, from the treasury of merit, and your own sufferings.

I say to you, the only person who can stand before God and have peace before His throne today, is the person who stands clothed, not in a tattered garment made of different patches, but the seamless and whole garment of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Paul says in Romans chapter 5, but God demonstrates His own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners,

Christ died for us, much more than having now been justified, how?

By His blood we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

There is no more condemnation. There is no more wrath for those who are in Christ. So what are we experiencing in purgatory?

We're told today, well it's suffering that removes self love. It's not a wrathful type of suffering.

No, because all those who are in purgatory are going to enter into the presence of God. So God's wrath does not come against sin and its punishments.

It's not judicial. We'll need to find out how that's understood. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God.

The reconciliation has taken place. Through the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Time is going by far too quickly, but let me close these thoughts. The book of Hebrews says the

Lord Jesus Christ, the former priests on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing.

But Jesus on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently, therefore

He is able to save completely, forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Let me ask a question. Does not Christ work in bearing our sins in His body upon the tree?

Did He not experience the fullness and the depth of all of God's wrath due to those sins?

Is that not why He is able to save the uttermost? For when He presents that perfect work before the throne of God, it is a complete and perfect work.

There is nothing missing. There is no need for me to add anything to it. My sufferings cannot enable

Christ to save me. His sufferings in my behalf are more than enough, more than sufficient.

Was not the wrath that was due for every one of my sins experienced by my substitute in my place?

That is the only basis that we have for peace with God. And so the subject this evening is a vital subject.

And it would be very common in our society for us to say, well, look, we all believe many things together.

I've written a book on the Trinity, and I think all of you, whether Catholic or Protestant, unless some

Jehovah's Witnesses snuck in, would like most of the things that I said there. And if you're here, great, glad you're here.

Most of you would agree with the things I said there. But my friends, I want you to understand why we must forthrightly discuss this issue this evening.

I've still got one minute on mine. That's right. Why we must forthrightly discuss the issue this evening.

Hmm. Just kidding. Why must we do so?

Paul wrote a book called Galatians, and he shared with the Galatian teachers a great body of belief.

We have no indication that the Galatian teachers denied the deity of Christ, the physical resurrection. In fact, we know they preached that Christ was the

Messiah and you need to believe in Him. But Paul, because of his love for the Gospel and his love for people, did not focus upon what they shared in common.

Because he knew that the very truth of the Gospel itself was at stake in what was being taught in those churches.

I say to you tonight, the truth of the Gospel is what we are discussing this evening, and that's why we come here.

I hope that's why you have come here. May God bless you for so doing. Thank you very much. Thank you both.

We now have our time for what are called here rebuttals.

Rebuttals. Fifteen minutes of rebuttals. Father Stravinskis will begin and then we'll turn back to Father White. I didn't set this right last time.

I'm technologically challenged. At the outset,

I implicitly alluded to a problem that I thought we might be encountering this evening, namely that proof texting is a dangerous game.

No one other than Martin Luther knew this so well, and so he made the witty remark once that relying solely on Scripture, he could prove that drinking beer was better than drinking wine.

Seriously though, just as God listens to whole sentences and not isolated words, we have to as well.

Nor can we approach the Word of God with our preconceived notions, many of which do not have their origins with the origins of Christianity, but centuries and sometimes a millennium or more later.

Notions which have the effect of eviscerating texts before we ever get to them, simply because we know what conclusions we have to arrive at even before the search has begun.

Now, in all kindness, the problem for Dr. White and his theological fellow travelers is very simple.

How can one put words into sentences without a magisterium? If, as a matter of fact, the

Scriptures are so plain and so evident, how is it that from the 16th century rebellion of Martin Luther, one man, today there are 28 ,000

Protestant denominations, all claiming to understand clearly the

Word of God? Obviously, something doesn't fit into the equation. I just want to enter that into the hopper to start with.

One of the issues that we have to look at is this whole notion of sin, repentance, and forgiveness.

To be sure, Almighty God forgives, but that does not mean that punishment does not necessarily remain.

In the Book of Numbers, for example, after Moses' sin, we can be reasonably certain that he was repentant and that God forgave him, but a punishment remained.

He could not enter the promised land. In 2

Samuel 12, David could not be more abjectly repentant.

And we have Psalm 51 as the clearest evidence of a man's incredible repentance.

And yet, in 2 Samuel, Nathan informs him that a punishment is going to be exacted, namely, the death of the child of adultery.

In Matthew 5, 26, our Lord speaks about the fact that in one of his parables, that someone will not get out of jail until he has paid the last penny.

There is, as a matter of fact, an quid pro quo element involved here. And we know this simply from human experience as well.

If a child breaks a window and runs in and says to his mother or father, Mommy, I'm sorry.

And the kid is. And the parent knows it. Is that going to stop the parent from grounding the kid for the next week?

Or for saying, for the rest of the summer, you can't play ball in the backyard? Of course not.

These are not mutually exclusive categories. In Luke 19, we see the conversion experience of Zacchaeus, who repents of his wicked career as a tax collector.

And he is clearly accepted by the Lord. But the sign of his repentance is his commitment to restitution.

And I would suggest it is a necessary sign of repentance. Otherwise, the repentance can ring rather hollow.

That's, of course, why even repentant murderers still do jail time.

The confession of the sin, if you will, is not sufficient. That is why in the sacramental system of the

Catholic Church, it is not enough for someone to say, either to God privately or to the priest individually,

I am sorry. There has to be a purpose of amendment and a work of satisfaction which demonstrates a commitment to a repented new way of life.

Dr. White mentioned at the beginning what he referred to as the sacramentalism of Catholicism versus the theocentrism of his approach to Christianity.

I would like to suggest that the sacramentalism of the Catholic Church is intensely and absolutely theocentric.

As a matter of fact, God, the sacramental system of the Catholic Church, makes present and celebrates what

God in Christ does for us, not what we do for ourselves.

A sacrament, the principal minister of every sacrament of the Church is Jesus Christ. That's why, for example, in the long history of the

Church, we've never been too concerned about saints or sinners either being priests, because we know that the effectiveness of a sacrament does not depend on the worthiness of the minister, because the principal minister of the sacrament is

Jesus Christ himself. Citing individual fathers of the

Church for or against something can be a kind of patristic version of proof -texting as well.

And, as a matter of fact, someone like Cardinal Newman made the point as he began his intense study of the fathers of the

Church as an Anglican, that this could be a very problematical exercise, precisely because individual fathers do not represent the teaching of the

Catholic Church individually. It is the sum total of the tradition of the

Church, which represents the teaching of the Church as that is revealed to her gradually, but effectively through the work of the

Holy Spirit. The question of prayers for the dead,

I think, need to be looked at a little more carefully. We find the data, as I indicated earlier, in the catacombs, for example, in which we find inscriptions like this.

Sweet Faustina, may you live in God. Peter and Paul, pray for Victor.

Peter and Paul, remember Zosimon and whoever reads this. Now as a matter of fact, we have another whole issue here, namely invoking saints, and this is occurring already at the end of the first century, which is to say in the lifetime of people who would have been evangelized by the apostles,

Peter and Paul. If they can't get the story straight, we're all in an incredible mess.

We find in North Africa the stories of the martyrdoms of Perpetua and Felicity, and admittedly, this is a dream, a vision, that she has, but it reveals something that is in keeping with a

Christian instinct and with what is already the practice of the Church for a century and a half.

We read of how one of the martyrs saw in a dream her dead brother in torment, causing her to pray for his deliverance.

The result of her prayer was that she saw him again cleansed and, quote, realized he had been released from his punishment.

In 211, Tertullian advised Christians to pray for their beloved dead on the anniversaries of their passing from this world.

And whatever the weaknesses of Tertullian were, as a matter of fact, he's not enunciating a new doctrine because, precisely because of the difficulties that he had in other areas, people would have been very quick to point out that he was, as a matter of fact, creating a theological novelty.

Dr. White alluded to St. Augustine and his mother Monica, and he made it sound as some sort of sentimentalism that he was fulfilling the dying wish of a silly old lady.

As a matter of fact, she says quite properly, all in the context for it, for those of you not familiar with his confessions,

Augustine and his brother are hovering over the deathbed of their mother, and they're arguing about where to plant her when she breathes her last.

Not exactly a delicate bedtime conversation, or deathbed conversation. At any rate, the old lady props herself up with incredible dignity and decorum, and says, lay this old body anywhere.

All I ask you is this, that wherever you may be, you will remember me at the altar of the

Lord, which is the language of the time for saying, please pray for me at Mass, at the offering of the

Eucharistic sacrifice. Furthermore, we can't talk about practices of the church in isolation from doctrine.

There is a practice precisely because there is a doctrine already in place.

We have a theological principle, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, which very simply means that we can determine what the church believed at any given point in her history simply by picking up a liturgical book.

Because what the words that we pray with are the words that we already believe.

To run around in search of particular scripture quotes in the New Testament is a rather futile exercise in many ways for the simple reason that what books of the

New Testament were written already at that point, let alone the fact that the New Testament canon didn't exist for how many centuries?

And interestingly, finalized where? In places like Hippo and Carthage, North Africa, precisely where we get

Tertullian and other fathers of the church talking about prayers for the dead and offering of the

Eucharist for the dead. The doctrine of the

Trinity, as it was later developed at Nicaea and Constantinople, for example, a doctrine enunciated in those terms which

Dr. White and every self -respecting evangelical and fundamentalist would accept, is, as a matter of fact, unable to be identified in the pages of the

New Testament. And if anyone suggests it's possible, I would love to see that conversation go a little farther.

It is impossible to suggest that what was taught definitively at those two councils and everything else in between has, as a matter of fact, parallel texts.

No. That it is taught there? Absolutely. That it's there implicitly? There is no doubt.

But this gets us into the whole area of development of doctrine. And the

Catholic Church has a very nuanced understanding and appreciation of the development of doctrine, which is to say that there are many teachings that are in Revelation at the outset.

They're in seminal or implicit form that become clearer only with the passage of time.

Those of you who are married know that, or presumably, the spouse with whom you've been living for 25 years, you know better today than you did on the day of your wedding or the day you met.

Or at least we should hope so. And this is exactly the situation that is a parallel for the development of doctrine.

That the Church, the Bride of Christ, living with her Bridegroom under the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit over a prolonged period of time, centuries and now millennia, comes to a deeper understanding and appreciation of truths which are only there in implicit form to begin with.

Of course, it's the fulfillment of the promise of Christ given in St. John's Gospel that in due time the

Holy Spirit would lead His Church into all truth. To poke fun at an allegorical interpretation of Scripture is somewhat unworthy.

As a matter of fact, it is a process of biblical interpretation hallowed in Jewish tradition.

Numerology is not some kind of Shirley Macleanism just discovered today.

This was something longstanding in the Judeo -Christian tradition.

And trying to find connections between the symbols of words, these men understood an awful lot more about Scripture than any of us in this room all put together.

First of all, they were living a heck of a lot closer to the Christ event than we are. And we have the disadvantage of distance.

We have the disadvantage, in certain instances, of disunity within the body of Christ, causing jaundiced interpretations of passages that were very clearly understood at the outset.

The Council of Florence was, first of all, most importantly, a council of unity.

And to reduce it all to a game of ecclesiastical musical chairs is unworthy as well.

The seating of the candidates at the Council of Florence was a serious attempt on the part of the

Catholic Church to ensure that our brothers from the Christian East who had bolted from Catholic unity several centuries before would find themselves a welcome place at the table of the

Church. Thank you. Proof texting is indeed a dangerous game.

However, I believe that it is Rome that has engaged in proof texting in regards to the issue of purgatory by ignoring the context of the passages that she has raised.

As we have already pointed out, and I did not hear any response to the contextual reading of Matthew 12, even 2

Maccabees, 1 Corinthians 3, etc., etc. We were told that we cannot approach the

Bible with our preconceived notions because that means we'll have our conclusions known before the journey has begun.

May I suggest that that is the exact reason why the faithful Roman Catholic has a problem doing the exegesis of Scripture once Rome has infallibly defined what she thinks a passage of Scripture teaches.

I don't think that the Roman Catholic has the freedom to allow the Scriptures to teach what the

Scriptures teach because fundamentally the only way to know what the Scriptures teach is to bow to a magisterium, to an infallible pronouncement once the

Church has said that the bodily assumption is a dogma. Well, then you need to find that in Revelation 12 or Luke 1, 28 or wherever it might be.

That does not allow for the exegesis of the text. We heard about 28 ,000 denominations.

I know of many Catholic apologists who are now admitting that's a gross exaggeration of the actual meaningful number of denominations that exist.

But I would like to suggest to you, as I suggested in the debate on Sola Scriptura a number of years ago, that the reason for a plurality of denominations is not because of Sola Scriptura, it's because of not practicing

Sola Scriptura. And that those denominations that do practice Sola Scriptura are significantly, significantly more united in what they believe than those organizations that practice the concept of the

Scripture plus an external infallible rule of faith to tell you what to believe. There's far more unanimity amongst those of us who hold to Scripture than those who have some infallible external authority.

Now a number of passages were presented to us as if they present to us the idea that there is a punishment that remains.

Moses could not enter the promised land. Entering the promised land is a blessing. Again, you must differentiate between a discipline and a legal punishment that must be extracted to bring about the purification of a soul before it can enter into the presence of God.

Are we saying that that was a part of Moses' suffering to purify his soul? In 2

Samuel, it was told we specifically, and I tried to write it down exactly as I could, that David was told that a punishment is going to be extracted.

Look at 2 Samuel 12, 14 and find the word punishment for me. It's not there. Again, this is discipline not a legal punishment.

The last penny in Matthew chapter 5, well, if we want to talk about exegesis, let's talk about how we deal with parables and how parables have one point and that point is forgiveness not something that goes beyond that to some idea that, well, you know, you have penalties that are the pennies you're going to have to pay in purgatory.

I think we already established, and I heard no refutation of the fact, that it's Christ and His righteousness that already paid every last penalty for the person who believes in Him.

We were told we were told that sacramentalism is theocentric because it is

Christ who is doing the sacrament. The reason that I said what I said is that I have pointed out in a debate two years ago that you can approach under the cross of Christ and the sacrament of the

Eucharist 10 ,000, 15 ,000 times in your life and yet die impure and have to go into purgatory to be purged of the temporal punishments of your sins.

If you can go to the cross of Christ that many times and remain impure, then my whole point is, that is focused upon you, not upon what

Christ has done upon the cross. The biblical teaching is, by one sacrifice, He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

That is what I was saying in regards to sacramentalism at that particular point.

I would like to point out that in regards to these prayers to the dead found in the various things, the various sources, as I pointed out, they are there to be found.

However, I also did not hear a response to Neil's statement, that in studying them we discovered that no concept of purgatory of pain or suffering can be found within them.

So I would challenge my opponent this evening, show us where these prayers talk, the ones that were read, where they talk about redeeming the dead, where they talk about shortening the time in purgatory, where they talk about relieving the suffering of those in purgatory.

To my knowledge, the first example of that is found at the beginning of the 6th century. That's a long ways down the road.

We were told that people in the first few centuries, if they can't get it straight, we were told, then we're in a lot of trouble.

Let me point something out to you. To my knowledge, and I would invite correction at this point, to my knowledge, the first reference to the phrase apostolic tradition, to the idea of a tradition passed on by the apostles outside of scripture is found in Irenaeus' discussion of the age of Jesus when he died.

Now I don't think there's anyone in this room who believes what Irenaeus said. Irenaeus claimed and he's writing at the end of the 2nd century, he's early on, and he says those who knew the apostles said that Jesus was almost 60 years old when he died.

Now I don't know of anybody here who believes that. And if you don't believe it, then you must believe that within one century, tradition could get messed up.

That's why we need a scripture that can't get messed up. We were told that the

New Testament canon does not come into existence until North Africa. Let me point something out. Since the canon is merely the self -limitation of God as to what he inspires, he doesn't inspire all books, he inspires some books, that canon existed the instant that the last word was written.

It is the passive recognition of the church, as Augustine put it, the Holy Spirit gives the canon to the church to be recognized.

The church doesn't create canon. And isn't it interesting that it is North Africa and Athanasius in 369, in his 39th

Festal Letter, it might be 364, who likewise gives a New Testament canon before Hippo and Carthage, and yet rejects the very books that the modern

Roman Catholic Church says are canonical, and in fact uses to base the Doctrine of Purgatory in 2

Maccabees. I think that is very interesting as well. It was said that my opponent would like to hear someone suggest that the

Doctrine of the Trinity appears in its fullness in the pages of the New Testament.

May I step forward to do so? I have written a fairly lengthy book demonstrating the reason why

I am a Biblical Trinitarian. To believe all of the Scriptures is to be a

Trinitarian. To accept the Bible's teaching that there is one true God, that there are three divine persons, and the equality of those persons.

To not believe any one of those things, and those are the foundations, the very pillars of the Doctrine of the

Trinity, is to reject some element of Scripture. The very teaching of the

Doctrine of the Trinity is not only found throughout the pages of Scripture, but it is also found in the earliest of the patristic sources.

Ignatius calls Jesus Christ our God fourteen times in his genuine epistles. He has Trinitarian passages throughout his writings, and he dies in 108.

We're talking about one of the earliest writers here. But I must admit that I become somewhat agitated when various doctrines that did not become dogma for a thousand years or more later, and in some cases almost two thousand years later, are paralleled to the blessed truth of the

Doctrine of the Trinity, which is found throughout the pages of Scripture, and from the earliest patristic sources, the very same patristic sources, that make no mention of the dogmas that are then defined under the concept of development, such as the

Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption, or the Doctrine of Purgatory. Ignatius knew nothing of it, and yet he knew of the

Deity of Christ and the Trinity. How do those things fit together? We were told that the

Roman Catholic Church has a very nuanced understanding of the development of doctrine, and I should say so. The Church has had to nuance even

John Henry Cardinal Newman's development of the development doctrine to be able to explain how the

Fourth Lateran Council could give plenary indulgences to anyone who took up the sword to exterminate the heretic, and how then

Vatican II would then go and say that you cannot use force in religious matters. You've got to nuance development to make that work.

You've got to nuance the statements today about Muslims, and the idea of if you follow the right teachings of whatever religion you're in, and you're pure in your thoughts, and so on and so forth, you can still gain eternal life with what the

Council of Florence said. Yeah, you've got to nuance those things, because things have changed. But nuancing does not make it truth.

And the question I would ask you is, do you want a system that has a basis that allows you to teach one gospel from day one until the end of time, or a system that because of its nuanced definitions gives you a gospel in one century that differs in great particulars from the gospel a thousand years later?

Who at the Council of Nicaea taught the Doctrine of Purgatory? Who at the Council of Nicaea taught the

Immaculate Conception? Who at the Council of Nicaea believed in papal infallibility, or believed in the bodily assumption of Mary?

There were none. And yet, did they not have the gospel? The idea of a marriage situation was presented.

And we all get to know our spouses better over time. Or at least we better. Or we're in a lot of trouble.

I have a lovely wife and a wonderful family, and we're coming up on our 19th wedding anniversary.

She was only two when we got married, and so it's one of those eastern things, you know.

Mountains of North Carolina or something like that, I don't know. And I definitely continue to learn new things about my wife.

However, I knew what her name was when we got married. And when we talk about doctrines and dogmas that are not little acorns, but utterly unknown in the early centuries, development doesn't work.

That's called evolution. That's called a fundamental change.

And it's not based, as I have already presented, and I've heard no rebuttal of the information I've presented to you, that this dogma of purgatory develops not because of the exegesis of the text of Scripture, and not because of some tradition that the apostles pass on that's not found in Scripture.

It's extra -biblical sources that give rise not only to the dogma of purgatory, but certainly to the other dogmas that have been defined, such as the

Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption, and so on and so forth. That's how it functions. It was said that it was unworthy to poke fun at allegorical interpretation.

When the Jehovah's Witnesses engage in the same kind of interpretation to turn the 144 ,000 into the only people who are in the

New Covenant, or when they use it to come up with their 1914 prophecy, I think we have very good biblical warrant for, quote -unquote, poking fun at allegorical interpretation.

Please remember something. Yes, the Jews had a long history of it. And Jesus rebuked them for ignoring the plain meaning of Scripture in Matthew chapter 15.

And so it depends on whether, as we as Christians, want to follow His example and repudiate origin and His allegorical interpretation and His wild flights of fancy based upon His ignorance of the

Old Testament text and His ignorance of the background of the Jews and recognize that because of the split between the

Jewish Church and the Christian Church, there was a tremendous ignorance on the part of most people regarding what the

Old Testament was all about. How can you ever understand the book of Hebrews if you don't know the Old Testament? You see, when we talked about, right toward the end, it sort of fit together here very nicely.

We're so far removed. These people are much closer. In many ways, folks, that's the exact opposite of the truth.

In many ways, you sitting here today who have the availability of the

Word of God in its fullness, availability of the languages, availability of the historical backgrounds, are far closer to the apostolic period in your understanding than people who lived within only a few centuries who were ignorant of the

Old Testament, ignorant of the historical setting, ignorant of the background. We have far more availability to us today than many people who lived for centuries during the course of Christian history.

When it is said that the Council of Florence is a council of unity, I simply invite you, go read the histories.

Go read the text for yourself. Don't go read some biased history on either side.

Go read a secular history, the Council of Florence, and find out for yourself what really went on there and whether you want to submit yourself to the authority of a council and what went on in that particular place.

And now, in the closing moment of my rebuttal, let me refocus our attention. 1

Corinthians 3 doesn't teach purgatory. Matthew 12 doesn't teach purgatory. Even 2

Maccabees, if you want to throw that one in, doesn't teach purgatory. So, what is the key issue tonight?

Can a person die justified yet impure so that they must undergo judicially applied punishments, temporal punishments for sin, that they must undergo the suffering of atonement in purgatory before they can enter into the presence of God?

That is the focus we must have this evening. Let us not, in discussing all these other things, lose track of where we must be going tonight.

Thank you very much. So, we'll begin with Fr.

Stravinskas. First cross -examination. You have 25 minutes. Mr. White, I think you would agree that the evidence of the

New Testament, overwhelming evidence, is that Jesus was a devout Jew.

That he participated in the ritual life of Judaism.

He frequented the synagogue. He went to the temple for all the prescribed feasts. And we know from the historical record that at the time of Christ and to the present moment in Orthodox Judaism, prayers for the dead were offered and are offered.

The three pilgrimage feasts in particular, the liturgy of the temple required the remembrance of the dead.

The Mourner's Kaddish, which is recited by devout Jews to this moment, is prayed for 11 months for a deceased person.

The time the Jewish tradition assigns to a period of purification after death. Since this formed an essential part of temple worship at the time of our

Lord, and since we nowhere read of his contradicting the practice and that we know he did contradict other practices with which he was not comfortable.

What's your take on that situation? Presumably then that Jesus himself prayed for the dead.

Well, I think that assumes a number of things. First of all, it assumes that these practices that are found in the

Mishnah, for example, or in the Talmud and later Jewish beliefs, were in point of fact a part of the temple worship.

I would like to point out that there are many who reject that, and in fact point out that the Second Maccabees passage does not have any contemporaneous validation as a representative of a concept that was in fact a general amongst the

Jews, and the fact that the Mishnah, even if it did appear in the Mishnah, is codified 250 years after Christ, and you cannot simply assume that if it was there, that it was in that particular point in time.

The first assumption is, I don't think you can necessarily make that assumption. In response to the second part, let's say for any type of, let's say for the point of argument, that one could make an assertion that there was some sort of form of prayer for the dead, given the fact that even the early church used that phrase, not to refer to the concept of release from purgatory, but instead a remembrance or something along those lines.

If it was used in the sense of mere remembrance, there would be nothing that would be specifically anti -biblical about the remembrance of loved ones or things along those lines, mourning, things like that.

He did participate, for example, in the mourning ceremonies, and even though he drove the mourners out that one time, in the raising of the young boy in the mourning procession, and so on and so forth.

I don't believe that you could demonstrate that Jesus did anything, and in fact,

I think all of us would agree that Jesus would not do anything that would be contrary to the teachings of the

Old Testament, because as you said, he very frequently criticized those things at work. Just to piggyback on that for a minute, you've indicated that you're rather comfortable in suggesting that you understand certain aspects of Christian theology better than the

Catholic Church for 2 ,000 years. Do I hear you saying that you're also comfortable in understanding

Jewish theology better than Orthodox Jews, who are in a direct line of succession to the tradition that Jesus would have lived?

There are two false assumptions in the statement. The first is the assertion that the Catholic Church has understood something for 2 ,000 years, and that that's the modern

Roman Catholic Church. I believe that any person seemingly can recognize the false basis of that, because that would mean that if you compare the

Catholic Church's teachings to the Scripture and find the Catholic Church wanting, that somehow that makes you wiser than somebody else, rather than the truth, which means you can look at the

Scripture and know what the Scriptures teach. And secondly, I can't ask this question, but if you are asserting that there is a unanimous consent amongst

Jewish scholars as to the exact nature of temple worship at the time of Christ, I would be interested in seeing this unanimous consent, because Jacob Neusner and other leading scholars in that field have made it very, very clear that the study of Midrash, the study of the

Mishnaic and Talmudic materials is in a great period of flux, and there is much work to be done in being able to identify exactly what's in the

Mishna that was a part of the New Testament period that was general in the temple worship in Jerusalem.

We can let it go for the moment, except I would suggest that maybe if you hang around tomorrow or Saturday, go to Williamsburg in Brooklyn and talk to the

Orthodox Jews there. I think they would have a different take on it. Is that a question? From Neusner. You indicated that Catholics are not free to interpret

Scripture as they choose or as the Holy Spirit gives them light or whatever.

I'm sure you're aware of the fact that there are actually, I think six or seven passages that are defined by ecclesiastical authority as to the precise meaning of those texts.

My question for you is how many Protestants here this evening do you think have the freedom to interpret, let's say,

John 6, as a literal understanding of the doctrine of the Eucharist?

Well, there are a couple things you said there. You said that I said Catholics do not have freedom and what I said by that was that in light of your comments against sola scriptura that it is the

Roman Catholic exegete that has an external authority that determines the exegetical conclusions, not just on six or seven passages, and we don't even know which ones those are.

There's tremendous disagreement even amongst Roman Catholic scholars as to what has actually been infallibly defined as the meaning of any particular text at all.

But on many other passages of Scripture because the magisterial teaching to where a person could not look at an undefined passage and come to an understanding of that passage that would contradict magisterial teaching.

That is what I was saying. I would invite any Protestant to embrace the literal meaning of John 6 because the literal meaning is defined by the context.

Jesus' first introduction of the concept of eating and drinking is in John 6 .35 where he says that anyone who comes to me will not hunger.

Anyone who believes in me will not thirst. Coming to him and believing in him are spiritual actions which is the literal meaning of John 6 .53

and following. I would very strongly encourage them to come to that literal meaning of the text itself.

Yes, they would have the freedom to do so. That was not my point. You talked about an authority external to the individual.

Can any Protestant hear on his own come to an interpretation of John 6 which comes down on the side of the doctrine of transubstantiation?

Again, the assumption that you seemingly are making is that there is no one truth revealed in Scripture.

When a Protestant interprets the Scripture the Protestant is not given freedom to misinterpret the

Scripture. As Paul said, untaught and unstable men distort the Scriptures. So taught and stable men then are able to teach the

Scriptures properly. When you're talking about freedom, I'm not talking about the freedom of anarchy. I'm talking about the freedom of allowing the text speak for itself without the imposition of an external authority that is not derived from the text itself.

What do you think Jesus had in mind in using numerology like 70 times 7?

I think he meant that we should forgive others an inexhaustible amount of times.

I would not call that numerology. Okay. Several times you've alluded to Catholic teaching on the

Immaculate Conception, the Assumption. I presume you would include in there Mary's perpetual virginity.

Can you explain how today you and many, many other

Protestants reject those teachings when the three principal Protestant reformers

Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all accepted all three doctrines? It is a manifest error that they believed it is a manifest error that I don't believe anyone could be able to substantiate that they believe in the bodily assumption.

That is clearly untrue. But beyond that it is a manifest error to assert that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin believed in the bodily assumption of Mary.

You did list that as one of those things. It is a manifest error to believe. How is it then that he is buried the monument over him?

Over who, sir? You said Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. Okay. Has the inscription for the text of Vespers for the

Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That doesn't mean that Luther believed, sir, in the bodily assumption.

If you would like to provide a quote If you would like to provide a quote, sir, please do so.

But you asked me a question. You asked how could I not believe something that they believed. And let's say for the sake of argument that that was the case.

I dispute it and I do not believe that can be substantiated. But let's say for the sake of the argument since you brought it up Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli would be as any other minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

They would be held accountable to the exact same standard that I am held accountable in the preaching and ministry of the word in the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church as an elder in that place. I am not given some infallible authority because I have some position in the church.

I am judged by the exact same standard that they would be judged by. We do not believe them to be infallible and we do not believe you have to be infallible to be used of God.

So, please, please, so my answer to your question is I didn't raise those issues to refer to the reformers.

I raised those issues simply as examples of dogma that have been defined on the basis of tradition. Nothing more.

In speaking of the canon of the Bible, you quoted St. Augustine. There are a couple of other interesting insights that Augustine has had along the way.

For example, his statement that he wouldn't believe a single word of the scriptures were it not for the authority of the

Catholic Church. What do you make of a statement like that? Well, it's a very common statement and I don't recall actually quoting

Augustine on the issue of the canon of the church at all but be that as it may, actually,

Augustine said many, many, many things concerning the subject of the authority of the church and one of the things he said is let us not search for the church in any man -made documents but only within the scriptures.

He said specifically that the canon was given to the church by the Holy Spirit. He said specifically if any Catholic bishops are there to be rejected but we are to look to the scriptures as, in fact, that rule of faith which fixes our dogma is the specific term and I could give you exact quotations if you would like to but if you're asking for my interpretation of his letter against the

Manichaeans he is specifically there relating the necessity of a testimony to him and very frequently it is the communion of faith that gives to us the testimony of Christ before we even know of the scriptures and I believe that's what he's referring to there when he actually addresses the relationship of the scriptures to the church he makes it very, very clear that the church is subservient to the authority of the scriptures and if you would like to have some quotes from that I would be glad to look those up for you.

That's fine, thank you. Back to the question of Jewish tradition of prayer for the dead how do you interpret a passage like Nehemiah 2 9 -2 rather wherein we read that the community assembled for a penitential liturgy and quote stood confessing their sins and the transgressions of their ancestors.

Now we know from the historical record that a part of those penitential liturgies was making a sin offering.

So where does this come in terms of the revealed word of God? The sins of Israel separated themselves from all foreigners and stood to confess their sins and iniquities of their fathers.

The Jewish people most definitely confessed that their fathers with whom they stood in solidarity had sinned against God and that was the reason for their exile into Babylon and to confess that is to recognize that God's judgment against them was just, that his punishment was just and that's exactly what they're referring to.

And then why make a sin offering? Because that's commanded in the law of Moses. But why? Why?

Because God commanded that the people give an offering in the recognition and confession of their sins.

But for what purpose? Well, for the purpose of prefiguring the perfection of that work in Jesus Christ specifically.

Where does it say that in the text? In the book of Hebrews, sir. That's the whole fundamental thrust of the book of Hebrews that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the

Old Testament sacrifices. As I have studied fundamentalism over the years there are certain very neuralgic points about which we've already touched.

On which we've already touched. But they all have a common thread it seems to me.

The question of human cooperation in the work of redemption. Human merit.

The communion of saints. Intercessory prayer. Indulgences. And the common thread is human participation.

Now, again, we have Saint Augustine who in one of his sermons says the

God who made you without you does not justify you without you.

So, the question is, how do you understand that? I, of course, subject

Augustine to the authority of Scripture recognizing as McGrath has himself pointed out and many others have pointed out that Augustine misunderstood the term justificare in Latin, in Greek.

He was not aware of what the Greek term actually meant and he thought that it referred to an actual change in the person and infusion of grace when in point of fact that's not what the entire

Dikaios, Dikaiosune family of terms means. And so I would subject Augustine to the very same standard that he himself said that I should when he said if you should ever find a

Catholic bishop to err, then stick with the God inspired Scriptures. And so I would do that with Augustine.

I would do that with Calvin. I would do that with Zwingli. I would do that with Luther. And I would hope that anyone would do that with anyone at all who claims to stand and speak with the authority of God from the

Scriptures. Do you think perhaps that Augustine may have been taking seriously St.

Peter's understanding that baptism makes someone a new creation perhaps? Could you give a reference to that sir?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. In Christ and through baptism, 1 Peter talks about the fact that one has become a new creation.

What is the reference sir? Actually the new creation is Paul. Well you've got your little gizmo there. You can find it.

Well I could search for it if you'd like me to do that, but the phrase new creation is used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 .17, but it's not by baptism.

Once again, we're playing games. No sir, I can't answer a question if I don't know what reference you're referring to.

Leave it aside. If God's grace is I don't think

I said anything funny. I think that's an ignorant reaction. Okay? If God's grace is not to be perceived as magic, then don't you think that a degree of human cooperation is not only possible, but essential?

No sir, actually the division between monergists and synergists is, you were very correct, and I agree 100 % with you, that one of the key differences between ourselves is the difference between monergism and synergism.

I would totally reject the idea that for grace not to appear magic, that it must have human cooperation.

God's grace raised Lazarus from the dead without a little bit of human cooperation.

It wasn't magic. When God acts by his grace, it is a powerful grace that actually accomplishes what he sends it to accomplish.

I would suggest that it is the early distinction that is made in kinds of graces that leads to a tremendous misunderstanding of the

New Testament witness to the fact that when it says we are saved by grace, that it means exactly that.

That the soul means is grace, and that it is not grace that allows us then to save ourselves by doing meritorious works in a state of grace.

How do you understand Colossians 124? Even now

I find joy in the sufferings I endure for you. In my own flesh, I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body.

The passage refers to the term flipsis in the Greek New Testament which the apostle

Paul never once uses of the passions of Christ in regards to redemption and his sufferings upon the cross.

The term specifically is utilized of the tribulations and trials of the people. The tribulations that are referred to there in the passage would be the same ones that Paul himself well knew that the

Lord knew, for it was the Lord who met him on the road to Damascus as he went to persecute his chosen people.

It was the Lord's words to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? The sufferings of his people, not for redemption, but as they live in this life, are shared by Christ.

That is what Paul refers to. He never once uses that term in such a way as to connect it with the sufferings of Christ for the redemption of his people.

What do you understand as the nature of the church as the mystical body of Christ?

The church is indeed the mystical body of Christ made up of all of his elect people.

That body of Christ is organized according to the wisdom of God with Christ as its head and then it exists visibly in the congregations of Christ as they exist with elders and deacons.

Those are the two biblical offices of bishops, presbyters, elders, all the same thing.

Even as Jerome recognized they're all one office. That promise of Christ to be with his church throughout all ages is one that we revel in and that we believe.

We recognize, however, that the church is normally, as it was in the upper room, a very small minority and very rarely is it a majority because of the prophecies of scripture that the church would always have to fight and agonize for the truth throughout her entire history.

What's the relationship then between the head and the members? Well, the Lord Jesus Christ said he would always be with us and so it is a very spiritual union that exists between the head and the members because we have all been baptized into one body through the

Holy Spirit and so there is a supernatural unity that exists between believers and Jesus Christ so that wherever I go

I am always amazed by the unity that I can have with my brothers and sisters in the

Lord even when I am many thousands of miles away from my own fellowship and that union continues to this day.

It will always be there because he promised he would be with us until the end of the age and he has given us his word and through his spirit has given us the leadership that explicates the word of God and guides the church in her earthly pilgrimage.

Well, this leadership is a cause of some concern to me because you've dismissed the three principal leaders of the

Protestant Reformation you've written off dozens of fathers of the church and it seems to me and I would hope that I'm misreading this, that what it really becomes is the individual believer determines what's right so that when

Martin Luther replaced the Pope with himself and then found himself replaced by thousands of mini -popes that as a matter of fact this is rather normative for Protestantism then.

Yes, you are misreading me greatly at that point. I have not written off anyone I do not believe that Calvin, Luther or Zwingli would want me to believe them to be infallible and in fact according to their own words they would want me to hold them to that standard.

You can be a great Christian leader and not be infallible in fact Luther would,

I'm sorry Calvin would have banished me from Geneva and I recognize that but that does not mean that I then have to quote unquote write him off and mean that he was a nobody you see sir,

I can look at those early church fathers and I can look at them as I look at people today I am a reformed

Baptist, I have differences with my Presbyterian brothers but I look to people like B .B.

Warfield and Charles Hodge and R .C. Sproul as great men of God even though I don't think that their interpretation of scripture is perfect but they and I can sit down at a common table with a common source of authority and discuss our differences it is the insertion of an external authority that stops that activity of truly examining what the word of God says so no sir it is not you and your

Bible under a tree Hebrews 13 .17 says being subject to those who have the rulership over you, we believe in the divine function of the church, the church is entrusted with the word of God, the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth but a pillar and a foundation holds something else up and by God's grace the church holds up God's truth which is given to her in the inspired word.

But who is the church? The church of course is all those that Jesus Christ calls to himself they are his elect that are here upon this earth that sojourn together that seek as a body to bring honor and glory to their head

Jesus Christ. Is there an objective definition of who is a not subjective, objective external judgment by which one can have some kind of assurance about what is true and what is false in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Of course it's called the scriptures yes. Well then again how do we explain our 28 thousand different interpretations of scripture?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the scriptures sir. You're assuming that if a source is infallible and sufficient in and of itself that that makes everyone who comes to it infallible and sufficient themselves that is a great common assumption but it is an illogical assumption the scriptures perfection is not measured by our coming to it with our weaknesses, with our sins with our traditions and misusing it there can be no logical connection made there sir.

Please don't misunderstand me I am not saying that the scriptures are anything less than inspired, infallible and inerrant.

I'm simply saying how does one come to interpret them infallibly and inerrantly?

Well first of all sir you're assuming that we as human beings are infallible in some way shape or form or that we need to have infallibility the problem is the

Lord Jesus in speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, Sadducees and others held them accountable to be able to interpret the scriptures and to know with sufficient clarity what

God's truth was he obviously did not believe that they were infallible themselves but he still held them accountable for what they were to believe.

Reverend White you have 15 minutes for cross examination I thought it was 25 I'm sorry

I apologize 25 see I need you to correct me every time I do this. You're not infallible it's okay Father Stravinskis he wrote in the

Catholic Answer book page 25 quote that realization is what can transform a sinner into a saint the very reason for the existence of purgatory end quote is it your position that we are made saints by something we do by a realization of something by suffering sadaspatio and purgatory undergoing penances etc.

and the question is is it your position that we are made saints by something we do by a realization of something by suffering sadaspatio and purgatory undergoing penances etc.

is that how we become saints? No we are made saints through the sacrament of baptism and the process of sanctification is a life long process by which we cooperate with the grace of God and a failure to cooperate with God's grace is a clear indication that one has fallen from the state of sanctification that he received in baptism.

Then what did you mean in the Catholic Answer book page 25 when you said that realization the context if you have the work with you was the realization

I think of self love and God love that realization is what can transform a sinner into a saint the very reason for the existence of purgatory.

So it sounds to me like you're saying the reason for the existence of purgatory is to transform a sinner into a saint.

Well we are all sinners huh? And the purpose of purgatory is to provide well let's back up even the purpose of the sacrament of penance is to deal with the phenomenon of post -baptismal sin.

It's really almost impossible to appreciate the doctrine of purgatory apart from the context which the necessary context of the sacrament of penance.

In other words the practice of the first three and four centuries of the church in the confession of sin committed after baptism was what gave rise to the idea that as a matter of fact there needed to be for certain individuals who did not pay the debt of justice to God through the sacrament of penance what remained unremitted needed to be dealt with in the afterlife.

Maybe I'm not being clear. Are all believers in this room saints? Yes and no.

And a great reformation principle is we are simul justus et peccator. We're at once justified and sinful.

So what is the yes part of the saints? The yes part is that we are saved in hope.

The yes part is that God began the work in us through baptism and our cooperation with it or non -cooperation rather is the no part.

In your opinion sir is idolatry a venial or a mortal sin? Objectively speaking it would be a mortal sin.

You wrote in the Catholic answer book page 26 the church has based this practice in part upon references to expiatory sacrifices of the dead found in the second book of Maccabees 1239.

This book was deleted from the Old Testament by the Protestant reformers because it contradicted their position on both purgatory and prayers for the dead.

End quote. Is it not true sir that the Jews mentioned in second Maccabees 1239 -45 were guilty of idolatry and that the offering being made for their sins was for their sins not for temporal punishments?

The church has never presumed to judge the subjective guilt of anyone. It's I think a rather interesting historical fact that while the church feels very comfortable in declaring certain people to be in heaven she has never made a single declaration about the condemnation of any individual to hell.

That is a judgment of almighty God. That's the first point. Secondly whether or not the offering was efficacious is neither here nor there.

It is a scriptural testament or witness to a practice that was firmly ensconced in intertestamental

Judaism. You said that the reformers removed second Maccabees because it contradicted their position on purgatory but is it not true sir that as the

New Catholic Encyclopedia notes in volume 2 page 390 that Pope Gregory the Great specifically rejected the

Maccabean literature as non -canonical as did Jerome and that as late as the 16th century Cardinal Cayetan likewise held this view which explains the ability of John Cawson to list 52 major ecclesiastical writers between Jerome and the

Reformation who likewise rejected these books. Why did these writers reject the apocryphal books?

Their rejection was not on the basis of doctrine. They were simply using the Hebrew canon but as private individuals people have all kinds of personal opinions but those actions, those statements of theirs are not done with magisterial authority.

When is the first infallible definition of the canon of scripture? Well the most absolute is certainly

Trent. April of 1546 right? You wrote this as well quote this evidently indicates that we are what we are considering is not a medieval belief but something that is at the very heart of Christianity the need to pray for the dead.

Prayers for the dead in turn presuppose that the dead need to be helped and can be helped since both heaven and hell are eternal states the only option is an intermediate state from which release is possible.

Catholic theology calls this state purgatory end quote. Sir is it not the case that the early

Christians used the term refrigerium which as I point out in my opening statement referred to the pleasures of paradise a state defined as peace and light and not until the end of the 5th century do we find an inscription that refers to the redemption of one who has died?

No I mean the catacomb inscription that I shared with you earlier is

Peter and Paul pray for Victor over his tomb. Does that indicate something concerning redemption sir?

Salvation, no see once again we're using different terminology So where in the wording do you get the idea of redemption or salvation?

Pray for Victor. If Victor is in heaven he doesn't need anybody's prayers.

If he's in hell nobody's prayers are going to do him any good. But it's given are you disputing then the scholarly conclusion that refrigerium meant a prayer that they would have the peace and joy of paradise?

That is the prayer that they would have it. So you're assuming that what they mean there is may you have it by being redeemed from the temporal punishments of your sins and purgatories you can get out.

That's one possible interpretation. Okay do you believe in the

Sabatine privilege sir? That's not a defined dogma of the church. I wasn't asking if it was a defined dogma

I was asking if you personally believe in the Sabatine privilege. I have no great interest or devotion in it.

Okay. You are aware of what it's referred to of course. Yes. When it was very popular and a number of popes based the giving of indulgences based upon it as you know it said that anyone dying wearing a scapular and having fulfilled the various requirements that Mary herself would descend into purgatory and release that soul on the

Saturday following their death. Does that not indicate that at that particular time the concept of the church from the hierarchy on downward was very temporally oriented with the idea of days passing indulgences involving days, months, weeks, years, etc.

Isn't that different than what we have today? Well first of all the whole idea of days attached to indulgences is precisely related to the practice of the early church of public prolonged and even lifelong penance.

This is what I alluded to earlier. So for example if someone committed the sin of adultery he would appear before the entire

Christian community in the presence of the bishop, confess the sin and be assigned a public penance which could be denial of communion for 8 years 10 years plus the performance of some work of satisfaction like almsgiving or the making of a pilgrimage or whatever.

It's precisely in that context that the notion of temporal punishment is experienced in the purgatorial situation.

But there is no official teaching of the church and never has been that purgatory is in any way connected to time.

We know that it exists outside time precisely because it's already into eternity.

But those who embrace the Sabbatine privilege and believe that Mary will deliver their soul on the Saturday after their death how can that be understood as anything but temporal?

I would suggest that that is number one the language not of doctrine but of devotion which is the difference between a cold clinical scientific description of something and a love letter.

What we would expect from the front page of the New York Times is something rather different than a letter that a man would write to his sweetheart after their first or second date.

As a matter of fact he might be quite embarrassed if the letter he wrote appeared on the front page of the

New York Times. Okay. You also wrote common sense and human experience demonstrate that most people, even most

Christians are not good enough at death for the experience of eternal bliss nor bad enough for the fires of hell.

Purgatory corresponds this intuition and confirms our belief in a merciful father who wants all his children to be saved.

Is it your position that there are people that there are any people who are not bad enough for the fires of hell?

That is not my judgment. I already indicated. The church presents objective criteria for a mortal sin.

Number one, that it is objectively grave matter. The person knows it, has complete knowledge of that fact, and consciously freely, willingly commits the act.

If those three conditions are present, we have a mortal sin which is then worthy of hellfire.

Without one of those conditions present, we do not have a mortal sin. The judgment on whether or not it is a mortal sin is not mine, it is

God's. Has there ever been an infallible list of mortal sins given to the church?

Of objectively grave matter, yes. But not of so -and -so has committed a mortal sin.

The church, for example, will not pronounce on someone like Hitler. As horrible externally and objectively as his acts were, we cannot judge him.

We can judge his actions. You often speak of the communion of the saints in your responses on the subject of purgatory in your books.

In light of that, could you explain Hebrews chapter 12 verses 22 -24 where we read,

Specifically, where are the saints in purgatory in this passage that clearly spans the entire communion of saints?

Well, I would suggest it doesn't span the entire communion of saints. So the spirits in purgatory are left out of Hebrews 12 22 -24.

They're there in potentia because anyone who is in purgatory is, as a matter of fact, saved.

Okay, but so there is no reference made to them in this passage, just a potential that maybe they will eventually be made perfect?

Because it refers to the spirits of the righteous made perfect? Your point is?

Is that what you're saying? They're not mentioned but they're there potentially.

I don't think that the sacred author had that issue in mind. In Matthew chapter 12 you presented this particular passage as being relevant to the doctrine of purgatory, correct?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Matthew chapter 12 the passage concerning the blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit. Mark chapter 3 gives the same incident and refers not to sin being forgiven in the next age but to the fact that this is an eternal sin.

Could you explain in light of the Roman Catholic use of Matthew chapter 12 why

Mark chapter 3 reads the way that it does? Well I would argue another direction.

Let me ask and this is something that I have found disturbing throughout our conversation this evening, that somehow or other there appears to be a kind of neo -gnosticism surfacing that we today with the benefit of everything that we have whether that's linguistically or historically or whatever, are in a better position to interpret the scriptures than 19 centuries of our forefathers in the faith.

And when you can bring out a panoply of authors in the history of the church who have looked at a particular passage and seen a certain appreciation, achieved a certain appreciation of that text and then all of a sudden someone else comes on the scene and sees something entirely different I would have a big question mark to be raised.

Is it your assertion then sir that you cannot answer that question because you believe there is a traditional interpretation of Matthew 12 that it's an invalid thing to point out?

No, as a matter of fact it's not. There is no traditional interpretation of Matthew 12 and when the church talks about particular scriptural texts she uses them as indicators not as proofs.

And you're running to the catechism at the moment and you will not see that the church says there that this is proof for the existence of purgatory.

Okay, so when I ask you to interpret Matthew chapter 12 and Mark chapter 3 are you saying that we shouldn't do that because to do so is neo -gnostic, that you can't do that or that you won't do that.

I'm not following where you're going here. No, I'm simply trying to highlight a methodology that's been employed which

I think is historically problematic. So it is your assertion that there is this unanimous testimony of No, I did not say that either.

Okay, that there is a universal testimony? What term did you use? No, I did not say that. Okay, you said 1900 years worth.

Not about that particular text. Okay, then let's not worry about that and let's go back to it. Why does

Mark chapter 3 tell us that what Jesus is saying is that this is an eternal sin.

There is nothing in the text that begins to refer to the possibility of forgiveness of sins in a future life in light of Mark chapter 3.

Why is it invalid to employ the study of the synoptics in parallel since that was done by Origen and Augustine and John I didn't say it was invalid.

Okay, then can you answer the initial question that I asked? Why did Mark say in Mark chapter 3 that what's at stake there is an eternal sin, not something about forgiveness of sins in the future?

I don't think that they're mutually exclusive interpretations. They're not mutually exclusive interpretations.

So you believe that you could interpret Mark chapter 3 to be referring to an eternal sin, but the parallel passage in Mark chapter 12 to be leaving open the possibility of future forgiveness of sins.

That's correct. I see. In 1 Corinthians chapter 3 beginning at verse 10, what is your understanding?

Who is being discussed contextually in this passage? Starting at verse...

Well, just in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 in general. For example, when it says let a man be verse 10, but let each one look to how he builds upon it.

Who is being discussed here? Is this all saints?

Is this Christian leaders? Is it not saints, but those who have to go to purgatory before they become saints?

How do you understand it? Well, Paul is talking about himself as the architect who laid the foundation.

Correct? And the process of the planting of the gospel being done by various people.

So, specifically the context then is referring to people who are involved in building the church.

Let them be careful how they build upon the foundation I've laid. We would agree with that. Then when he goes on to talk about this building upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble.

What do you understand those words to refer to, please? Well, he's referring... Notice he changes the pronoun at that point to you.

Which is to say the cooperation of the believer in the work of the construction of the edifice.

Actually, he uses the indefinite there, but if anyone builds, verse 12, test is used there. So, what do these things refer to then?

The gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble. What are those? One's individual gifts, talents, etc.

Or, the lack thereof. The non - use of these things.

So that I, if I have a talent that's gold, and instead I don't use it, is that perhaps straw being introduced into the edifice?

When it refers to the day revealing, making manifest these works that are being built upon the foundation, that there's going to be an apocalyptic is the actual term.

That it'll be apocalypticized by fire. Is it your belief that what is being referred to here is purgatorial sufferings in regards to temporal punishments of sins?

First of all, he's talking about the day of the Lord coming into the life of the individual.

And, furthermore, the individual's participation in that day of the

Lord. Do you believe that what is being referred to in verse 13, when it refers to the fire shall reveal it, and each one's work of what sort it is, the fire will test that this is the fire of purgatory.

Well, first of all, the Church does not teach the precise nature of purgatory.

And so, I would say that this is a metaphor here, as is the Church's use of the metaphor of fire for purgatory.

Has the Church used this passage as a substantiation for the existence of purgatory? As an indication of the primitive belief in purgatory, yes.

So, if the primitive writers believed in purgatory, and if the Church has pointed to this, then can we not ask concerning the nature, not the physical nature, but the fact that this fire reveals of what sort works are?

Would it not have to, sir, if it's supportive of the concept of purgatory, would it not have to, in this passage, refer to some sort of suffering and some sort of cleansing of temporal punishments of sins, not merely the demonstration of whether a

Church leader's motivations were pure, whether his works were gold, or whether they were strong? The revelation is, in itself, a form of catharsis or purification.

So, revelation in testing is involving purification. Is that what you just indicated?

If you reveal my flaws to me, that revelation, in and of itself, can be purifying.

Those who built with gold, silver, and precious stones also go through this fire.

Where is there any concept of these individuals needing this purification before they enter into the presence of God?

Does it not say that they actually receive a reward, that there's nothing here concerning their needing this purification?

Well, I think it's the simple realization that even the just man sins seven times a day, and therefore the need for purification for most people.

So, where in the text do you have this mixture where you have people who have gold, silver, precious stones, and they have a little wood, hay, and straw burned, and that's their purification?

Where is that derived from the text? I'm missing your point.

Well, you just indicated that the just man sins seven times, so it sounded like you were asserting that even those who built with gold, silver, and precious stones, that they themselves are undergoing some sort of purification here.

The only thing the text says is they receive a reward, and the others do not.

What is their reward? What rewards are given in purgatory? Heaven. But they both get heaven.

So, the one gets something the other doesn't get in this text. What is it? Where does it say the other doesn't get anything?

Verse 15, but if a certain one's works are consumed, he shall suffer a loss, yet he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

He doesn't receive a misthos. He does not receive a reward. So, if the reward's heaven, then this can't be purgatory, because this ends up in hell.

I don't see that, I'm sorry. Okay, well, let's be respectful, everyone.

Let's see if we can work through this. The fact of the matter is both these groups experience the same testing by fire, but the ones who have their works remain, which they have built upon the foundation, verse 14 says,

Mithon, they shall receive a reward, a misthos. But if another one has their works, which they have built, which were made of wood, hay, and straw, burned up, consumed, they shall suffer a loss, yet they shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

So, if this is the fire of purgatory, both experienced it, one gets a reward. If that's heaven, what do the other people get?

Do you see the point? You're saying the ones whose works are burnt up get the reward? No, they don't get any reward.

That's what it says. They suffer a loss. Zemiaho means to suffer a loss of something. If it is burnt down, he will be the loser, and though he has saved himself, it will be as if one who has gone through fire.

Wow, that's a fascinating translation. I'd like to pick up with that on the second round.

Actually, as somebody who's been demonstrated to be not infallible a number of times this evening,

I want to raise a possible conflict that we have here, and if Chris is out there in the audience, I could probably use his help.

I've got conflicting instructions here. I'm told our cutoff time is 11 .30pm. I'm looking at my watch.

It's 5 to 11. I'm also instructed to give our speakers two 25 -minute periods, and two 10 -minute periods, plus time for questions from the audience.

Somehow this doesn't quite add up, even though I am not infallible. So, the first question

I have for Chris, if he is out there, is how are we, in fact, required to end at 11 .30pm?

That's not written in stone. So I just... If you would confer...

Our speakers have agreed to cut the next cross -examination down to 10 minutes each, to be followed by the 10 minutes final remarks, and then we'll try to leave a few moments for questions from the audience.

So we will reset our clocks to 10 minutes. Father Stravinsky, you have 10 minutes.

Dr. White, when do you think the Church, shall we say, invented the doctrine of purgatory?

I don't believe there is a date for the invention of purgatory, because it is the confluence of numerous things.

It was the development of the concept of merit, it was the development of the concept of prayers to the dead, eventually coming to the concept of having effects upon the dead.

I think, if you're familiar with Lagoff's history of purgatory, he does a very good job in demonstrating that at least the medieval doctrine of purgatory, which was canonized or promulgated or made dogma by Florence, underwent its most change in the 12th century, its most development in the 12th century.

And so, I would say that the foundations began, as I mentioned earlier, with people such as Origen and their platonic concepts of suffering as a cleansing device, and developed very slowly over time to the point where even

Gregory did not have nearly the fully developed concept of purgatory that is a part of what the

Council of Florence said. It took time, just as indulgence is then, built upon that process of evolution.

So, I would agree with you. I don't like those things that people pass out that have the dates on them and stuff like that, because that's a simplistic view of church history.

You can't view it that way. If that's what you're referring to. If you agree with the

Book of Revelation that nothing unclean shall enter heaven, what should be presumed about the mass of humanity, even the majority of believing

Christians? Simply put, given the human propensity to sin, and as I mentioned earlier, we're told in Scripture, even the just man, or the justified man perhaps, sins seven times a day, will people like that enter heaven?

Or will the just man go to hell? Or is there another possibility that corresponds to divine justice and mercy at the same time?

The major difference between us is our understanding of what it means to be just. To say someone is just can be used in a general sense of saying that they are a moral person, or a person who observes general precepts of righteousness.

The biblical use of the term in the Pauline Corpus, which should be our concern this evening, I believe, is that the just man is the one who possesses, imputed to him by faith alone, by God's grace, the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is a perfect righteousness, which is the only basis upon which he stands before God.

And that's why in my opening statement I emphasized the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 4 .6 when he speaks of the blessedness on the man to whom

God imputes righteousness apart from works. And then he interprets that from Psalm 32 as being in regards to the non -imputation of sin.

And since the blessed man of Romans 4 .8 is the person to whom

God does not impute sin, then in answer to your question, whether we're talking about the great mass of humanity or whatever, the only person that enters into the presence of God is the one who is clothed in the seamless robe of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

What do you make of a passage like 1 John 3 .3 which says that the believer must purify himself, speaking of imputed righteousness?

Actually, it says beginning of verse 2, Beloved, now we are children of God and it has not appeared as yet what we will be.

We know that when he appears we will be like him because we will see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope, that is the hope of the coming of Christ, fixed on him purifies himself just as he is pure.

And then it goes on to say everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness. And sin is lawlessness.

You know that he appeared in order to take away sins and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins.

No one who sins has seen him or knows him. Obviously we know there he's using the present tense.

It's that issue of practicing sin. And so it is the Christian who wants and desires because of that hope that abides within him to mortify every evil desire, anything that is displeasing before God.

I don't know if you are asking me if you think that we are capable of purifying ourselves of our sins or whether as the text is talking about we are able to purify ourselves in regards to our actions and our desires.

I didn't know. I couldn't tell. What you have described sounds an awful lot to me like human cooperation with divine grace.

No sir. Actually I think you need to understand that the position that I have been presenting is that man being dead in sin prior to regeneration is incapable of cooperating with anything.

This is after regeneration. This is after God has created spiritual life as 2 Corinthians 5 .17

says. Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creation. Old things have passed away. Behold all things have become new.

And it is that new creation created by Jesus Christ who is according to Paul in Ephesians 2 .10

wants to walk in newness of life and wants to walk in the good works which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.

As an old friend of mine who sadly was murdered in the LA riots a number of years ago, the last person to die in those riots, a friend of mine named

Wally Tote put it. You don't go baa baa to become a sheep. You go baa baa because you are a sheep.

That is you can wrap yourself in wool and crawl around all fours and go baa baa.

That doesn't make you a sheep unless you are changed internally and then the good works flow naturally from that changed heart and that is the desire of purification that we have for ourselves.

We want to be like Jesus and so we want to purify ourselves from all those things that would be displeasing in his sight.

He's not talking there about how it is we were raised to spiritual life because no spiritually dead person has that as his desire.

It seems to me that evangelicals, fundamentalists, etc. have no problem with intercessory prayer as long as it's restricted to the living.

So my question would be, what's the thinking then about the state of the dead that they're barred from interceding?

Are they in a state of suspended animation? St. Paul tells us all are alive in Christ and that's indicated by numerous situations in the

New Testament. For example, Christ's conversation with Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

So why is it that this theological school has no problem with your praying for me or my praying for you, but it has a problem if I drop dead in five minutes and you would be asked to pray for me or I for you?

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean in regards to the theological systems you're talking about.

I would be described as a reformed theologian myself. There are many in some of those camps that wouldn't want me in theirs actually given some of the books

I've written. But if you are couching the term intercessory prayer in a context that refers to communication, the fundamental reason that conservative evangelical

Christians do not engage in that type of prayer is much of it would involve communication in the sense of praying to angels or praying to saints and things like that.

The second thing would be if you're talking about, well, just praying for an individual, we believe what Hebrews 9 says, that as appointed man unto man wants to die, but after this comes the judgment.

And therefore since we reject the concept of purgatory, the decision in regards to the destiny of that person is fixed at the point of time of their death, which is why the scriptures say, behold now is the day of salvation.

Do not, Terry, do not put these things off. My question was actually the first point.

Why can I effectively pray for you now but if I were dead,

I couldn't? Well, I'm not sure what you mean by effectively pray for me.

Well, for example, if I say to you, listen, I've been having some heart palpitations.

I've got to go to the doctor tomorrow to take a cardiogram. Would you please pray for me? And good

Christian gentlemen that you are, you say, I'd be more than happy to pray for you. Now, why is that not a problem?

But if I say to the mother of Christ or if I say to St. Anthony, would you please pray for me?

Oh, okay. That's called communication with the dead. And when you said earlier,

St. Paul says, all are alive in Christ. He is not in any way, shape, or form addressing a parallel to what you're now attempting to use that text.

When he says all are alive in Christ, he's meaning that all who are in him have spiritual life. There's no such thing as a person who is a spiritually dead

Christian. So I don't believe that what Paul meant was that since all are alive in Christ, that means the distinction that is a part of the

Old Testament law has been destroyed and you can now have communication with the dead. I believe that the dead are in a perfect place of bliss, and I do not believe that they are burdened down with the concerns of what we are experiencing in this life.

Okay, Reverend White, you have ten minutes for questions as well. Thank you. Father Stravinskis, since I want to get back to 1

Corinthians 3 here in a moment, but since you read an Augustine quote, I wanted to read an

Augustine quote and get your take on it. Augustine said, Would you find that particular expression of statement by Augustine consistent with the denial of sola scriptura that is a part of Roman Catholic theology in which you've presented this evening?

I don't think it's fair to characterize the

Catholic opposition to sola scriptura as being anti -scripture. Scripture in Catholic theology is a norma normans, which is to say, it is a norm that serves as a norm for everything else.

The Catholic Church can never teach anything that is not, excuse me, the

Catholic Church cannot teach something that is explicitly forbidden or condemned in Scripture.

We can take account of silence in Scripture. Again, this was certainly the principle of the

Reformers, that what the Scriptures do not talk about, a Christian is free to do or not to do.

What Augustine, who certainly had a very, very highly developed theology of Revelation, which is more than just Scripture for Augustine, Augustine also would be very comfortable in saying at another point,

Roma lacuta est, causa finita est. Rome has spoken and the case is closed.

Sir, could you tell me where that's found? No, again, I don't have my little...

Is it not true that that's found in Sermon 131? Have you ever looked at Sermon 131, sir?

Yes, I have. I taught a course in Augustine. Okay, and are you aware that that phrase that you just quoted never appears in any text of Sermon 131?

I... I can provide you with the actual Latin text if you want me to look it up. That does not appear anywhere in Sermon 131.

Do you think I care about the number of it? It doesn't. No, no, sir. I'm sorry.

The point I was making is you seem... You just made a quotation from Augustine. And I'm challenging you that while that is said to appear in Sermon 131, that is one of the most common apologetic errors of Roman Catholic apologists.

And what manuscript are you using? The standard one used by actually anyone, in fact.

But I can't... I would be glad to explicate on that and provide you with the actual Latin, but that is not the text of what he said.

But going back to what he did say, so you said that the Church cannot teach anything contrary to Scripture.

Would you say that that was Augustine's position, that the Church then could teach something that the Scriptures were silent about?

I would think he would be comfortable with that. So when he said, What more shall I teach you than what we read in the Apostle?

For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.

Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.

Would you find that to be consistent or inconsistent with what you just said? I think the point he is making there is precisely the point

I had just made that Scripture is a norma normans. It is a norm norming all others.

You don't hear him saying that I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the

Teacher? Well, he would see that the Church has an understanding of the words of the Teacher, a deeper appreciation as time goes on.

Okay. Back to the Scriptural text in the five minutes that we have left before our closing statements.

When in the book of Hebrews we are told that Jesus Christ, by His sacrifice, and specifically

I'm looking here at Hebrews chapter 10. I'll give you a specific reference here.

Hebrews chapter 10 verse 10. When the

Scripture says, for by this will, we have been made holy through the once for all offering of the body of Jesus Christ would be one rendering of the

Greek text here. What does it mean to you that we have been sanctified by this one will?

Actually, I'm pleased that you brought up this idea about from Hebrews because one of the things that always concerns me in conversations like this is that there seems to be such an emphasis on the redeeming element of Christ's death on Calvary that the total experience of the

Incarnation is lost sight of. So that one tends to focus on one particular moment and everything else of the mystery of the

Incarnation is cast into oblivion. Hebrews 10 .5

talks about the fact that it is the body of Christ that He assumes in the mystery of the

Incarnation that saves the world. Therefore, the entire mystery of Christ's life which is an embodied existence which

He has even now as the risen and ascended Lord therefore, the Incarnational principle is incredibly important.

If we simply focus on the Lord's death which is obviously critically important but if that's the point of the redemption of the human race, then without sounding too blasphemous we could say that God wasted an awful lot of time by sending

His Son here for 33 years or 60 years if you want to go with someone else's understanding when all

He had to do was send Him down for 3 hours to die on a cross. What does that have to do with the question that I asked?

What does it mean that by this will we have been sanctified? Let me back up.

Where in Hebrews 10 .5 does it say that His body saved the world? A body you have given me.

And where does that say it saved the world? That's the vehicle of the redemption of the world.

Is the salvation of the world not through the offering of that body on the tree? It's the total

Christ event. In Hebrews chapter 10 can you find the phrase the total Christ event?

I think we're being silly. Well, I'm simply pointing out sir. He's quoting He's quoting

Psalm 40 You who wanted no sacrifice or oblation prepared a body for me.

Right. And where does it say then that, where does salvation come in? Is it not verse 10?

Is it not verse 14 for by one offering He is perfected for all time? The offering is

His entire life death and resurrection. So if it is His entire life and we believe that the positive righteousness that is imputed to us is the positive righteousness of Jesus Christ, if it is

His entire life, then how then can you say that the righteousness that we have could in any way be incomplete which would require us to go to a place called purgatory to suffer for the temporal punishments of our sins before we enter into the presence of God?

You're the one that's talking about imputed righteousness. I'm not. You're not talking about imputed righteousness. Well, okay.

So let me ask you one last question then. In Romans 4 .8 when Paul says, Blessed is the man to whom

God will not impute sin, who's the blessed man? First of all, it's

Christ. So Christ is the blessed man to whom God will not impute sin. That's what he's talking about when in Romans 4 .6

he says Paul speaks about the blessedness upon the man that God, that all of a sudden he's now talking about Christ.

So that's the only fulfillment of Romans 4 .8. No. Who else then? Are you the blessed man?

I hope so. You hope so. So if you're the blessed man and your sins are not imputed to you, how can you suffer for their temporal punishments if they're not imputed to you?

No, I didn't say that the sins are not imputed. Okay, what does Romans 4 .8 mean then? You're talking about a righteousness being imputed.

That's 4 .6. 4 .8 says, Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not impute to him or take into account.

Will the Lord take into account your mortal sins? Of course. How about your venial sins? Yes. Then you're not the blessed man, are you?

I will be. You will be when? If I go through the process of purification.

Can anyone know they're the blessed man of Romans 4 .8? Paul says we're saved in hope and we work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

So this is something that's offered for a hope in the future. No one can say that I'm the blessed man, my sins will not be imputed to me.

We have to be careful of the sin of presumption. Okay. And with that exchange, we move to the final stage of their conversation between one another before we open the floor to some questions.

The first person to give the final remarks. I see somebody running up here. Actually, he won't need it.

He's probably going to stand up and give his final remarks up at the podium. Father Stravinskas, you have ten minutes for your final remarks.

Just to clarify a couple of points and then to move into a summary statement. I hope that no one here thinks that the

Catholic Church teaches that every single person, every single believer, automatically goes to purgatory.

Just as the Church makes no declarations about who goes to hell, she makes no declarations about who goes to purgatory.

So it is completely possible that there are many or few individuals who go to purgatory.

And that is the judgment of God. A point that we didn't get to pursue too much, but Dr.

White alluded to in talking about, for example, the doctrine of the

Trinity is omnipresent in the pages of the New Testament. I don't want to give the impression that I am saying that the doctrine of the

Trinity is not in Sacred Scripture. I am simply saying that as it is enunciated at the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople and Ephesus and so on, that those categories that are used cannot be found in Sacred Scripture.

And, as a matter of fact, the Church made a tremendous leap of faith in moving into extra -biblical categories in coming to her

Trinitarian doctrine by relying on Greek philosophical language like homoousios, ousea, hypostasis, and so on.

That was a tremendous decision that was made in the history of the Church and an irrevocable decision.

When we talk about masses for the dead, especially masses for the dead, or prayers for the dead, but especially masses, which more properly should be known really as the

Eucharistic Sacrifice, it should not be understood that we see in any way that these works are efficacious in and of themselves, but rather because they are united to the perfect, all -sufficient, and eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he offered and continues to offer as the eternal

High Priest. So Christ's ongoing intercession for us as the head of the body, we join our prayers as the members of that body to become the totus

Christus, the whole Christ praying for a member of the Church. It saddens me that very often certain

Christians reveal a notion of the afterlife with their animosity of prayer, animosity toward prayer to or for the dead, more in keeping with the

Sadducee Party, with whom our Lord took considerable umbrage, rather than with the

Pharisee Party with whom he agreed. And I think that this is a very important point to understand, that so much of this allergic reaction to prayer for the dead and the assertion that this is communication with the dead, although, as a matter of fact, there is no

New Testament passage that deals with that, and talking about necromancy and so forth, those passages in the

Old Testament are equally negative on the whole idea of resurrection of the dead, period.

So simply to bring those forward, I think, adds nothing to our discussion or our considerations.

I think it's fair to say that taking seriously the data of Scripture and tradition, the

Church's doctrine of Purgatory corresponds to an intuition which is at once very human and very

Christian. Inasmuch as 1 John 5 tells us that all sin is not all sin is deadly or mortal, and thus not punishable in hellfire, but equally true the

Scripture that nothing unclean shall enter heaven, Revelation 21, we're faced with the need to reconcile these two verses of Scripture, both of which are inspired and inerrant, and furthermore, to integrate them into our experience of human life, which shows us that not all sinners are evil to the core, indeed that all of us sin seven times a day, yet love the

Lord and struggle mightily against our weaknesses and the proclivity to sin which we've inherited from Adam, and eventually, we hope, so as to give the final victory to God's grace operative in our lives.

To the extent that we're successful in achieving this goal, in cooperation with grace during our earthly life, and are thus ready ourselves to see

God face -to -face, we have the possibility of entering heaven immediately, which is, as I indicated, always a distinct possibility in Catholic theology.

To the extent that we do not do so, however, we must undergo a final preparation to behold the

Lord of glory. What I'd like to do for a moment is give you a little guided tour through Cardinal Newman's dream of Gerontius, because he tries to explain this in very human terms.

He says, "...as the soul which appears before Christ the Judge at death, on encountering the all -holy

Lord, sees himself as a sinner in light of divine glory far more clearly than ever before."

Which is to say, he sees the reality of himself more clearly in death than he did in life.

At which point, the soul wishes to depart from heaven until suitably prepared.

Not unlike St. Peter's similar request that the Lord depart from him because he recognized himself as a sinner.

In the dream of Gerontius, which is a fanciful recreation, so it's a parable, if you will, the dying soul is warned of this by his guardian angel in these words, "...that

sight of the most fair will gladden thee, but it will pierce thee too."

So that the soul will now learn, and again this is quoting Newman, "...that the flame of everlasting love doth burn, erret, transform."

But this is a process which the soul gladly undergoes now. The alienation from God and neighbor, which is the inheritance from Adam, is put aside little by little.

And the soul is thus acutely attuned to the workings of divine grace, and again in the words of the poem, "...I

am happy in my pain." Which is both the pain of separation and the pain of atoning justice.

But the soul does not suffer alone, for he's aided by the prayers of the saints in heaven, which we hear so much about in the book of Revelation, as well as of members of Christ's church still on earth.

The result is that the soul leaves the gates of heaven to depart for what he calls his golden prison.

And he's told by his angel as he's led there, "...farewell, but not forever. Brother dear, be brave and patient on thy bed of sorrow.

Swiftly shall pass thy night of trial here, and I will come and wake thee on the morrow."

Now in the 11th century, the Benedictine Abbey of Cluny established a liturgical celebration of annual prayer for all the faithful departed, which we now call

All Souls Day. It was an attempt to bring together many crucial themes of Christian theology.

Divine justice and mercy, human responsibility and dignity, solidarity in prayer and suffering, life now viewed from the perspective of eternity in a church and a

Lord which gather us up into that mystical body of his. Truly a communion of saints whose bonds are not broken by death, but actually fortified.

Faced with that exhilarating image of such great and consoling truths, who could not be hopeful and joyful?

At the same time, as Catholics know, the sobriety of All Souls Day liturgy is like the instant of purgatory itself.

A fitting prelude to the glory of a thousand times a thousand years of possessing love and being possessed by love forever.

Thank you. applause I would just like for the cause of documentation to point out that the reference that I provided earlier in regards to the fact that Augustine never said

Rome has spoken, the case is closed, we find in Minch, Patrologia Latinae 38734

I have the Latin up here if anyone would like to see it, and on our website at aomin .org, look at sermo131 .html

and I have documented that very very fully. I believe that this year's debate fulfills very clearly last year's.

Last year we discussed justification. And this year we have seen exactly what happens when the biblical doctrine of justification which is so clearly laid out for us in Romans and Galatians is overlaid with tradition overlaid with quite simply false teaching.

The result is that the clear words of the text of scripture no longer mean what they mean.

Passages like 1 Corinthians 3 can be cited, but we're told they're really not being defined.

We really don't know exactly what's being said there, even though the passage makes it very clear that those who undergo this fire, some receive rewards, some do not, and that just doesn't quite fit with Rome's theology, does it?

We're told that we really can't understand what Matthew 12 is saying, even when we have

Mark 3 to explicate it and help us to understand. And then when we have clear words clear words that Christians should embrace and should be the greatest joy of our heart, we don't know who they refer to.

I ask you to listen once again to Paul's words, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom

God credits righteousness apart from works. That included David, by the way. Blessed are those, plural, whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered.

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. Verse 9, is this blessing then on the circumcised or on the uncircumcised also?

For we say faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness. Abraham was another one. Circumcised and uncircumcised, they're part of it,

Jews and Gentiles. Folks, Romans 4 .8 is about every single

Christian there is. And my friends, if you think this evening that there is any kind of suffering, any kind of penance that you can do to purify your soul so as to bring you into the presence of God, my friend, you have been deceived.

And it is the greatest act of love that I can tell you about a gospel message that says you can't bring anything.

You can't cooperate with grace when you're spiritually dead. And even then, when you are raised to new life, the biblical teaching is that the righteousness that you have is not a provisional righteousness that you can destroy by your sins.

It is called the righteousness of God. Not because it's just one that comes from Him. It is a divine righteousness.

It is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that is imputed to the believer.

Think about it, my friends. He bore our sins in His body upon the tree.

How can I then have to suffer for the punishments of that sin?

What a divine transaction takes place when our sins are imputed to Christ.

His righteousness is imputed to me. You see, if salvation was merely the forgiveness of sins, but there wasn't any positive righteousness, it would just bring you back to a moral neutral point.

The greatest command is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. I haven't done that, and neither have you.

How then can I stand before God with that command fulfilled? My substitute loved

His Father perfectly, and it is His righteousness

He didn't waste 33 years. He lived perfectly for those years, and it's that righteousness that comes to the empty hand of faith.

But it only comes to the person who recognizes that apart from that, he or she has no hope at all.

There is no suffering you can do that will cleanse your soul. There is nothing that you can offer, no oblations that you can give to cleanse your soul so that you can enter into the presence of God.

And my friend, when you trust in Jesus Christ, there's no need to think that there is. It is not to miss the incarnation of Christ, to read

Hebrews 10, 10 -14, and to hear about the perfection of Christ's work on my behalf.

It is to recognize that yes, He entered into human flesh. It had to be a man, a perfect man, the

God man who died upon the cross to make my salvation real.

But you see, He didn't just provide a theoretical redemption. He redeemed His people.

That is why we can have peace. We have not heard any exegesis of 1

Corinthians 3, 10 -15 that would compel us to believe it's about purgatory, or Matthew 12, or Maccabees.

Most of the presentation that I've presented concerning its history and those passages has simply not been addressed.

You are the judges of this debate. Some came in on both sides and they haven't heard a word the other side has said.

I realize that. But if you came in wanting to hear biblical exegesis and historical discussion, then you have a basis upon which to decide this debate.

My friends, when we walk out that door, when you enter into the world out there, and it's traffic, those of you who live on Long Island know there's not a one of us that has any assurance we're going to get where we're going.

I saw stuff driving down here that curled my hair. I wasn't even moving. And I almost saw two accidents right in front of me.

And you know exactly what I'm talking about. So, what assurance do you have?

You just heard it said. Well, I hope I'm the blessed man. Don't leave this room without knowing.

It is not the sin of presumption.

That is a promise for every believer in Jesus Christ. That is our blessedness.

My sins imputed to Christ. They're not imputed to me. He bears them.

That's not presumption. That's the proclamation of the gospel. And that's what

I bring to you this evening. It doesn't matter who's up here.

It does not matter who I am. It does not matter who any of us are. This is not about personalities.

It is about the very nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it's about our eternal souls.

I say to you, those words, if God has broken your heart to recognize the depth of your sin, and there is not a single person who's the son of Adam that does not deserve

God's awesome wrath. Every one of us. Those words are our only hope.

Those words are the only thing I'll direct you to. Because I know that He who bore my sins then invites me to come boldly to the throne of grace.

And that's the message that I hope you have heard, and heard with clarity this evening.

Thank you and God bless. Okay. Now, before we begin, let me say that in taking on the role of moderator,

I put myself under an extraordinary discipline. Most of you who do not know me couldn't begin to understand.

I have told myself I will not say anything because to do so might in some way put me one side or the other.

I would like to ask our questioners to put themselves also under an extraordinary kind of discipline.

Please be certain that your questions are questions, and secondly, if you want to read scriptures or cite things, please try to keep them as concise as possible.

You can see the line is forming. We are already running over time, so in order to ask questions, please keep yourself focused and quick.

Let's say 15 minutes is the time, and I'm going to stand at the podium, and if I have to interrupt you, please understand it's not anything personal, but we have to keep ourselves moving so everyone gets a chance to ask the questions they want to ask.

Direct your questions to one or the other of our speakers. The speaker who is asked the question will have, let's say, less than a minute to try to get an answer, and then the other speaker will have a chance 30 seconds to respond.

Can we try to split them up as much as we can? And if possible, we want to go alternate back and forth, so if you're lining yourselves up back there, try to identify who's asking who a question, and try to alternate them back and forth.

So, with our first questioner, please. Father Stravinskis, does a criminal who hasn't paid their who hasn't paid for their sin need to go to purgatory?

What do you mean by paid for his sin? They haven't done any good deeds or anything to help pay for it.

Do they need to go to purgatory? Well, if he hasn't repented of the action, then, first of all, there's a distinct possibility he can go to hell as well.

Okay, then in Luke 23, 32 through 43, we read about the criminals who were crucified, deservingly so with Christ.

I would think that crucifixion would be a serious crime in line with what would be considered a mortal sin in Catholicism.

How would you explain Jesus' response to the one criminal that he would be with Christ today in paradise without having to go to purgatory?

Well, if we wanted to be facetious, we could say perhaps he bought an indulgence from Tetzel before he got put on the cross.

But, in point of fact, God is sovereign, and we don't know what acts of repentance went through the mind of the good thief.

Certainly it's very different from what went through the mind of the other, and the very experience of his suffering could have attuned him much more to the reality of his sin, and therefore made him apt for an immediate entrance into heaven.

So, which means he wouldn't have had to do any... could respond, and then we could move on to the next questioner.

Well, I'm not sure that it's really facetious to raise the issue of indulgences, because I think they're directly related to this in regards to the idea of purifying people, but I think that is a very good question, and that is the thief did go into the presence of Christ in paradise that day, and given that there was a time you could go to Rome and gain a couple thousand years worth of indulgences by going there,

I think that does definitely raise an issue in regards to that subject. Next questioner, please.

It's a perfect segue to my question. My question is for both of my brothers. My Catholic brother,

I'd like you to answer first, and then perhaps James White. I have before me a

Catholic Bible, Emprimata, sealed and stamped. I'm reading two sentences from the

Book of Tobit. Tobit, chapter 4, verses 10 would be my first sentence.

For almsgiving delivers from death and saves men from passing down to darkness.

The second sentence I'd like to read is from Tobit, chapter 12, verses 9.

Almsgiving saves from death and purges every kind of sin.

My question is this is a book that the Catholics have held as being inspired.

Given the emphasis you have made with purgatory, it appears to me that every good

Catholic seems to have the option instead of going to purgatory, to perhaps write a check or do alms of some kind that will also purge them.

Yeah, it's pay now or pay later. Very simply. So you can write a check now to avoid purgatory?

The New Testament tells us charity covers a multitude of sins. What is that fee? Because I think you'd get a few checks probably.

What would that amount be? Okay, Reverend White, do you have a response as well?

The term charity is actually the term love, not the giving of money in the New Testament.

And I what can I say? If our view of sin is such that giving alms can cover sins, why did

Christ die upon the cross? Next question, please.

Mr. Stravinskas, in light of scriptures such as Revelation 1 6,

John 17 3, and 1 Timothy 2 5, which all make reference to the fact that we can know

God personally and experience him who is truth personally. And John 17 17, which says his word is truth and again, know it personally.

And knowing that God does not change and his word does not change that being in that relationship through Jesus Christ who is the truth and is

God and knowing him through his word and those things do not change. How can you then assert that the

Catholic Church's supposed magisterium upholds the dogma of purgatory when it's been demonstrated throughout history that the church's magisterium has in fact changed on many dogmas and doctrines?

Well, I would be interested to know what dogmas have changed. Well, for instance, fasting on Fridays.

That's not dogma. That's discipline. Well, I could point to the

Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary. These things did not exist. The veneration of various saints came into being in various and sundry times and apparently these intercessions have efficacy for, for instance, purgatory and other meritorious actions that relate to the eventual salvation of the

Catholic faithful. With all due respect, I think you're doing buckshot and there's no way to answer all of that.

Now, do you want to talk about the Immaculate Conception? Do you want to talk about the Assumption? Do you want to talk about the intercession of prayers? Or do you want to talk about fasting?

Reverend White, do you have a response and we're going to have to move on to the next question. Yeah, we need to try to keep the interchanges as enjoyable as that might be.

We can't get too many people through when we do that. I would just simply say I took umbrage at the statement earlier in the debate that talked about 2 ,000 years of Catholic teaching.

I think we need to recognize that very often that's used to cover over assertions that are not 2 ,000 years old in any way, shape, or form.

Let's do our homework. Let's go to the original sources and look at those things ourselves and find out whether it's really something that's always been believed or not.

Okay, I would ask that the next question be directed to Reverend White. So if you're coming up and you're not yet, he's not had a question directed to him and we're trying to strike some sort of balance.

So is there somebody on the line to ask a question to Reverend White? May I quickly ask one to each and just back off?

Start over there and we'll go back. Nobody likes me. First of all, thank you for an excellent debate.

Shalom, good evening. James is not, in addition to the question that Trinidad was brought up, is not your reformationist acceptance of the seventh day, of the first day change of the

Catholic Church in contradiction to the Ten Commandments which say, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, six days, shout out labor and do all their work by the finger of Elohim, by the finger of God, is that not in itself a negation of your concept of sola scriptura as was pointed out by the

Catholic Archbishop Reggio at the Council of Trent and for my Catholic brother? I'm sorry, one question.

I didn't understand one question at a time. We've got a lot of people lined up. Let's have this question and then have

Father Sterling respond to it and then we'll have to move on. Go ahead. Non -Trinitarian Sabbatarianism, that's an interesting way of approaching it.

No, it is not because, of course, if you have studied the change in regards to what the Lord's Day meant, for example, in Revelation chapter 1 and what the

Lord's Day was and the fact that long before there was a Roman Catholic Church, which, by the way, I do not use the term

Roman Catholic of the Church prior to Nicaea, for example, because the things that define the

Roman Catholic Church and her dogmas today were not believed by the people who were at the Council of Nicaea. So, if you don't teach the same thing, you're not the same thing.

No, it does not violate sola scriptura in any way, shape, or form because it recognizes the authority of the

Church to meet on the day of the Resurrection of Christ and that John was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, etc.,

etc., etc. That is not a violation of sola scriptura in any way, shape, or form. Father Stravinskas?

I would certainly agree with that. And, furthermore, the

Catholic Church does not use the expression in her official documents the Roman Catholic Church precisely because Roman is a qualifier that was added by the

Anglicans in the 17th and 18th centuries. So, we're on the same page for that one, too. Okay, I really have to move to the next question.

I'm very sorry. I really have to do. I understand. It's very painful. I've been struggling all evening.

Not to say. The next question, please. Just a quick question. You had mentioned, Father, that if the

Catholic Church can use objective standards by which they can determine who's in heaven, you had mentioned that in one of your rebuttals.

Why can't that same standard be used to determine who's in hell? And you also mentioned the fact that you'd have a hard time determining if you're that person in Romans if a noted author and noted

Catholic apologist like yourself would have a hard time. What about a Catholic layperson? I don't understand.

Oh, I mean, one's status in the church whether as a priest or a bishop or a layperson is not a guarantee of the experience of salvation.

St. Augustine says to his congregation, with you I'm a Christian, for you I'm a bishop.

The first is a source of joy. The second is a source of fear and consternation. So, office in the church actually carries more burdens than anything else.

Reverend White. Well, just very briefly, as I've already said, I think it is absolutely central to the reading of the text of Romans chapter 4 that anyone who reads that recognizes that Paul there is referring to every single

Christian. That is our common confession. That's what binds us together is the recognition that this is what

God has done for us in Jesus Christ. If that's not our confession, we're not a Christian. Okay, would the next person online who has a question for Reverend White please step forward.

This is a question to Dr. White in excellent answering. I really appreciate that.

You know, he never mentioned that if this place was existed, and I'm sorry for my accent, you know.

I'm sorry, what? If this place existed, our Lord would have mentioned he's talking about a story in Luke 16 about Lazarus and the rich man.

Immediately after their death, the rich man having a tormented life and a paradise life for Lazarus.

Another one is St. Paul is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5 chapter 18, absent from the body, present with the

Lord. Sir, is there a question there please? This is a question. I never mentioned this place either in Christ or Paul.

Okay, I think you're saying you're asking me why they would not mention these things.

I think it's more of a question for the other side. Christ never mentioned even the church builder in the seven churches

Paul built. He never mentioned anywhere in his letters, 13 letters.

Actually, interestingly enough, someone just yesterday presented to someone the idea that Luke 16 does support purgatory because Lazarus wanted someone to go back and tell his brothers and he must have been in purgatory.

In reality, he knew he could not leave that place. It's interesting that Abraham's response was he knew that he could not leave that place.

His response is that they will not believe Moses and the prophets. They will not believe if someone rises from the dead, indicating that this man had died, the rich man had died as an unbeliever.

So, yes, certainly I don't think there's any passage in Scripture that either makes direct or implicit reference to purgatory and I believe that I made a pretty strong case that the whole concept of purgatory is directly contradictory to biblical teaching concerning the nature of Christ's saving work.

Father Stravinskis. I think we're sort of spinning wheels at this point.

We're saying the same thing 22 times. Dr. White says he doesn't believe it's there. I say that I do.

Next question, please. I have two questions, if possible. One question, please.

Primarily directed to you, sir. I have a name.

Father Stravinskis. I'd like to call you Peter or I'm not comfortable with the word father. I grew up Roman Catholic.

Dr. Stravinskis would be fine. Well, actually, doctor is as offensive, according to the Methaian passage, as father because Jesus says, call no man father and call no one teacher.

The Latin word for teacher is doctor. Either way, please. Your question, sir. I do think that this debate is about personalities, specifically the personalities of the

Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and our Heavenly Father. My question is concerning 1

Corinthians chapter 3 and the fire.

I think the nature of Jesus Christ as our judge when we face him on judgment day is in question.

What kind of person will be judging us on judgment day? As he's represented in the book of Revelation, the

Apocalypse chapter 1, verse 12 says, and there

I turned to look at the voice which was speaking with me. And when

I turned, I saw in the midst of the seven lampstands one like the

Son of Man. And going on to verse 14. Could you bring it to a close quickly?

Yes, and his eyes were as the flame of fire. It seems to me that when we face the

Lord Jesus on judgment day, each one of us is going to have a searching of those eyes.

Yeah, you're not getting any argument from me on that. Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt.

I just need you to answer as a question and let Fr. Stavinskas answer, please. Can that not be the fire that purges us?

Isn't that a catharsis that will take place on judgment day, sufficient to get out of the sin of the whatever is unconfessed, out of the way to that point and then be in eternity with those eyes being eyes of grace?

I got your point, sir. Thank you. I would want to focus on the fact that the

Christ who judges us is a Christ who judges us by our actions and not through some kind of imputation, either of righteousness or of sin.

If I've committed sin, I need to be judged on the basis of my sins. If I've done good,

I need to be judged on that basis so that it is a real judgment, not an imputed judgment.

I agree that the Christ we face in judgment is one who is concerned about reality, not a legal fiction.

I am so thankful that Romans 8 says, Who shall condemn God's elect? It is

Christ who died, yea, who rose again, who has died in our place. We have been judged according to our sins and that's why we have eternal life.

The judgment being spoken of is of our works, not of our sins. All those who are judged for their sins, the great white throne of judgment, are cast into the lake of fire because if you still have your sins to be judged, you will be lost.

If they have not been imputed to Christ, you will be lost. That is the Christian gospel. Okay, I am charged with a heavy responsibility.

I said at the beginning of this that I'm a fan of inquiry. Inquiry is rooted in questions and to cut off questions runs almost completely against my nature.

However, I also am a merciful moderator. Our speakers have been up here over three hours. I would like to ask you all to join me in thanking them for a wonderful evening.

And I'd like to thank you too for being here. Thank you very much. ... ...

...

... ... ... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... Thank you for watching!