Purgatory: Biblical or Mythical? Pt II (White vs Stravinskas)

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:01

So we'll begin with Father Stravinskis, first cross -examination. You have 25 minutes.

00:24

Mr. White, I think you would agree that the evidence of the New Testament, overwhelming evidence, is that Jesus was a devout

00:34

Jew, that he participated in the ritual life of Judaism.

00:42

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.

00:59

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

01:06

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

01:16

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

01:23

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?

01:36

Presumably then that Jesus himself prayed for the dead. Well, I think that assumes a number of things.

01:41

First of all, it assumes that these practices that are found in the Mishnah, for example, or in the

01:48

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 to point out that the second

01:58

Maccabees passage does not have any contemporaneous validation as a representative of a concept that was in fact a general amongst the

02:08

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.

02:20

And so the first assumption is, I don't think you can necessarily make that assumption, and in response to the second part, let's say for any type of 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, refrigerium, not to refer to the concept of release from purgatory, but instead a remembrance or something along those lines.

02:49

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.

02:59

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.

03:10

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

03:15

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

03:20

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

03:38

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

03:45

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

03:53

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

04:00

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

04:09

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

04:17

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

04:28

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

04:42

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

04:53

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

05:02

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

05:09

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

05:19

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

05:26

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.

05:37

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

05:46

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

05:52

Well, there are a couple of 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

06:03

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.

06:13

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.

06:33

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

06:45

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.

06:54

Coming to him and believing in him are spiritual actions, which is the literal meaning of John 6 .53 and following. So I would very strongly encourage them to come to that literal meaning of the text itself.

07:05

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

07:13

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

07:24

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

07:31

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

07:36

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

07:44

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 to speak for itself without the imposition of an external authority that is not derived from the text itself.

08:05

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

08:14

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

08:21

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

08:35

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

08:42

Can you explain how today you and many, many other

08:48

Protestants reject those teachings when the three principal Protestant reformers,

08:54

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

09:08

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.

09:20

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?

09:28

Over who, sir? You said Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. Luther has the inscription for the text of Vespers for the feast of the assumption of the

09:38

Blessed Virgin Mary. That doesn't mean that Luther believed, sir, in the bodily assumption. If you'd like to provide a quote, sir, please do so.

09:47

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.

09:56

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.

10:03

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli would be as any other minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

10:09

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

10:15

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.

10:24

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.

10:34

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

10:40

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

10:47

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.

10:57

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

11:04

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

11:13

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

11:20

Augustine said many, many, many things concerning the subject of the authority of the church.

11:27

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

11:35

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.

11:47

And I could give you the exact quotations if you would like to. But if you're asking for my interpretation of his letter against the

11:54

Manicheans, 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.

12:06

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.

12:17

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.

12:30

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.

12:47

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

12:54

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.

13:05

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.

13:14

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.

13:22

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

13:27

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

13:34

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

13:41

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

13:49

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.

14:14

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.

14:33

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

14:38

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

14:46

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

14:53

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, dikaiao in Greek.

15:05

He was not aware of what the Greek term actually meant, and he thought that it referred to an actual change in the person, an infusion of grace, when in point of fact, that's not what dikaiao in the entire dikaios, dikaiosune family of terms means.

15:19

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

15:28

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.

15:45

Do you think, perhaps, that Augustine may have been taking seriously St. Peter's understanding that baptism makes someone a new creation, perhaps?

15:55

Could you give a reference to that, sir? I'm not sure what you're referring to. In Christ, and through baptism, 1

16:00

Peter talks about the fact that one has become a new creation. What is the reference, sir?

16:05

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

16:15

Corinthians 5 .17, but it's not by baptism. Once again, we're playing games.

16:22

No, sir, I can't answer a question if I don't know what reference you're referring to. Leave it aside.

16:28

If God's grace is... I don't think I said anything funny. I think that's an ignorant reaction.

16:38

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?

16:51

No, sir. Actually, the division between monergists and synergists is...

16:57

You are very, very correct, and I agree 100 % with you, that one of the key differences between ourselves is the difference between monergism and synergism.

17:09

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

17:18

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

17:25

It wasn't, quote -unquote, magic. When God acts by His grace, it is a powerful grace that actually accomplishes what

17:31

He sends it to accomplish. And I would suggest that it is the early distinction that is made in kinds of graces that leads to a tremendous misunderstanding of the

17:45

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

18:02

How do you understand Colossians 124? Even now

18:08

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.

18:18

The passage refers to the term phlipsis in the Greek New Testament, which the

18:24

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

18:32

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

18:45

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

18:51

His chosen people. And it was the Lord's words to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?

18:57

The sufferings of His people, not for redemption, but as they live in this life, are shared by Christ.

19:04

And 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.

19:16

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

19:24

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

19:30

And that body of Christ is organized according to the wisdom of God, with Christ as its head.

19:38

And then it exists visibly in the congregations of Christ as they exist with elders and deacons.

19:44

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

19:50

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

20:03

We recognize, however, that the church is normally, as it was in the upper room, a very small minority.

20:10

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.

20:21

What's the relationship then between the head and the members? Well, the Lord Jesus Christ said

20:27

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

20:36

Holy Spirit. And so there is a supernatural unity that exists between believers and Jesus Christ.

20:42

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

20:48

Lord, even when I'm many thousands of miles away from my own fellowship.

20:54

And that union continues to this day. It will always be there because He promised

21:00

He would be with us until the end of the age. And He's given us His Word, and through His Spirit, has given us the leadership that explicates the

21:09

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

21:22

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

21:39

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.

21:51

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.

22:02

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.

22:10

In fact, Calvin would have banished me from Geneva, and I recognize that.

22:17

But that does not mean that I then have to quote -unquote write him off and mean that he was a nobody.

22:23

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

22:29

Reformed Baptist. I have differences with my Presbyterian brothers. But I look to people like B .B.

22:34

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.

22:42

But they and I can sit down at a common table with a common source of authority and discuss our differences.

22:49

It is the insertion of an external authority that stops that activity of truly examining what the

22:54

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.

23:05

We believe in the divine function of the church. The church is entrusted with the

23:10

Word of God. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But a pillar and a foundation hold something else up.

23:18

And by God's grace, the church holds up God's truth, which is given to her in the inspired Word.

23:23

But who is the church? The church, of course, is all those that Jesus Christ calls to himself.

23:30

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,

23:38

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

23:54

Gospel of Jesus Christ? Of course, it is called the Scriptures, yes. Well, then again, how do we explain our 28 ,000 different interpretations of Scripture?

24:04

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.

24:17

That is a common assumption, but it is an illogical assumption.

24:24

The Scriptures' perfection is not measured by our coming to it with our weaknesses, with our sins, with our traditions, and misusing it.

24:35

There can be no logical connection made there, sir. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the

24:41

Scriptures are anything less than inspired, infallible, and inerrant. I'm simply saying, how does one come to interpret them infallibly and inerrantly?

24:52

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.

24:58

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

25:09

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.

25:25

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

25:32

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

25:46

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.

25:57

Is it your position that we are made saints by something we do, by a realization of something, by suffering sadaspatio and purgatory and undergoing penances, etc.?

26:11

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.?

26:23

Is that how we become saints? No, we're made saints through the sacrament of baptism, and the process of sanctification is a lifelong process by which we cooperate with the grace of God.

26:38

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.

26:50

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,

26:58

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.

27:07

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

27:14

Well, we are all sinners, huh? And the purpose of purgatory is to provide...

27:22

Well, let's back up even. The purpose of the sacrament of penance is to deal with the phenomenon of post -baptismal sin.

27:30

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

27:40

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.

28:07

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

28:15

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

28:24

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

28:31

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.

28:42

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

29:16

Is 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.

29:27

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.

29:44

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.

29:55

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

30:05

Judaism. You said that the Reformers removed 2 Maccabees because it contradicted their position on purgatory.

30:11

But is it not true, sir, that as the New Catholic Encyclopedia notes in Volume 2, page 390, that Pope Gregory the

30:17

Great specifically rejected the Maccabean literature as non -canonical, as did Jerome, and that as late as the 16th century,

30:23

Cardinal Cayetan likewise held this view, which explains the ability of John Cawson to list 52 major ecclesiastical writers between Jerome and the

30:32

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

30:39

Their rejection was not on the basis of doctrine. They were simply using the Hebrew canon.

30:46

But as private individuals, people have all kinds of personal opinions. But those actions, those statements of theirs, are not done with magisterial authority.

30:57

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

31:03

Trent. April of 1546, right? You wrote this as well, This evidently indicates that 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.

31:16

Prayers to 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.

31:26

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

31:32

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?

31:46

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

31:52

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

32:02

Salvation. See, once again, we're using different terminology. So, where in the wording do you get the idea of redemption or salvation?

32:12

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

32:18

If he's in hell, nobody's prayers are going to do him any good. But it's given...

32:24

Are you disputing, then, the scholarly conclusion that refrigerium meant a prayer that they would have the peace and joy of paradise?

32:33

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 purgatory so you can get out.

32:46

That's one possible interpretation. Okay. Do you believe in the Sabbatine privilege, sir?

32:53

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

33:00

Sabbatine privilege. I have no great interest or devotion in it. Okay.

33:06

You are aware of what it's referred to, of course. Yes. When it was very popular, a number of popes based the giving of indulgences based upon it.

33:19

As you know, it's 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

33:32

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.

33:53

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.

34:09

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

34:19

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

34:36

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

34:47

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

34:53

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

34:59

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?

35:08

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.

35:27

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.

35:38

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

35:44

New York Times. Okay. You also wrote,

35:49

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.

36:04

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

36:11

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

36:20

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

36:29

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.

36:42

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

36:48

Without one of those conditions present, we do not have a mortal sin.

36:54

But the judgment on whether or not it is a mortal sin is not mine, it is God's.

37:01

Has there ever been an infallible list of mortal sins given to the church? Of objectively grave matter, yes.

37:12

But not of so -and -so has committed a mortal sin. The church, for example, will not pronounce on someone like Hitler.

37:22

As horrible externally and objectively as his acts were, we cannot judge him.

37:29

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.

37:39

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

38:06

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

38:13

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 through 24.

38:23

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

38:31

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

38:42

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

38:49

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

38:55

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?

39:08

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

39:17

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.

39:33

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

39:39

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

39:47

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.

40:18

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, achieved a certain appreciation of that text, and then all of a sudden, someone else comes on the scene and sees something entirely different,

40:39

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?

40:53

No, as a matter of fact, 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.

41:05

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.

41:14

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?

41:29

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

41:37

I think is historically problematic. So, it is your assertion that there is this unanimous testimony

41:43

No, I did not say that either. Okay, that there is a universal testimony? No, I did not say that.

41:48

Okay, you said 1900 years worth. I'm not that particular text.

41:54

Okay, then let's not worry about that and let's go back to it. Why does Mark chapter 3 tell us that what

42:00

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.

42:15

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.

42:28

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?

42:40

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

42:47

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.

42:58

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

43:07

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

43:13

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.

43:27

Who is being discussed here? Is this all saints?

43:34

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

43:40

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

43:47

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

43:55

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

44:01

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

44:16

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.

44:34

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

44:42

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

44:49

Or the lack thereof the non -use of these things so that if I have a talent that's gold and instead

45:01

I don't use it is that perhaps straw being introduced into the edifice? Okay.

45:07

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

45:34

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

45:49

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?

46:08

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.

46:23

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

46:32

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.

46:51

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.

47:13

Revelation is in itself a form of catharsis or purification. So revelation in testing is involving purification.

47:24

Is that what you just indicated? If you reveal my flaws to me that revelation in and of itself can be purifying.

47:39

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

47:47

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

47:55

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

48:06

It's the simple realization that even the just man sins seven times a day and therefore the need for purification for most people.

48:15

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.

48:28

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

48:33

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.

48:48

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

48:55

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

49:03

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?

49:09

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.

49:17

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.

49:32

I don't see that, I'm sorry. Okay, well, let's be respectful, everyone. Let's see if we can work through this.

49:40

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 mithos.

50:00

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.

50:13

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?

50:20

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.

50:27

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.

50:37

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

50:46

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

50:53

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.

50:59

I've got conflicting instructions here. I'm told our cut -off time is 11 .30pm. I'm looking at my watch, it's 5 to 11.

51:06

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

51:16

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

51:22

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

51:30

That's not written in stone. So I just... If you would confer...

51:44

Our speakers have agreed to cut the next cross -examination down to 10 minutes each to be followed by the 10 -minute final remarks, and then we'll try to leave a few moments for questions from the audience.

51:58

So we will reset our clocks to 10 minutes. Father Stravinsky?

52:03

You have 10 minutes. Dr. White, when do you think the

52:19

Church shall we say invented the doctrine of purgatory?

52:25

I don't believe there is a date for the invention of purgatory because it is the confluence of numerous things.

52:31

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.

52:41

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.

53:02

And so I would say that the foundations began, as I mentioned earlier, with people such as Origi and their platonic concepts of suffering as a cleansing device and developed very slowly over time to the point where even

53:16

Gregory did not have nearly the fully developed concept of purgatory that is a part of what the

53:22

Council of Florence said. It took time, just as indulgence is then built upon that process of evolution.

53:30

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.

53:38

You can't view it that way. If that's what you're referring to. If you agree with the

53:47

Book of Revelation that nothing unclean shall enter heaven, what should be presumed about the mass of humanity, even the majority of believing

53:57

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?

54:15

Or will the just man go to hell? Or is there another possibility that corresponds to divine justice and mercy at the same time?

54:24

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.

54:38

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.

54:58

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

55:06

God imputes righteousness apart from works. And then he interprets that from Psalm 32 as being in regards to the non -imputation of sin.

55:18

And since the blessed man of Romans 4 .8 is the person to whom

55:23

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.

55:41

What do you make of a passage like 1 John 3 .3 which says the believer must purify himself, speaking of imputed righteousness.

55:55

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.

56:02

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.

56:13

And then it goes on to say everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness and sin is lawlessness.

56:20

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.

56:27

No one who sins has seen him or knows him. Obviously we know there he's using the present tense.

56:33

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.

56:48

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.

57:02

I didn't know, I couldn't tell. What you have described sounds an awful lot to me like human cooperation with divine grace.

57:11

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.

57:23

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.

57:32

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

57:42

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.

57:49

As an old friend of mine who sadly was murdered in the L .A. riots a number of years ago, the last person to die in those riots, a friend of mine named

57:56

Wally Tote put it, you don't go baa baa to become a sheep, you go baa baa because you are a sheep.

58:02

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.

58:20

We want to be like Jesus and so we want to purify ourselves from all those things that would be displeasing in his sight.

58:27

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.

58:35

It seems to me that evangelicals, fundamentalists, etc. have no problem with intercessory prayer as long as it is restricted to the living.

58:49

So my question would be what is the thinking then about the state of the dead that they are barred from interceding?

58:55

Are they in a state of suspended animation? St. Paul tells us all are alive in Christ and that is indicated by numerous situations in the

59:05

New Testament, for example Christ's conversation with Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

59:12

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?

59:31

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean in regards to the theological systems you're talking about.

59:37

I would be described as a reformed theologian myself. There are many in some of those camps who wouldn't want me in theirs actually given some of the books

59:45

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

01:00:03

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.

01:00:15

The second thing would be if you're talking about, well, just praying for an individual, we believe what Hebrews 9 says, that is a point unto man once to die, but after this comes the judgment.

01:00:25

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.

01:00:39

Do not, Terry, do not put these things off. My question was actually the first point.

01:00:45

Why can I effectively pray for you now but if I were dead,

01:00:52

I couldn't? Well, I'm not sure what you mean by effectively pray for me.

01:00:58

For example, if I say to you listen, I've been having some heart palpitations,

01:01:03

I've got to go to the doctor tomorrow to take a cardiogram would you please pray for me? And good

01:01:09

Christian gentleman 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.

01:01:21

Anthony would you please pray for me? Oh, okay. That's called communication with the dead.

01:01:29

And when you said earlier, 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.

01:01:39

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's a spiritually dead

01:01:46

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

01:01:54

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.

01:02:13

Okay, Reverend White you have 10 minutes for questions as well. Thank you. Father Stravinskis, since I want to get back to 1

01:02:22

Corinthians chapter 3 here in a moment, but since you read an Augustine quote, I wanted to read an

01:02:27

Augustine quote and get your take on it. Augustine said, you ought to notice, particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a

01:02:42

Christian. For when he offered himself to them to touch, this did not suffice him, unless he also confirmed the heart of the believers from the scriptures.

01:02:52

For he foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.

01:03:00

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?

01:03:14

I don't think it's fair to characterize the

01:03:20

Catholic opposition to sola scriptura as being anti -scripture.

01:03:26

Scripture in Catholic theology is a norma normans, which is to say, it is a norm that serves as a norm for everything else.

01:03:36

The Catholic Church can never teach anything that is not, excuse me, the

01:03:43

Catholic Church cannot teach something that is explicitly forbidden or condemned in scripture.

01:03:52

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

01:04:04

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.

01:04:20

Augustine also would be very comfortable in saying, at another point, Roma lacuta est, causa finita est.

01:04:27

Rome has spoken and the case is closed. Sir, could you tell me where that's found? No, again,

01:04:35

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?

01:04:42

Yes, I have. I taught a course in Augustine. Are you aware that that phrase that you just quoted never appears in any text of Sermon 131?

01:04:52

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.

01:04:59

Do you think I care about the number of it? No, sir. I'm sorry.

01:05:05

The point I was making is 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.

01:05:20

And what manuscript are you using? The standard one used by actually anyone, in fact.

01:05:26

But I can't... I would be glad to explicate on that and provide you with the actual

01:05:31

Latin, but that is not the text of what he said. But going back to what he did say, so you said that the

01:05:38

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

01:05:45

Scriptures were silent about? I would think he would be comfortable with that.

01:05:51

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.

01:05:59

Therefore I should not teach you anything else, except to expound to you the words of the teacher.

01:06:05

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

01:06:12

I had just made, that Scripture is a norma normans. It is a norm norming all others.

01:06:19

You don't hear him saying that I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the teacher?

01:06:25

Well, he would see that the Church has an understanding of the words of the teacher a deeper appreciation as time goes on.

01:06:34

Okay. Back to the Scriptural text in the five minutes that we have left before our closing statements.

01:06:43

When in the book of Hebrews we are told that Jesus Christ by his sacrifice, and specifically

01:06:51

I'm looking here at Hebrews chapter 10 I'll give you a specific reference here,

01:07:00

Hebrews chapter 10 verse 10 when the

01:07:05

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

01:07:17

Greek text here what does it mean to you that we have been sanctified by this one will?

01:07:30

Actually I'm pleased that you brought up this idea 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

01:08:12

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 and therefore the entire mystery of Christ's life which is embodied existence which he has even now as the risen and ascended

01:08:35

Lord therefore the incarnational principle is incredibly important if we simply focus on the

01:08:44

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

01:09:38

Christ event in Hebrews chapter 10 can you find the phrase the total Christ event

01:09:44

I think we're being silly well I'm simply pointing out sir he's quoting

01:09:53

Psalm 40 you who wanted no sacrifice or oblation prepared a body for me right, and where does it say then, 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 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

01:10:41

I'm not you're not talking about imputed righteousness well ok, so let me ask you one last question then in Romans 4 .8

01:10:48

when Paul says blesses the man to whom God will not impute sin who's the blessed man?

01:10:55

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

01:11:03

he says Paul speaks about the blessedness upon the man that God, all of a sudden he's now talking about Christ so that's the only fulfillment of Romans 4 .8

01:11:11

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?

01:11:25

no, I didn't say that the sins are not imputed ok, what does Romans 4 .8 mean then? you're talking about a righteousness being imputed that's 4 .6

01:11:33

4 .8 says blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not impute to him or take into account will the

01:11:39

Lord take into account your mortal sins? of course how about your venial sins? yes then you're not the blessed man, are you?

01:11:46

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?

01:11:59

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 ok 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

01:12:32

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

01:12:41

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

01:13:09

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.

01:13:47

White alluded to in talking about, for example that the doctrine of the

01:13:53

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

01:14:02

Trinity is not in sacred scripture I'm 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

01:14:33

Trinitarian doctrine by relying on Greek philosophical language like homoousios, ousea, hypostasis, and so on and 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

01:15:09

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

01:15:41

Christus the whole Christ praying for a member of the church it saddens me that very often certain

01:15:54

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

01:16:05

Sadducee party with whom our Lord took considerable umbrage rather than with the

01:16:10

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

01:16:30

New Testament passage that deals with that and talking about necromancy and so forth those passages in the

01:16:37

Old Testament are equally negative on the whole idea of resurrection of the dead period, so simply to bring those forward

01:16:45

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

01:17:06

Christian in as much 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

01:17:24

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 7 times a day, yet love the

01:17:48

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, then thus ready ourselves to see

01:18:14

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

01:18:32

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, the soul which appears before Christ the judge at death on encountering the all holy

01:18:55

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.

01:19:19

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

01:19:50

Newman, that the flame of everlasting love doth burn, air it, transform but this is a process which the soul gladly undergoes now the alienation from God and neighbor which is the inheritance from sin, 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,

01:20:20

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 is 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 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

01:21:12

Benedictine Abbey of Cluny established a liturgical celebration of annual prayer for all the faithful departed, which we now call

01:21:22

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

01:22:46

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

01:22:57

Rome has spoken, the case is closed to be fined in Minch Patrilogia Latinae 38734

01:23:03

I have the Latin up here if anyone would like to see it and on our website at aomin .org look at sermo131 .html

01:23:11

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.

01:23:52

The result is that the clear words of the text of scripture no longer mean what they mean passages like 1

01:24:00

Corinthians chapter 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?

01:24:19

We're told that we really can't understand what Matthew 12 is saying even when we have

01:24:24

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

01:24:49

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

01:25:01

Lord will not take into account verse 9, is this blessing then on the circumcised or on the uncircumcised also?

01:25:08

For we say faith was credited to Abraham as righteous, Abraham was another one circumcised and uncircumcised, they're part of it

01:25:15

Jews and Gentiles folks, Romans 4 8 is about every single

01:25:22

Christian there is and my friends if you think this evening that there is any kind of suffering any kind of 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 he bore our sins in his body upon the tree, how can

01:26:52

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

01:27:21

Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, I haven't done that, and neither have you how then can

01:27:28

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 is no need to think that there is it is not to miss the incarnation of Christ to read

01:28:39

Hebrews 10 10 through 14 and to hear about the perfection of Christ work in my behalf it is to recognize that yes, he entered into human flesh it had to be a man, a perfect man the

01:28:54

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

01:29:16

Corinthians 3 10 through 15 that would compel us to believe it is about purgatory or Matthew 12 or Maccabees most of the presentations

01:29:26

I have 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,

01:29:39

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 but my friends when we walk out that door when you enter into the world out there and its traffic those of you who live on Long Island know there is not a one of us that has any assurance we are going to get where we are going

01:30:10

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

01:30:17

I am talking about so, what assurance do you have?

01:30:26

you just heard it said well I hope I am 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 are not imputed to me

01:30:54

He bears them that is not presumption that is the proclamation of the gospel and that is what

01:31:02

I bring to you this evening it doesn't matter who is up here it does not matter who

01:31:11

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 is about our eternal souls

01:31:27

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 is the son of Adam that does not deserve

01:31:44

God's awesome wrath every one of us those words are our only hope those words are the only thing

01:31:55

I will direct you to because I know that He who bore my sins then invites me to come boldly to the throne of grace that is 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

01:32:40

I put myself under an extraordinary discipline most of you who do not know me couldn't begin to understand

01:32:46

I have told myself I will not say anything because to do so might in some way put me one side or the other

01:32:53

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 and if possible we want to go alternate back and forth so if you are lining yourselves up back there try to identify who is asking who a question and try to alternate them back and forth so with our first questioner please

01:34:11

Father Stravinskis does a criminal who hasn't paid their who hasn't paid for their sin need to go to purgatory?

01:34:21

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?

01:34:33

Well, if he hasn't repented of the action then first of all there is a distinct possibility he can go to hell as well

01:34:42

Ok, then in Luke 23, 32 -43 we read about the criminals who were crucified, deservingly so with Christ.

01:34:52

I would think that crucifixion would be a serious crime in line with what would be considered a mortal sin in Catholicism.

01:35:00

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?

01:35:09

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

01:35:18

God is sovereign and we don't know what acts of repentance went through the mind of the good thief.

01:35:28

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

01:35:43

So which means he wouldn't have had to do any... Can I interrupt at this point? I wonder if Reverend White could respond and then we could move on to the next questioner.

01:35:50

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

01:36:15

I think that does definitely raise an issue in regards to that subject. Next questioner please.

01:36:20

Perfect segue to my question. My question is for both of my brothers. My Catholic brother

01:36:26

I'd like you to answer first and then perhaps James White. I have before me a

01:36:31

Catholic Bible emprimata, sealed and stamped. I'm reading two sentences from the book of Tobit.

01:36:38

Tobit chapter 4 verses 10 will be my first sentence For almsgiving delivers from death and saves men from passing down to darkness.

01:36:51

The second sentence I'd like to read is from Tobit chapter 12 verses 9

01:36:58

Almsgiving saves from death and purges every kind of sin.

01:37:05

My question is this is a book that Catholics have held as being inspired given the emphasis you have made with purgatory it appears to me that every good

01:37:18

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.

01:37:30

Yeah, it's pay now or pay later very simply. So you can write a check now to avoid purgatory?

01:37:36

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.

01:37:43

What would that amount be? Okay. Reverend White do you have a response as well?

01:37:49

The term charity is actually the term love, not the giving of money in the New Testament. What can

01:37:57

I say? If our view of sin is such that giving alms can cover sins why did

01:38:08

Christ die upon the cross? Next question please.

01:38:16

Mr. Stravinskas in light of scriptures such as Revelation 1 .6

01:38:21

John 17 .3 and 1st Timothy 2 .5 which all make reference to the fact that we can know

01:38:27

God personally and experience him who is truth personally and John 17 .17

01:38:33

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

01:38:47

God and knowing him through his word and those things do not change how can you then assert that the

01:38:54

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.

01:39:10

Well I would be interested to know what dogmas have changed. Well for instance fasting on Fridays.

01:39:17

That's not dogma, that's discipline. Well I could point to the

01:39:23

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

01:39:44

Catholic faithful. With all due respect I think you're doing buckshot and there's no way to answer all of that.

01:39:51

Now do you want to talk about the Immaculate Conception, do you want to talk about the Assumption do you want to talk about intercession of prayers or do you want to talk about fasting?

01:39:57

Reverend White do you have a response or are we 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.

01:40:06

I would just simply say I took umbrage at the statement earlier in the debate that talked about 2 ,000 years of Catholic teaching

01:40:14

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.

01:40:30

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?

01:40:43

May I quickly ask one to each and just back off? Start over there and we'll go back.

01:40:50

First of all thank you for an excellent debate, shalom, good evening James is not in addition to the question of the

01:40:56

Trinity that was brought up, is not your reformationist acceptance of the first day change of the

01:41:04

Catholic Church in contradiction to the Ten Commandments which say remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, six days 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

01:41:20

Catholic Archbishop Reggio at the Council of Trent and for my Catholic brother I'm sorry one question,

01:41:27

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 to respond to it and then we'll have to move on, go ahead

01:41:36

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

01:41:45

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

01:41:51

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

01:42:00

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

01:42:15

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

01:42:25

Father Stravinskas I would certainly agree with that and furthermore the

01:42:31

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

01:42:40

Anglicans in the 17th and 18th century so we're on the same page for that one too I really have to move to the next question

01:42:47

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 mentioned father that if the

01:42:59

Catholic Church can use objective standards by which they can determine who's in heaven you 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

01:43:20

Catholic apologist like yourself would have a hard time what about a Catholic lay person I don't understand oh

01:43:26

I mean one's status in the church whether as a priest or a bishop or a lay person is not a guarantee of the experience of salvation

01:43:36

Saint Augustine says to his congregation with you I'm a Christian for you

01:43:42

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

01:43:52

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 four that anyone who reads that recognizes that Paul there is referring to every single

01:44:04

Christian that is our common confession that's what binds us together is a recognition that this is what

01:44:10

God has done for us in Jesus Christ if that's not our confession we're not a Christian would the next person online who has a question for Reverend White please step forward this is a question to Dr.

01:44:22

White excellent answering I really appreciate that he never mentioned that if this place was existed

01:44:28

I'm sorry for my accent I'm sorry what? if this place existed purgatory?

01:44:36

yeah 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 and another one is

01:44:57

St. Paul is mentioned in 2nd Corinthians 5th chapter 18 absent from the body present with the lord.

01:45:05

Sir is there a question there please this is a question I never mentioned this place either in Christ or Paul ok

01:45:13

I think you're saying you're asking me why they would not mention these things

01:45:19

I think it's more of a question for the other side Christ never mentioned even the church builder 7 churches

01:45:25

Paul built he never mentioned anywhere in his 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 and it's interesting that Abraham's response was he knew that he could not leave that place and his response is that they will not believe

01:45:54

Moses and the prophets they will not believe that someone rises from the dead indicating that this man had died the rich man had died as an unbeliever so yes certainly

01:46:03

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

01:46:19

Father Stravinsky I think our positions we're sort of spinning wheels at this point we're saying the same thing 22 times

01:46:27

Dr. White says he doesn't believe it's there I say that I do next question please

01:46:33

I have two questions one question please primarily directed to you sir

01:46:42

I have a name I'd like to call you Peter or I'm not comfortable with the word father

01:46:48

I grew up Roman Catholic Dr. Stravinsky would be fine actually doctor is as offensive according to the

01:46:55

Matthewan passage as father because Jesus says call no man father and call no one teacher and teacher is the

01:47:00

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

01:47:15

Lord Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit and our Heavenly Father and my question is concerning 1

01:47:23

Corinthians chapter 3 and the fire

01:47:29

I 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 chapter 1 verse 12 and there

01:47:54

I turn to look at the voice which was speaking with me and when

01:47:59

I turned I saw in the midst of the seven lampstands one like the son of man verse 14 could you bring it to a close quickly his eyes were as the flame of fire it seems to me that when we face the

01:48:18

Lord Jesus on judgment day each one of us is going to have a searching of those eyes you're not getting any argument from me on that if we know him

01:48:28

I'm sorry to interrupt I just need you to answer as a question can that not be the fire that purges us isn't that not a catharsis that will take place on judgment day sufficient to get out of the sin whatever is unconfessed out of the way to that point and then in eternity with those eyes being eyes of grace

01:48:52

I've got your point sir thank you I would want to focus on the fact that the

01:48:58

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

01:49:13

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 and so I agree that the

01:49:28

Christ we face in judgment is one who is concerned about reality not a legal fiction

01:49:34

I am so thankful that Romans chapter 8 says who shall condemn God's elect it is

01:49:40

Christ who died yea who rose again who has died in our place so 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 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

01:50:01

Christian gospel okay I am charged with a heavy responsibility

01:50:07

I said at the beginning of this that I'm a fan of inquiry inquiry was rooted in questions and to cut off questions runs almost completely against my nature however

01:50:15

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