Catholic Spin: Purgatory and Indulgences

Teen be diligent to present yourself approved to God a worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth

Alpha and Omega ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast The Apostle Peter commanded all

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence

Your host is dr. James White director of Alpha and Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church If you'd like to talk with dr.

White, you can call now by dialing 602 -274 -1360. That's 602 -274 -1360

Or if you're out of the Metro Phoenix dialing area, it's 1 -888 -550 -1360

That's 1 -888 -550 -1360 and now with today's topic.

Here's James White Well as soon as I got on the Long Island last May I started getting questions from people about a statement that had been made by Norman Geisler on the

Bible and Saman program and those of you who are Just listening heard that statement the program that just played was recorded

I believe back in April was replayed about three weeks ago and every time it's replayed my email box gets full of Articles and people writing about the statement that dr.

Geisler just made and since it is somewhat relevant to what we're gonna be talking about today I'll go ahead and make a comment on it.

And that is the caller was asking about the status of Roman Catholicism and dr Geisler defended his position that Roman Catholicism Exists within the pale of Orthodoxy because it does not deny any of the fundamental

Christian doctrines which means in his own words that the issue of justification and how justification takes place was a

Reformation issue and cannot be an issue that can be applied in the sense of saying that Roman Catholicism is unorthodox or exists

Outside the pale of Orthodoxy. He insisted that forensic justification was not believed by anyone between Paul and Calvin and therefore to focus upon that issue as being an issue that would set someone outside the realm of Orthodoxy Is to be unfair with church history and unfair with the terminology

Of course, I would say that it was the very doctrine of justification Itself that caused

Paul to write the book of Galatians and to place those who disagreed with his teaching of justification squarely outside not only the pale of Orthodoxy but outside the kingdom of God and outside of salvation itself because he said that if anyone preaches another gospel other than the one that Paul preached that person is anathema cursed of God and Therefore the question is not what has someone believed in church history?

The question is if we look at the book of Galatians and if we look at the doctrine of the Judaizers as it was taught

In the churches in Galatia and then responded to by the Apostle Paul does

Roman Catholicism go as far as the Judaizers did or even farther and The only possible answer to that question is they go much farther than the

Judaizers ever dreamed of going Therefore to say the Roman Catholicism exists within the pale of Orthodoxy is to say that the

Judaizers in The churches in Galatia exist within the pale of Orthodoxy even though they are anathema now

Maybe some people would say that I've had Roman Catholic apologists Defend the idea that Popes could be personal heretics and still the

Vicar of Christ on earth So there are stranger things that have happened in the world I suppose but I think if there is any type of consistency to be had

The question has to be focused upon Biblical mandate not upon arguments derived from church history or something like that.

And the question is does Rome Teach a gospel that would fall under the anathemas of the

Apostle Paul well that leads us directly into the topic that I was going to address today had it sitting here right in front of me as I was listening to the

Bible Answer Man broadcast It's what I brought with me and that was today I wanted to give you two examples from two different religious groups the first from Roman Catholicism the second from the

Church of Jesus Christ Latter -day Saints about how false religious groups can make the most aberrant false teachings sound good

Merely by the use of what we might call spin Spins the big thing in our society now you can spin anything the current administration can spin anything

At all and try to make it sound like something good And I'm afraid we're just simply going to be stuck with that for the for the rest of our lives every following Administration is probably end up doing the same thing

Well when religious groups want to use Madison Avenue techniques and please

I think we are consistent at this point we have often berated the use of Madison Avenue techniques by Protestants and Within the the

Protestant realm as well So when we point that these out that these things happen amongst false religious groups.

We're not being inconsistent but when people try to sell a doctrine when apologists go out and attempt to defend and to make

Attractive a doctrine that otherwise would be unattractive especially to those are attempting to convert

So when the Roman Catholic apologists like a Karl Keating a James Aiken a

Patrick Madrid a Timothy Staples a Scott Hahn a Robert some genus whoever it might be When they are seeking to present their beliefs

Don't expect them to present them in such a way that would automatically offend the

Protestant ear instead you're going to hear these doctrines placed in the most evangelical style of Discussion and phraseology and terminology.

What do I mean? Well, let's look at the subject of purgatory and indulgences purgatory and indulgences

Now many even amongst Roman Catholics believe the purgatory and indulgences are not even an issue any longer

I've talked to many Roman Catholics at Vatican to get rid of all that or something along those lines But the

Roman Catholic apologist well knows That the concept of purgatory not only has been defined

By the church defined within the teachings of the church, but the concept of indulgences has been as well

It's not something that can simply be dismissed and in point of fact the New Universal Catechism of the

Catholic Church spends more time talking about indulgences specifically than it does about justifications specifically and Therefore they know that these are doctrines that they need to present but it's the means by which they present it

Never in church history at least not during the medieval period or up through the Reformation Did Roman Catholics have to present the concept in the way they do today?

They were able to talk if you go back and read books like the book on purgatory published by tan publishers

They were able to present purgatory as a terrible horrible place and the visions of various saints that they had had concerning purgatory

You really couldn't tell any difference between the sufferings and the the horrible pain of purgatory than the same visions of hell itself

The idea of the suffering and torment of the souls and purgatory was very clearly presented

But that's not going to do too Well in the modern United States of America and so therefore how does the

Roman Catholic apologist present it? Well purgatory has become the place of purification

It is that place where love for God is purified and wouldn't you like to be purified?

Before you enter into the presence of God consumed by his love the idea of suffering in flames of torment has now been changed into the idea where there's this this

Anteroom to heaven where the final process and the final purification is made

Sort of like the the final touch -up to the bride before she's seen by the bridegroom in the wedding and so the idea has now been to change the horrific vision of hell that was so much a part of Roman Catholic of purgatory is so much a part of Roman Catholic piety into this idea that well

We need to have the process completed and this is a place where love Consumes the last bit of selfishness that is within us and makes us ready for the vision of God and doesn't that sound a whole?

Lot better than the idea of saying your relatives have gone to a place of torment and you can purchase

Indulgences and do various and sundry other things to get them released sooner, so they don't have to suffer so much

Well, of course, it sounds so much better and it sells so much better But the question always is what is the actual teaching of the church?

There is also this issue of indulgences and all how offensive that is to the Protestant ear at least it should be

Sadly, there are many Protestants that don't have the any idea what an indulgence is or where it came from Nor the fact that it was very important to bring about the

Reformation and Martin Luther's Rejection of the concept of selling God's grace for money

Which is what was taking place at the time of the Reformation and there are many who feel today

Oh, it's just not really much of an issue until they heard that recently the Pope announced a number of new indulgences and celebration of 2000 and people start going indulgences.

I thought that I thought they got rid of that a long time ago Well, they can't get rid of it It is a part of the documents of the

Roman Catholic Church the councils of the Roman Catholic Church And the whole idea is tied together the idea is there is a place called the

Treasury of merit the thesaurus meritorium and Every time a saint dies and they have more merit than they need to enter into the presence of God that extra merit is placed

Into the thesaurus meritorium the Treasury of merit you also have the merit that comes from Mary she had all sorts of extra merit and One of the

Popes taught that all Christ had to do is shed one drop of blood It would be enough to redeem the world But since he shed many drops of blood then there's all this excess merit that is placed into the

Treasury of merit So what you have in the Treasury of merit is the excess merit of Christ Mary and the

Saints all mixed together The very fact that there would be a mixture of such merit should be enough to cause any biblical

Christians skin to crawl But that's part of Roman Catholic theology But I guess it's not enough to separate

Rome from the pale of orthodoxy at least in some folks views Be it as it may

Indulgences are in essence a withdrawal from the Treasury of merit They are a transfer of a limited amount of this excess merit from the

Treasury of merit to what shall we say the Account of an individual at the time of the

Reformation it was being taught that you could buy plenary indulgences in the name of someone who had died that would that would immediately release them from the sufferings of purgatory

That's not taught anymore. But indulgences are still taught and that is that you can

Obtain Part of this Treasury of merit through the works that you do you say where do they say that?

Well, let me read a few things to you. I have in front of me a Document entitled the

Apostolic Constitution on the revision of indulgences. Its Latin name is indulge NTRM doctrina promulgated by Paul the sixth on January 1st in 1967

I read Chapter 1 indulgences are founded on divine revelation The doctrine of indulgences and their practice have been enforced for many centuries in the

Catholic Church They would appear to be solidly founded on divine revelation handed down from the

Apostles This tradition makes progress in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit and as the centuries go by The church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her

Please notice that's what happens when you deny solo scriptura and you have tradition placed upon the same level

If we wish to understand exactly the doctrine of indulgences and its benefits in practice We must remember truths which the whole church and lighted by enlightened by God's Word has always believed

These truths have been taught by the bishops who are the successors of the Apostles and by the Roman Pontiff's who as Successors of st.

Peter are first and foremost among the bishops They have taught these truths by means their pastoral practice as well as in documents setting forth doctrine

They have done it throughout the centuries to this day Well, what's the first truth that we must understand?

Sins must be expiated the truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments

God's holiness and justice inflict them sins must be expiated now. Listen to this

This may be done on this earth through the sorrows Miseries and trials of this life and above all through death

Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments

This is why the faithful have always been convinced that the paths of evil are strewn with many stumbling blocks

They bring to those who follow them adversities bitterness and harm now. Did you hear that? Sins must be expiated and how are they expiated?

They're expiated through sorrows Miseries and trials of this life on this earth and above all through death and then

They are expiated in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments Did you notice something the name of Jesus doesn't appear in that paragraph?

Why? Well because you need to realize in Roman Catholic theology Jesus's death

Merited grace by which we do good works The concept of substitutionary atonement is not a part of Roman Catholic theology

If that's not enough to separate Rome from pale of Orthodoxy, I'm really not sure what is The punishments with which we are concerned here are imposed by God's judgment

Which is just and merciful the reasons for their imposition are that our souls need to be purified

The holiness of the moral order needs to be strengthened and God's glory must be restored to its full majesty

Don't be looking for the name of Christ much in here folks because it doesn't appear In fact every sin upsets the universal order

God and his indescribable wisdom and limitless love has established further every sin does immense harm to the sinner himself and to the community of Men throughout history

Christians have always believed that sin is not only a breaking of God's law But that it shows contempt for or disregard of the friendship between God and man

We continue on what does expiation involve? Well in the second paragraph of this particular discussion we read the following I Remember this is

January 1st 1967 folks that's not exactly ancient history and by the way in case you're wondering this particular document is cited over and Over and over again in the brand -new universal catechism of the

Roman Catholic Church Teaching indulgences and that catechism is described by the current Pope John Paul the second as being an authoritative definition of the doctrines of the

Roman Catholic Church I Continue the doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away punishment for it or the

Consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. Do you hear that? The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away

Punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed

Do you see the difference between Rome and the Bible? In the Christian faith, who bears our sins and their punishment and guilt?

The Lord Jesus Christ. In Roman Catholicism, you can have the guilt of eternal sin removed, but the punishment can remain.

That's what purgatory is all about. It goes on to say, in fact, in purgatory, the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions, are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt.

The first book I ever wrote was called The Fatal Flaw. And the thesis of The Fatal Flaw was,

Roman Catholicism presents a way of salvation outside of the finished work of Jesus Christ.

And there you have it, right there, in the words of Indel Gentiarum Doctrina.

All this is gathered also from the prayers of the liturgy of the Christian people admitted to Holy Communion, have addressed to God since very ancient times.

And so I guess you look at old prayers and overthrow the teaching of Scripture. Then we have the teaching of the communion of the saints.

And listen to this. Following in Christ's steps, those who believe in Him have always tried to help one another along the path which leads to the

Heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation.

The more they have been immersed in the fervor of love, the more they have imitated Christ and His sufferings. They have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others.

They were convinced that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God, who is the

Father of mercies. This is the very ancient dogma called the communion of saints.

It means that the life of each individual son of God is joined in Christ and through Christ by a wonderful link to the life of all

His other Christian brethren. Next section, the treasury of the church.

Someone in the control room wants me to remind you that the phone lines are open. Of course, I'm on a roll at the moment, so if you'd like to get in early, you may, and listen that way.

But it's going to be a little while until I take those phone calls there, Big Rich. Next section is called the treasury of the church.

The treasury of the church is explained like this. We certainly should not think of it as being the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries.

On the contrary, the treasury of the church is the infinite value which can never be exhausted which

Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the

Father. Please notice, Rome supports very strongly the concept of universal atonement, but it's a universal theoretical atonement.

It actually doesn't accomplish anything until man actuates it, and isn't it sad that so many Protestants today agree with Rome about that?

In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his redemption exist and find their efficacy.

This treasure includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints.

All those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the

Father entrusted to them. In this way, they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the mystical body.

Yeah, those Judaizers, they never dreamed of anything like this. Well, what is the consequence of the doctrine of the mystical body?

All who belong to Christ are in possession of his spirit combined to make one church with a cohesion that depends on him.

The union of the living and their brethren who have fallen asleep in Christ is not broken. The church has rather believed through the ages that it gains strength from the sharing of spiritual benefits.

Now that they are welcomed in their own country and at home with the Lord, through him, with him, and in them, they intercede unremittingly with the

Father on our behalf. Please notice, this is talking about dead saints. They intercede unremittingly with the

Father on our behalf, offering the merit they acquired on earth through Christ Jesus.

Do you hear that? The saints who have died, once they go into heaven, intercede unremittingly with the

Father on our behalf, offering the merit they acquired on earth through Christ Jesus.

Do you hear that? I have one question to ask. Why? What is the need?

Isn't Christ enough? The answer can only be, in Roman Catholicism, no.

Then goes on to say, offering the merit they acquired on earth through Christ Jesus, the one and only mediator between God and men.

Now there's throwing a scripture passage in right after you just ripped it apart. Isn't that fascinating? When they were at God's service and all things in their flesh were completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, the

Church, Colossians 1 .24, a passage very commonly used by Roman Catholicism, out of context, to try to say there's something that we can do through our sufferings to add to the work of Christ.

For these reasons, a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory, and those who are still pilgrims on earth.

See there's three places. You're either in heaven, you're on earth, or you're in purgatory, expiating your sins.

Between them there is, too, the abundant exchange of all the goods by which divine justice is placated as expiation is made for all the sins of the whole of the mystical body.

When was divine justice placated, my friend? There's only one answer to that from the Bible. And that was on the cross of Calvary.

And to say there's any place else is simply blasphemous. It isn't Christian. The Church applies the fruits of Christ's redemption.

We read in chapter 3, I quote, I would say that is a gross lie.

It goes on to say, How indulgences develop from canonical penances.

I'm just about done because I have another subject to address. I may not get to it. I've spent a little more time on this than I thought.

I don't know about you, my friend, but I don't want to stand before God, clothed in the righteousness of anybody but Christ.

But anyways, In the course of the centuries and under the influence of the Holy Spirit's continuous inspiration of the people of God, there goes

Sola Scriptura again, I love that.

It's not a change. Sure, we can't find any evidence of this in the early period, but it's not a change, just a progression.

I'm sorry, this is a blasphemy against the work of Christ. It is a denial of the finished work of Christ, and it did not develop from any revelation at all.

It is what happens when you deny Sola Scriptura. For God's only begotten

Son has won a treasure for the militant church. He has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key -bearer of heaven, and to his successors, who are

Christ's vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. Do you hear that?

The Pope has control of the treasury of merit through the power of the keys. I once debated

Dr. Robert Festigi in Austin on this subject, and I pointed out, excuse me, but is it not true that the

Pope used to give indulgences for people who went and visited the house at Loreto, this silly place that actually at that time was believed to have been the house of the

Virgin Mary, that was picked up by angels and brought from Nazareth to Italy? And if you went and visited, yes,

Rich, I'm sorry, if you went and visited this house, the Pope would give you indulgences.

So here's the Pope using the power of the keys to give you indulgences for visiting a house that supposedly was carried by angels from Nazareth to Italy.

That's the system people are trying to tell you you need to trust in as the infallible interpreter of the Bible? I see.

Well. So, the key -bearers, the

Popes, who have the keys, even though the Bible says it's Jesus who has the keys and nobody else, but anyways, and his successors, who are

Christ's vicars, Christ's replacements on earth, they distribute this treasury of merit to the faithful for their salvation.

My friends, if you believe that, you don't understand what the Bible teaches about salvation. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins.

At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways, insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the sight of the

Lord. The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect are known to add further to this treasure.

I'm just quoting, folks. I'm just quoting. One last thing here, because we're about out of time.

If you're not seated, you might want to sit down for this one. Under the benefits of indulgences, moreover the religious practice of indulgences arouses again confidence and hope that we can be fully reconciled with the

Father. My friend, I have perfect confidence and hope that we can be fully reconciled with the

Father because I have one trust and one mediator, a perfect Savior, Christ Jesus. If you need something beyond that, you don't understand who

He is. But it does not do this in a way which would justify negligence of any kind or in the slightest manner less than the effort one has to make to acquire the dispositions that are needed for full communion with God.

It's all on your back. It's all you. You need these dispositions.

While it is true that indulgences are free gifts, they are granted only on fixed conditions for the living as well as for the dead.

Free gifts, but they're only granted on certain conditions. I'd like to be able to buy lots of stuff that way.

It's free, but you have to do certain things, right? While it is true that indulgences are free gifts, they are granted only on fixed conditions for the living as well as for the dead.

To gain indulgences, the work prescribed must be done. Can someone help me out here? They're free, but the work must be done.

But that is not all. The faithful must have the dispositions that are necessary. These are that they must love

God, hate sin, trust in Christ's merits, and believe firmly in the great help they obtain from the communion of the saints.

Do you hear that? You see why faith alone is so important? You see why some of us have a real problem?

Because promise keepers dropped faith alone from their statement of faith? After running the statement of faith by a group of Catholic theologians?

Oh, you're just nitpicking. No, you see why it's important now, folks? There's a reason here.

But I haven't even gotten to the good part yet, and I'm almost at... I am out of time. I need to take a break. I have the last section to read, and probably would be good to take some phone calls so that the microphone doesn't melt here.

602 -274 -1360. If you're in the Phoenix dialing area, if you're outside the Phoenix dialing area, 1 -888 -550 -1360.

We'll be right back. Well, welcome back to The Dividing Line.

If you managed to make it through the break, you're one of the brave folks. I had just gotten to the last part that I'm going to share with you from Indulgentiarum Doctrina here, the

Apostolic Constitution and the Revision of Indulgences. There's actually two more parts. One paragraph that reads,

In addition, we ought not to forget that when they try to gain indulgences, the faithful submit with docility to the lawful pastors of the

Church. Above all, they acknowledge the authority of the successor of blessed Peter, the key bearer of heaven.

To them, the Savior Himself entrusted the task of feeding His flock and ruling His Church. In other words, indulgences help us to remember the

Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy and the idea that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, and it's through the power of the keys held by the

Bishop of Rome that this treasury of merit is made available, and our own salvation can be worked out.

How? Oh, in Roman Catholicism, it's always the same way. Through the

Church. The Church becomes the one that brings salvation.

But this last line, this last line is the one that absolutely is hard to read.

It says, The beneficial institution of indulgences therefore does its part in bringing it about that the

Church might be presented to Christ without spot or wrinkle, but holy and without blemish.

Do you hear that? Indulgences in Roman Catholic theology.

And I'm reading an apostolic constitution. It is post -Vatican

II. It is quoted as authoritative by the Catholic Catechism, which the current

Pope says is an authoritative summary of Roman Catholic doctrine. I'm not talking about some theologian someplace.

I'm not talking about somebody who's a crackpot. I'm talking about the official doctrine of the

Church, and according to the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the blasphemous doctrine of indulgences is used to present the

Church to Christ without spot or wrinkle, but holy and without blemish. And if that doesn't anger you, you don't understand what the

New Testament teaches about the work of Christ. You cannot possibly listen to those words and sit back and not realize that what's being said is that this doctrine is added to the sufficiency of the work of Christ.

Christ's work is not sufficient. You have to have these added things.

And if you're jealous for the truth of God, if you're jealous for the Gospel, then you can't possibly sit back and look at this and go, oh, well, that really doesn't matter.

If indulgentiarum doctrina does not separate Rome from the pale of orthodoxy, then nothing does.

There is no such thing as a pale of orthodoxy. It's a pale without a bottom. Sorry.

Indulgentiarum doctrina. It's available. You say, I want to know where that is. It's available on the web.

I think, and I'm not sure, and I don't have my computer with me to go look, but I think we may have put it on our website.

I'm not sure. I'd have to go look. But I know that it is available.

It's pretty easy. Any search engine, you type in indulgentiarum doctrina and there aren't too many hits that are going to come up for that one.

But it is posted on a number of websites. It is available in the two -volume paperback Vatican II, which is available at Barnes &

Noble and Walden's and at your Catholic bookstore and so on and so forth. It's available all over the place.

And you may ask me, well, have you told other folks who disagree with you about this subject they need to read that?

Other Protestants? You better believe I have. Whenever I encounter anyone who's writing a book on Roman Catholicism, I say, you need to read

Indulgentiarum doctrina. You need to interact with that document. Because if anything, in my experience, demonstrates the vast difference between the biblical presentation of the work of Christ, the concept of grace, the whole idea of merit.

It is that. That's what you need to look at. It's official. It can't get much more official than that.

And it's right there. Well, I didn't even get to the other issue on Mormonism. Maybe we'll get to it. Maybe we won't. It all depends. It all depends on what our first two callers have to say.

They always seem to find their way onto the program. And I know that Dennis will give us an indulgence to allow

Martin to sneak ahead of him there for a second. Hi, Martin. Hi, James. What's up today?

I'm sitting in my kitchen saying, preach it, brother. Oh, I should say hello to Dennis, because he said hello to me last week.

Now, as you know, or you probably know, I used to be a Roman Catholic before I came to be a

Christian. Now, when I got saved, it sort of occurred to me that if you've been going to a doctor for 20 -odd years, and he's been giving you a tablet that hasn't cured you, and you have to go outside of that doctor's surgery to somebody else who will give you the tablet that does cure you, it kind of says to me, hold on a minute, the doctor you've been visiting for the last 20 years obviously hasn't got it.

And it was one of the first things that struck me. If I had to go outside of the Catholic Church to hear what salvation was about, it kind of struck me very plainly that, hold on a second, these two religious systems cannot be the same.

Lots of people are saying, oh, well, it's just a minor difference. You know, I mean, it isn't. I mean, it can't be. Well, and, you know,

I wasn't sure exactly how you were going to apply that, but there's another application that is equally valid. And that is, if you can continuously come to Christ, but you still have to go through purgatory, you still have to go through indulgences, you still have to have the right dispositions, you still have to depend upon the key bearer of heaven, etc.,

etc., then Christ is not sufficient to bring about your full salvation either. Yeah.

I mean, and also, and I've listened to all of your debates with Roman Catholic apologists on audio tape.

You're a brave man. I mean, they present, and this isn't my major point, but they present a very clinical, very almost

Christianized, cleaned -up kind of view of Catholicism that it's mainly biblical, that it's mainly Christian.

However, having been inside it for, you know, being brought up in it for 20 years, what's actually practiced grassroots in churches is very, very, very different to what they're standing on the podium and actually saying and presenting.

It's hugely different. It is full of Mary and saints, and don't get me wrong, it is worship.

I mean, I've done it myself. Oh, yes. Superstition, idolatry, Padre Pio, medals, holy water, and this isn't sort of just the laity.

This is actually being supported by the priests. But what I wanted to get to when we were talking about purgatory, as I see,

I mean, one of the major problems, which is just one of them, one of the major contradictions or fatal flaws, if I could use that term, is according to what we talk about so far, it says you have to suffer for your own sins.

However, the contradiction seems to be that you don't have to suffer for it. If someone buys masses or you can buy an indulgence, for example, the 17 privilege, you're probably aware of that,

I don't know if your listeners are, basically the brown scapula of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. It's supposed to be,

Our Lady is supposed to descend Saturday after your death to pull you out of purgatory.

Now, if you have had to suffer for your sins and you die late on a Friday night, and she pulled you out

Saturday morning, then you haven't had to suffer for your sins. And there's a contradiction. So why say you have to suffer for it if Mary pulled you out

Saturday morning? I mean, there's a major contradiction in what they're actually saying here. Well, that's what happens when you have a theological system that has developed in so many different directions without any divine guideline.

There is no parameters. There is, since sola scriptura is rejected, it can go every which direction.

That's why you have such things as the brown scapula and the promises associated with that. You have concepts of Mary as co -mediatrix.

All of it demonstrates that the modern Roman Catholic system is not a system that has developed as a result or revelation of the guidance of the

Holy Spirit. It is directly contrary to what the Holy Spirit has provided in Scripture.

And the inevitable result of going beyond what is theanoustos, what is

God -breathed, is that you're going to develop theology that will pander to the natural man. And in the process,

Rome has developed a theology that allows man, in essence, to work a system, to work a program, specifically the sacraments of the

Church, to bring about their own salvation. That's what it's all about. And I hope people can hear the fact that there are many, quote -unquote,

Protestants today who likewise have developed a system where you work a system to get yourself saved.

And that's not true on either side of the Tiber River. It remains false, no matter how you look at it.

One of the most blasphemous things in, for example, the Sabbatine Privilege is that Roman Catholicism is saying that,

I mean, effectively, that Christ couldn't pay for your sins, but Mary can. Most definitely.

Christ doesn't save you, but... If anyone's read Mary and Other Redeemer, they know that the prayers contained therein that are the very same source of the doctrines of the

Immaculate Conception, the bodily assumption of Mary, that are now dogmas in Roman Catholicism, make it very plain that Mary is able to save to the uttermost if she desires to do so.

But for some reason, Christ, as the King of Justice, isn't quite as capable as Mary is, who is the

Queen of Mercy. So, most definitely. Martin, thank you very much for your call. I appreciate it. God bless you.

Thanks for listening. We're going to take a break and be right back with Dennis right after this. Fourteen minutes before the hour, if you're listening to The Dividing Line, my name is

James White, and our phone lines are open at 602 -274 -1360 or 1 -888 -550 -1360 for outside the

Phoenix dialing area. Possibly listening on the Internet today, and we go to Dennis in Phoenix. Hi, Dennis.

Did I get you all revved up? Oh, yeah. Oh, my. Sounds like you're already burned out, though.

So, thanks for calling, Dennis. Yeah, I think I'll just sort of faint now. Yeah, yeah, well. Now, choose your words carefully, my brother.

We do archive these programs and place them on the website. Yeah, I noticed you don't have a delay. No, we do not have a delay at the moment, so be nice.

I regret that. No, okay. Oh, my, where do I start? Is it safe to say the stubborn

Armenian man, Hank Hanegraaff, is aware of all this when he touts Mr. Geisler so much?

Well, you know, when two Roman Catholic apologists have been on the

Bible Answer Man program, specifically James Aiken and Tim Staples, I was on to oppose both of them.

And one of the things that I appreciated was that two things took place, especially when

Mr. Staples was there. Before the program began, we were sitting around talking, and it was made very clear by Mr.

Staples that he did not believe that we, that was

Mr. Hanegraaff and myself, that we know the Gospel or believe it. And then on the air,

I asked him point -blank, I said, do you believe? Would you agree with me,

I think is the way I put it, that if we were standing, you and I were standing outside an abortion clinic together, that if someone walked up to the both of us and said, what must

I do to be saved, that our answers would be completely different. They would not simply be variations.

They'd be completely different. And he said, yes, that's exactly right. And so you have that, you have that input, you have that information there.

As far as the position taken on the radio program that was played before this one, again,

I just do not believe that that position can at all be substantiated in the light of things like this.

And I did, in fact, I believe I sent or at least gave the direct reference to Indulgentiarum Doctrina to Dr.

Geisler while he was writing the Baker book that came out, I believe, in 1996 on that subject.

So I've been consistent. I've directed people to that stuff. And when

I point it out to people, I never get anybody who comes back and says, oh, there's an orthodox way of interpreting something like Indulgentiarum Doctrina.

They just don't respond to it. Well, I've heard him bounce around so much. I mean, he's all over the world.

He's on the net now, through the station and otherwise. I've heard him say, you can be a

Christian and a Catholic. I've heard him give the answer on that program, which I've heard at least three times. I don't know why he keeps replaying it.

Maybe it should be called the worst of the Bible answer, man. Now, now. You mean the one today?

Yeah. And I've also heard him say something that came as close to saying no Catholic Catholicism is in Christian as I've ever heard him say, but I've never heard him actually say the word no.

Well, you're probably thinking about the same program that I'm thinking about, which was just a few weeks ago, where the first caller up in the day asked about it, and Hank gave a very good answer.

Later on, he was talking to a guy who mentioned his predilection for Finney, and Hank's response to that was, oh, so orthodox

Christian theology doesn't mean much to you, which I thought was a classic response in regards to Finney. But really, the question

I would ask is, is there anything in Finney's theology that is any worse than what you have in Roman Catholic theology?

Not that I'm aware of. Not that I'm aware of either. I was just in a Christian bookstore, one of those heresy houses, you know?

I saw a series of Heroes of the Faith biographies, and there was Luther, and there were other people, and unfortunately there was

Watchman Nee, and there was Finney, and I'm like, oh my. Well, there's a lot of... Well, we are confused.

There's a lot of confusion concerning issues such as the Atonement of Christ. There's a lot of issues.

Most modern Protestants don't know what the issues were at the time of the Reformation. And so they don't realize how vitally important Sola Fide is.

They just see it as some sort of something that divides, rather than recognizing that it defines.

Yes, it divides, but it divides by defining. And what is it defining? It's defining core issues of the

Gospel, and whether Christ alone is able to save. And that's the issue.

That's where people are causing all sorts of... are having all sorts of difficulties. So, there are many issues that come back to simply defining what we believe, why we believe it, and loving the truth.

And unfortunately in our society today, that's not something that a lot of people want to get into.

And where we get our beliefs, you want to tie it into Mormonism, I suspect it has to do with soul scripture, because I kept thinking the more

I said these new revelations, I'm like, I don't think Mormonism... I couldn't get into...

I'll try to do that the next time that we're on the program. I'll do that program with the example from the

LDS side. But I started preaching a little bit too much on this one. So, Dennis, thank you very much for your call.

We've got other callers calling in, and we appreciate your participation in the program. Let's go all the way out to Seattle, Washington, and talk with Mike.

Hi, Mike. James, how are you doing? Doing good. Good. Hey, listen, I'm about three quarters of the way through your tape series on the

Geisler book. Yes. My question is, I've been actually purchasing a number of apologetic philosophy books.

I've been intrigued by R .C. Sproul's series Consequences of Ideas, which I think was excellent.

And my concern is, does this bring into doubt some of the other things that Geisler has talked about or espouses?

Because to me, as I listen to what you describe and read, it sounds like there's either direct manipulation of the topic, or maybe he just doesn't have a full understanding of the topic.

Well, let's make sure everybody understands what we're referring to here. We're not referring to the comments on the Bible Answer Man show today about Roman Catholicism being within the pale of orthodoxy.

We're talking here, for the listeners who aren't aware of it, of the series that we did, nine programs, on Dr.

Geisler's new book, Chosen but Free. And I'm writing a response to that called The Potter's Freedom, which

I have to have done by Christmas, so hopefully it'll be out in the spring. But bad as it may, I think what it demonstrates is just like I have great respect for Aurelius Augustine, the

Bishop of Hippo, who said so many wonderful and great things,

I also realize that he had his blind spots. He had those places where he was simply in error. And, for example,

I continue to recommend to people a general introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix because it's an excellent resource.

There are all sorts of good articles in his new encyclopedia of apologetics. So I think it's the same with everybody, myself included, and that is we have blind spots.

We have those areas that simply because of traditions that we've had or an unwillingness to learn or whatever.

Because I've talked to people who have spoken with Dr. Geisler about the Reformed issues for years, and they all tell me the same thing.

We've already talked about this, we've already pointed out that this is a misrepresentation of what Reformed people believe about what it means to be dead in sin, and so on and so forth.

And he just won't listen to what we're saying. So it would strike me that basically this is an area where it is not a part of Dr.

Geisler's forte, it is something different than that. And so I think you have to exercise with anybody.

You know, with R .C. Sproul or John MacArthur or anybody, you have to go, what are their areas of strength and what are their areas of weakness?

And the same thing with anything that I've written. Well, you know, here's the problem from my point of view, though.

I'm certainly not, quote -unquote, an apologist, although we're all called to be apologists.

But I'm certainly not as learned as, say, you are, or Sproul or some of the others. And, you know,

I think it's easy to say, well, gee, does their teaching hold up to what Scripture says? But when you read, and I think

Geisler's famous for this, he says, you know, the one thing that we can do is stand on the shoulders of giants.

And we depend upon these giants to kind of give us a glimpse a little bit further than maybe we would have had otherwise.

And so I guess we rely on people like you and Sproul and MacArthur and the rest.

And I know it's naive to think that everything that you guys say is gospel fact.

But by the same token, it makes it very confusing when we come into works like this.

Oh, yeah. Well, it does. And I think it does help us to demythologize scholarship.

Quote -unquote scholarship really, I believe, should be measured by consistency over time and ministry in church, not by anything else.

But I understand exactly what you're saying. I think it emphasizes the need for each of everyone to examine very closely what is being said, why it's being said, to not idolize any one particular individual, but to balance anyone's perspective against everybody else's.

And yes, I think it would indicate to you that you need to look closely at sources that are used, conclusions that are derived.

I think you can find, in fact, in my book, I document that this viewpoint of Dr. Geisler's on the Reformed viewpoint has influenced other books that he's written in the past, all the way back in the 1980s.

I trace it back. But that's one specific area. It's a very vital and important area, but it's one specific area.

So yeah, it just emphasizes for all of us our need to really be focused on those things. And Mike, I really appreciate your call.

I wish we had more time, but unfortunately, thank you for calling. God bless. Thank you for being with us today on The Dividing Line, folks.

We will pick up with that Mormon illustration of this same topic next week. Hope you'll be with us then.