Are Indulgences Biblical? - White vs Fastigi

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

The thesis for today's debate is the Catholic doctrine of indulgences is compatible with the biblical teachings of justification and sanctification.

Defending this position will be Dr. Fastigi, denying this position will be James White. Allow me to briefly introduce our speakers.

James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona.

James holds a bachelor's degree in Bible and a minor in Koine Greek from Grand Canyon University, and a master's degree in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary.

He is the author of seven books, including works on Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the translation and text of the

Bible, and Christian theology. He has had the privilege of serving as professor of church history and an instructor in biblical

Greek. He is an ordained Baptist minister and has engaged in scholarly debates with Roman Catholic apologists all across the

United States. Dr. Robert Fastigi holds a PhD in theology from Fordham University in New York.

He is an associate professor of religious studies at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas, where he has taught since 1985.

Dr. Fastigi and his wife, Kathy, have two children and are expecting their third. Our debate today will be strictly timed and organized so as to ensure fairness.

Both speakers will give 14 -minute opening statements, Mr. White going first as he is defending the thesis,

Dr. Fastigi going first as he is defending the thesis. After the 14 -minute statements, we will have four -minute rebuttals.

Then we will have a period of question and answer, again, timed and controlled, which will be followed by five -minute closing statements.

I hope you will listen closely as both of our participants have spent much time preparing to provide you with the best their position has to offer.

With that, let us begin with Dr. Fastigi, your 14 -minute opening statement, please. Well, it's my honor to be here and I really am happy to be able to defend the

Catholic teaching about indulgences because this is a subject that is often misunderstood and it is often misdefined.

So I think we first have to begin with understanding what is meant by an indulgence according to the

Catholic Church. First of all, let's go into the Latin root of this word. The word indulgence comes from the

Latin word indulgere, which means to show tenderness. Now, I think this is very important because we're talking about the way in which the

Church as the body of Christ shows tenderness towards sinners. And I would just ask you to think about this.

There's nothing unbiblical about showing tenderness. In fact, it's commanded by Christ.

In any case, how does the Church officially define an indulgence? I'm going to be referring to the

Handbook of Indulgences, the Norms and Grants, which came out in 1968. And in the appendix to that, there is

Pope Paul VI's Constitution on Indulgences, Indulgentiarum Doctrina of 1967.

So these are my sources. But an indulgence is the remission in the eyes of God of the temporal punishment due to sins, whose culpable element has already been taken away.

The Christian faithful who are rightly disposed and observe the definite prescribed conditions gain this remission through the effective assistance of the

Church, which as the minister of redemption authoritatively distributes and applies the treasury of the expiatory works of Christ and the saints.

Now, in terms of this, we must make a very, very, very important distinction, because many

Protestants and even some Catholics do not make this distinction. An indulgence has to do with sanctification.

It has nothing to do with justification as understood in the classical Protestant sense, because the definition itself says that the culpable element has already been taken away.

And an indulgence, therefore, is dealing with now, how does a person become totally purified?

Because sin has an effect that is not only eternal, but also temporal.

So this is a very important point that indulgences do not merit the grace of justification.

No indulgence can get a person into heaven. A person could only get into heaven through the grace of our

Lord Jesus Christ. This is what the Council of Trent teaches. This is what the New Catechism teaches. And many people have misunderstandings about this.

Furthermore, indulgences always rely on divine grace. Only those in the state of grace can receive an indulgence.

And only saints who are, by definition, are in the state of grace can apply their sacrifices, their prayers, their merits to the treasury of the church and the heavenly treasury, the treasury of Christ and the saints, which is really the treasury of Christ, because the saints are part of his body.

Now, indulgences are rooted in the biblical teaching, as I'm going to demonstrate to you.

Indulgences, first of all, are rooted in the biblical teaching on the need for ongoing purification in the imitation of Christ.

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

Jesus summoned them, summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.

This same phrase is repeated in Matthew 10, Matthew 16, Luke 14.

Now, another important point is to link the carrying of the cross of Christ to our purification, our purification.

Revelation 21, 27 tells us that nothing unclean could enter the kingdom of heaven.

This goes back to Matthew 5, 8, where Jesus tells us, blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see

God. And then St. Paul is a very, very important factor in this understanding of the need for ongoing purification.

In Ephesians chapter 5, verse 1, and listen carefully to this, he says, so be imitators of God as beloved children and live in love as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma.

Now, he's asking us to imitate God as beloved children.

And how do we imitate God? We imitate God by imitating Christ who loved us.

And what did Christ do? He handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God.

Paul, in other parts, talks about this notion of the imitatio Christi, as it's been called in church history, the imitation of Christ, which is very, very important.

First Corinthians 11, 1, he says, be imitators of me as I am of Christ.

And then in 2 Corinthians 4, verses 10 and following, he talks about how we carry about in our bodies the dying of Jesus.

He says, we are always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus. Why? So that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our body.

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

And then I think the key passage here to understand is

Colossians 1, 24. We carry about in our bodies the dying of Jesus.

We are meant to imitate God by love, and Christ provides the example by being a sacrifice.

We're called upon to carry our cross by Christ himself. And then

Paul, in this magnificent passage in Colossians, a very important passage for understanding indulgences, tells us,

Colossians 1, 24, listen carefully. The apostle says, now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh

I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, of which

I am a minister in accordance with God's stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past.

Now, this is a very delicate passage because someone might immediately say, whoa, whoa,

Paul is saying I am filling up in my sufferings what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ?

What possibly could be lacking in the sufferings of Christ? Well, the present Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, gave us an insight into this passage, which

I think is quite profound. He says, in regard to the redemption of Christ, this good in itself is inexhaustible and infinite.

No man can add anything to it. But at the same time, in the mystery of the church as his body,

Christ has, in a sense, opened his own redemptive suffering to all human suffering.

Insofar as man becomes a sharer in Christ's sufferings in any part of the world and at any time in history, to that extent, he in his own way completes the suffering of Christ through which

Christ accomplished the redemption of the world. Does this mean that the redemption achieved by Christ is not complete?

No. It only means that the redemption accomplished through satisfactory love remains always open to all love expressed in human suffering.

In this dimension, the dimension of love, the redemption which has already been completely accomplished is, in a certain sense, constantly being accomplished.

Christ achieved the redemption completely to the very limit, but at the same time, he did not bring it to a close.

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

So Christ opened himself up. He, in terms of the ongoing realization of sanctification, we as Paul can open up our suffering to the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, the church.

None of this has to do with earning justification. It has to do now with completing the work which is that of sanctification and purification.

That's why I stressed, you know, blessed are the clean of heart and nothing unclean can enter the kingdom of heaven.

Now, another point, very important, our sharing in the life of Christ is something communal because we are members of the body of Christ.

Romans 12, 4, 5, Ephesians 2, 16, Colossians 3, 15, all use this image of the body of Christ, but a very important part is 1

Corinthians 12, 26, where the apostle Paul says, if one part of the body suffers, all the parts suffer with it.

If one part is honored, the entire body is honored. The grace of Christ works through us as members of his mystical body.

Now, we cannot merit by anything we do the grace of justification, but it is

God's choice to bring us into the body of Christ so that we, as Paul says in 1

Corinthians 3, 9, can be God's co -workers, or as he says, we are ambassadors of Christ for Christ, as if it were

God appealing through us. Now, how does this work?

Well, there are prayers of intercession. Our prayers somehow can help people.

As James 5, 16 says, that my brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from the death and will cover a multitude of sins.

And this is repeated in 1 Peter 4, 8. So we're setting now the building blocks upon which the church's doctrine of indulgences is based.

Now, since we're short of time, I'll just quickly go through a number of points. Indulgences are also rooted in the biblical teaching on the temporal punishment due to sin.

For example, 2 Samuel 2, 13 -14, the prophet

Nathan tells David that his sin of adultery is forgiven, but there's still a punishment, namely the death of the son or the death of the child conceived in that punishment.

And then also Solomon has his many, many sins because his foreign wives caused him to make idols.

So he has to bear a punishment from that even after he's told that he's been pardoned.

Or in the book of Numbers, because of the sins of the

Israelites, they are forgiven. It says very clearly they are pardoned, but they will be deprived of seeing the promised land.

And the same thing is given, is said to Moses, Numbers 20, verse 12. So a sin can be forgiven, but there could still be some kind of punishment attached to it.

Now, in terms of this, indulgences then are rooted in the biblical teaching on the fact that we can participate in our own purification and that we could draw upon the spiritual benefits of others.

As Paul was able to link his sufferings to the sake of the body, the church, so the saints down through the centuries have been able to link their sacrifices, their sufferings, and so on in the mystical body of Christ.

And the church now, in Matthew 16, 19, has the keys to this treasure to apply them to the faithful for their spiritual benefit.

There's much more to be said, but I think I've touched on the basis. James, your opening statement, please. Thank you very much.

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

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

How deep -seated the pernicious principle had become was made manifest in the bowl which Leo issues,

November 9, 1518, a full year after the nailing of the theses in the church door at Wittenberg, in which all were threatened with excommunication who failed to preach and believe that the

Pope had the right to grant indulgences, end quote. Now, the castle church at Wittenberg was known for its relics and the indulgences attached to them.

Including these relics were three pieces of the city where the Virgin Mary was born, four pieces of her belt, two pieces of the veil of Mary which was sprinkled with the blood of Christ under the cross, two pieces of the earth of the grave of Mary, one piece of Jesus's diaper, one piece of the cradle, one piece of straw in which

Jesus lay when he was born, and two pieces of the Mount of Olives. An indulgence of 100 days was granted for each piece, and there were 5 ,005 pieces in the collection.

Such collections were to be found all through Europe. I believe that no Roman Catholic doctrine more clearly illustrates the difference between the biblical teaching on salvation and the

Roman concept than the doctrine of indulgences. The thesis statement of our debate is this, the Catholic doctrine of indulgences is compatible with the biblical teachings of justification and sanctification.

I will demonstrate that the doctrine of indulgences is incompatible with the biblical teachings of justification and sanctification in the following ways.

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

Peter 1, 3. I will demonstrate that the doctrine of indulgences was utterly unknown by the early Christians and the early fathers of the

Christian faith. Further, I will demonstrate that the doctrine of indulgences and its related doctrines stand contrary to the teachings of the

Bible relating to sin, grace, faith, justification, and sanctification. And finally,

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

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

I quote from Indulgentiarum Doctrina, the Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, a post -Vatican

II document dated January 1, 1967. We first note that the Roman Church admits disbelief in indulgences developed over time.

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

But the document is careful to avoid saying that the doctrine itself is ancient. Rather, it is based, allegedly, upon other beliefs that are allegedly ancient.

So we are told that if, quote, we wish to understand exactly the doctrine of indulgences and its benefits in practice, we must remember truths which the whole

Church, enlightened by God's word, has always believed, end quote. Specifically, the document identifies these alleged truths as the belief in purgatory and the expiation of sins therein, the concept of penitential expiation, and the belief in the thesaurus meritorum, that is, the treasury of merit.

Listen carefully to some quotations of this document. First note the concept of sin that underlies the doctrine of indulgences, quote, sins must be expiated.

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

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

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

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

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

Later in this document, we read of, quote, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory, end quote.

I pause only long enough to note that this refers to the concept of sadispatio, wherein the person undergoes the suffering of atonement, which is meritorious in God's sight, a concept that I hope

I only need mention is utterly foreign to the Christian concept of salvation. When we read these words with reference to the saints, we must listen carefully, quote, they have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others, end quote.

With reference to the treasury of merit, we read, quote, on the contrary, the treasury of the church is the infinite value which can never be exhausted, which

Christ merits have before God. This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the blessed

Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God.

In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the

Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way, they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the mystical body, end quote.

It should not be forgotten that Rome claims the treasury of merit from which these indulgences allegedly are derived is under the control of the

Roman hierarchy. The document plainly states, quote, in addition, we ought not to forget that when they try to gain indulgences, the faithful submit with docility to the lawful pastors of the church.

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

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

Here, the very purification of the church herself is connected with the practice of indulgences.

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

Here we have the very grace of God doled out bit by bit on particular days and through particular works of man.

Thus we have the doctrine of indulgences as it is still taught and practiced by Rome today. Now, I must admit, it is hard to approach the doctrine of indulgences from the

Bible. For the very same reason, it is hard to approach the topic of the Book of Mormon on the basis of the scripture alone.

Neither indulgences nor the Book of Mormon ever crossed the minds of the inspired writers and hence they did not address such things.

Of course, we do not find anywhere in scripture, nor in the writings of the early fathers, any mention of a belief in indulgences or a knowledge of their existence.

Indeed, the scriptures and the writings of the early fathers give us no hint of the concept of supererogation, the treasury of merit, or obviously, therefore, indulgences.

The concept of purgatory is likewise missing in scripture. All efforts at reading it into various passages such as Matthew chapter 12 and 1

Corinthians chapter 3 notwithstanding, and as William Babcock noted in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, the

Latin noun purgatorium did not occur before the 12th century, nor does the idea itself in its full and dogmatic form and then only in Latin or Western Christianity.

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

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

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

But most importantly, we find the doctrine of indulgences and its related concepts of merit, supererogation, expiation of sins by suffering, etc.,

stands firmly against the gospel of God's free grace in Christ. We read in chapter 5 of Paul's epistle to the

Romans, verses 8 -11, But God demonstrates his own love toward us, and that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Much more than having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were sinners we were reconciled to God through the death of his

Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our

Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. This passage says that we are justified by his blood, not by anyone or anything else.

It says that we are saved from the wrath of God through him, not through Mary, saints, or our own sufferings.

And if you don't want to identify the sufferings in purgatory as having anything to do with the wrath of God, what do they have to do with?

Oh, well, they're just for purification. Well, what is the punishment of sin if it has nothing to do with purification? We are said to have been reconciled already, not in the process of being reconciled.

Indulgences have no meaning in a relationship that has been reconciled.

If we are already reconciled with God, why do we need to have transfers of merit from a treasury of merit into our lives?

We have received the reconciliation in one, that is, in Jesus Christ and in him alone.

Romans 3 .25 says that God displayed Jesus Christ publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith.

Where do we ever hear of our making expiation for sins, of our having propitiatory power? Propitiation is a stronger term than merely expiation, which is used in the

Roman Catholic document. Expiation speaks of the forgiveness of sins, while propitiation speaks of that as well as the turning away of God's wrath.

Hence, the believer is reconciled, for no punishments remain. He has peace, for the relationship is made whole and made right.

Hebrews 2 .17 says, therefore he had to be made like his brother in all things, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

I have to ask the question, did he or didn't he? If he has made propitiation for the sins of the people, why do

I need indulgences, merit or satispassio? Hebrews 7 .24 -25 says, but he on the other hand, because he abides forever, holds his priesthood permanently.

Hence also he is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

If Christ is able to save the uttermost, those who come unto God by him, how can it be said that I must make expiation for my own sins, both on earth as well as in purgatory?

And how can the intercession of other people somehow add to the work of Christ in my place? Hebrews 10 .14

says, for by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Perfected for all time, yet still needing to expiate sins, endure punishments and undergo satispassio, making indulgences helpful or necessary?

No. Someone will say, but doesn't the Bible speak of God chastening his children? Yes, it does. Hebrews 12 .6

-8, for those whom the Lord loves, he disciplines and he scourges every son whom he receives. It is for discipline that you endure.

God deals with you as with sons. For what son is there whom his fathers have not disciplined? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

Does this passage and others like it teach us that God is punishing our sins, leveling legal punishments against us?

Are we to believe as we read in Indulgentiarum Doctrina, quote, God's holiness and justice inflict them, end quote?

Is it God's holiness and justice that brings the chastening of Hebrews 12? Or is it his love and fatherhood?

You see, the difference between Rome and the Bible is just this. While Rome teaches its followers that God's justice and holiness is bringing judgment to bear upon their sins, the

Bible teaches that God's justice and holiness brought judgment upon Jesus Christ in the place of sinners.

The chastening that believers experience is not demanded by justice, as justice was fully satisfied in the perfect substitute,

Jesus Christ. God chastens us as a father, conforming us to the image of Christ, of his beloved son, not as a judge, exacting justice from us.

The gospel of Jesus Christ presents a perfect, all -sufficient Savior who endured the wrath of God in the place of his people.

To him, all glory, honor, and praise is due, for he alone is Savior. Indulgences detract, and hence blaspheme the honor and glory of the

Savior, Jesus Christ, and hence must be repudiated by any person whose heart burns with love for the

Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you. You have four minutes. Well, I'm very sorry that my warning at the beginning of my presentation was not heeded.

I specifically said that indulgences have nothing, nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with justification understood in the sense of earning the grace of justification or earning our salvation.

It has nothing to do with that, and yet within my opponent's presentation, he was continually making references to saving ourselves and so forth.

I find that this is then simply a case of his deliberate attempt to misrepresent the position.

Now, so many things he said were historically inaccurate. It would take me so long to go through all of them.

He says the East never had a notion of catharsis or purgatory. Well, the word purgatory in ancient

Greek literature was catharsis. Read St. Gregory of Nyssa's treatise on death.

There he gives one of the strongest teachings on purgatory. As for St. Augustine, you misrepresent what he says.

St. Augustine, now quoting what he says really in the city of God, he distinguishes between the punishments on earth with the eternal punishment.

But quote, St. Augustine says, some suffer temporal punishment only in this life, others only after death.

Still others both in life and after death. So he clearly supported purgatory in spite of what my opponent tries to say.

Then he starts to go on to this whole thing about doctrinal development, you know, that it wasn't there.

It was there in the concept of the fact that the good works we do, the prayers, the sacrifices we do can be beneficial to members in the mystical body of Christ.

I'll just read to you from St. Clement of Alexandria. St. John the Apostle urges a young thief to repentance, exclaiming,

I will be responsible to Christ for you. If necessary, I will gladly undergo your death, even as the

Lord took on death for our sake. I will give my life as the substitute for yours. Or St.

Cyprian says, we believe that the merits of the martyrs and the words of the just have great power before the judge.

But at the coming of the judgment day, when at the end of the present world, Christ's people will stand before his throne.

Whatever the martyrs have entreated and the priests have done for them can bring merciful forgiveness and be favorable on behalf of those who repent, work, and plead.

So the basis of the notion that our sacrifices and prayers can be of spiritual benefit to those in the mystical body of Christ has been there from the beginning.

It's there in Paul's letter to the Colossians 124, which my opponent just simply chose to ignore.

Now, in terms of this expiation, we must make a distinction between the expiation of the eternal guilt and the expiation of the temporal punishment.

Now, here's the key. Is there such a reality as temporal punishment? Well, I'd like to point to a source that I don't normally point to, namely the

Westminster Confession of Faith. But here it's implied within the Westminster Confession of Faith, temporal punishment.

Chapter 11, section 5. He says, God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God's fatherly displeasure and not have the light of his countenance restored onto them until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.

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

Well, if it's not eternal punishment, it's temporal punishment. Is that it?

Okay. First of all, Dr. Vestigi says that I made a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the

Roman Catholic position, but I think the person watching the debate knows that one of us read a lot of Indulgentiarum Doctrina and one of us didn't, and I'm the one that was reading most of it.

Secondly, he said, I repeated that indulgences have nothing to do with justification. I wrote that down.

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

Whereas Paul says in Romans chapter 8, when he talks about the elect people of God, he says, who's going to lay a charge against their account?

Who's going to bring condemnation against them? It's Jesus Christ who justifies them. So to simply attempt to define out of existence the idea that indulgences have nothing to do with justification is to again ignore the biblical teaching of what justification is.

And the justification involves the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, which makes this whole idea of undergoing satispassio in purgatory and needing merits transferred from a mythical treasury of merit utterly and completely unnecessary and contradictory to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now, Dr. Vestigi then grossly misrepresented me while accusing me of having misrepresented the early church.

If anyone would take the time to listen to the tape, I said that the fully developed dogmatic doctrine of purgatory did not appear in the

West. He changed that to the idea of catharsis. Now, that's a little bit of a debating trick. It's not what

I said, and hence it's a misrepresentation. Maybe he just didn't understand what I was saying. I don't know. But I didn't say that the idea of catharsis wasn't there.

I said that the fully developed dogmatic teaching of purgatory did not enter into Eastern Christianity as it did into Western or Latin Christianity.

Then Dr. Vestigi said, well, you ignored Colossians 124. Patience, Dr. Vestigi. We only have a small amount of time.

Certainly, I'm well aware of the fact that the only passage of scripture to which you can ever appeal is Colossians 1, verse 24.

But there are numerous problems. I would refer anyone to Dr. Lightfoot's discussion of Colossians 1, verse 24, where he goes into depth dealing with the issues about this issue.

I don't have time to read all of it. But I'll just point out a couple of things. First of all, the term that is used when it describes the

Lord Jesus Christ and his sufferings is the term flipsaone. It is not the term the sufferings of his cross, the sufferings of his death.

It is not the term that is normally even translated sufferings in that sense. It is a unique usage in regards to Paul.

And as Dr. Lightfoot points out, it is a gross misuse of this passage to attempt to read into this any type of expiation or satisfaction.

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

They have not observed that if the idea of vicarious satisfaction comes into the passage at all, the satisfaction of St.

Paul is represented here as the same kind with the satisfaction of Christ, however different it may be in degree.

It is sufficient to say that, so far as regards this particular passage, the Roman doctrine can only be imported into it at the cost of a contradiction to the

Pauline doctrine." What did Dr. Lightfoot demonstrate prior to this? That the sufferings of Christ which are being referred to here are not the redemptive sufferings of Christ, which

I even underlined redemptive suffering in the papal decree, the papal letter that Dr. Vestigi read. It is instead the ministerial sufferings, that is, the sufferings that all

Christians enter into as believers in Jesus Christ in the church. There is no concept of merit.

There is no concept of a treasury of merit. None of the things that I said have even begun to be addressed by what

Dr. Vestigi has said in regards to this idea of a treasury of merit made up of the merits of Christ and Mary and the saints and all the rest of these things.

This is a doctrine that is not found in the New Testament. It is not found in the early church and, as such, should not be believed by Christian people.

Yes. Well, the word you refer to in Colossians 124 is best probably translated as afflictions or sufferings.

It might not be the same as the word for passion, but it is still affliction.

How is Christ still suffering? Or in that passage in 2 Corinthians, which I read, how is

Paul carrying about in his body the dying of Christ? But notice, they are the afflictions of Christ, and Paul is saying that my sufferings, see,

I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ and the afflictions of Christ for the sake of his body, the church.

So, in other words, Paul is doing something now for the sake of sanctification.

I think you are right that this is different than the passion of Christ, which is the meritorious cause for justification.

But my point is this, why do you ignore the second part of that passage where he says in my own sufferings

I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for his body, the church? I ignore nothing. Let me give you the rest of the quotation.

The theological difficulty which these and similar explanations are intended to remove is imaginary and not real.

There is a sense in which it is quite legitimate to speak of Christ's afflictions as incomplete, a sense in which they may be, and indeed must be, supplemented.

The sufferings of Christ may be considered from two different points of view. They are either satisfactory or they are edifying.

They have their sacrificial efficacy and they have their ministerial utility. Number one, from the former point of view, the passion of Christ was the one, full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.

In this sense, there could be no lack of Christ's sufferings for Christ's sufferings being different in kind from those of his servants.

The two are incommensurable. But in this sense, the apostle would surely have used some other expressions such as of the cross, numerous passages cited, or of his death, numerous passages cited, but hardly simply the afflictions or the tribulations.

Indeed, flips -less, affliction is not elsewhere applied in the New Testament in any sense to Christ's sufferings and certainly would not suggest a sacrificial act.

And if you're going to use it that way, you're going to have to provide us with references where it is applied in that way. From the latter point of view, it is a simple matter of fact that the affliction of every saint and martyr do supplement the afflictions of Christ.

The church is built up by repeated acts of self -denial in successive individuals and successive generations. They continue the work which

Christ began. They bear their part in the sufferings of Christ. But St. Paul would have been the last to say that they bear their part in the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

This being so, St. Paul does not mean to say that his own sufferings fill up all what is lacking, but only that they went towards filling them up.

The present tense of the Greek term that is used there denotes an inchoate, not a complete action. These things that are lacking will never be fully supplemented until the struggle of the church with sin and unbelief is brought to a close.

Dr. Festigi, there is no ignoring this passage whatsoever. Instead, when we take the passage in its context, in its original language, we see that to attempt to use it, to in any way, shape, or form connect it to the idea that there is a treasury of merit that is controlled by keys, that is made up of the merit of Christ, the merit of Mary, and the merit of the saints, whereby the church, through the power of the keys, can withdraw a certain amount of this merit and apply it to my account so that I don't have to suffer as long in purgatory to bring about my purification, that I can apply it to my life so that I'm somehow purified by this addition of merit to me, is utterly and completely without any basis whatsoever in Scripture.

There is no way that anyone simply reading the New Testament and reading Colossians 124 would ever have the foggiest idea that there is any connection whatsoever between what

Paul talks about in Colossians 124 and what has become the dogmatic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as found in Indulgentiarum Doctrina.

Well, I'm just amazed that you could cite Lightfoot and then he falls into the same misrepresentation that I warned about at the very beginning.

I agree that the suffering endured by Paul has nothing to do and is not supplementing the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

The Pope in Salvifici Dolores, on the Christian meaning of human suffering that I read you, exegeted that passage in a far more brilliant way than Lightfoot because Lightfoot shows that he's trying to understand the

Catholic position as saying somehow we're supplementing the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

The Pope makes it clear that that is complete. So this is on the level of the working out of the life of Christ in the church, which we could understand as sanctification.

So Mr. Lightfoot has just misrepresented the Catholic position. And then in terms of this distinction between edifying and satisfactory and so on, we have to remember we're dealing here with the fact that Paul was saying,

I am offering something that is beneficial to the faithful. It's on behalf of the faithful.

And all the rest of those passages about the imitation of Christ, talking about our bodies, the dying of Jesus, all of this is linked to the notion of the body of Christ, the church of the body of Christ.

Whereas he says in 1 Corinthians 12, if one part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers.

If one part is honored, the whole part is honored. So if one part of the body of Christ is honored in heaven, we all are honored.

Now, in terms of this, it's not just Colossians 124, but there's many other passages. But very briefly,

I wonder what to make of the Westminster Confession of Faith, where it says, although repentance be not to be rested in any satisfaction for sin, this is chapter 15, or any cause of the pardon thereon, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ.

Yet it is of such necessity to all sinners that none may expect pardon without it.

I simply go back again to the Roman Catholic position, which I believe my opponent is desperately attempting to avoid.

Indulgentiarum Doctrina says, they have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others.

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

And I also pointed out to you this section on the church. The beneficial institution of indulgences therefore does its part in bringing it about that the church might be presented to Christ without spot or wrinkle, but holy and blameless and without blemish.

Now, Dr. Vestiges says, oh, but the Pope has said it doesn't have anything to do with the sacrifice of Christ. If you're talking about something that can help to bring about the purification of the church of Jesus Christ, you had better believe that you're talking about something that is most definitely related to the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

When you're talking about merit and expiation of sin, you are treading on the holy ground of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Vestiges. Leo I in a letter to the

Palestinians said, quote, although precious in the sight of the Lord was the death of many saints, yet the slaying of no innocent person has been the propitiation of the world.

The righteous have received, not given crowns, and from believers' fortitude have come examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness.

Each one surely died his own death, not paying by his end the debt of another, since one Lord Christ exists in whom all are crucified, all are dead, buried, and raised.

Yet, indulgentiarum doctrina states, quote, those who believe in him have always tried to help one another along the path which leads to the heavenly father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods, and penitential expiation.

They have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others, end quote. Dr. Vestiges, how do you reconcile these two statements?

Well, again, there's this misrepresentation and a misunderstanding. Leo I is talking about the expiation for the eternal debt.

The indulgentiarum doctrina and the Catholic teaching on indulgences is talking about how our prayers, our intercessions, our sacrifices can be beneficial to help our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ be purified, you see?

And so I think you just have to turn to those passages that I mentioned to you before, which you didn't respond to, 1

Peter 4 .8, love covers a multitude of sin. Or you could go to James 5 .16,

where he makes reference now to the prayers of a righteous man. And he talks about here how powerful are the prayers of a righteous man.

And in James 5 .16, he says, the fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.

Elijah was a human being like us. Yet he prayed earnestly that it might not rain.

And for three years and six months, it did not rain upon the land. And then he goes on to say about the conversion of brothers.

My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back the sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

So in other words, the acts we do, our prayers and appeal and intercession have spiritual benefit.

It's like the Syrophoenician woman who comes up begging to Christ to heal her daughter from a demon.

And so her appeal was beneficial to her daughter. Now, of course, all of the healing takes place through Christ, but we are the body of Christ, something you just don't seem to understand.

In regard to the history in the third and fourth century, public penitents would go to the prison cells of people awaiting martyrdom, and they would receive a little statement known as a libelli, stating that the martyr would offer up his or her martyrdom for their expiation.

And then they would take this libelli, this little book, and bring it to a bishop. And then the bishop would reduce their penance on the basis of what was offered up by the one to suffer martyrdom.

So this is deeply rooted. Pope Leo I was quite aware of that, and he didn't condemn that.

So this is something deeply rooted. And speaking about doctrinal development, I don't think you quite understand what doctrinal development is.

We look as Catholics, we look and we see the germination of the doctrine.

But as long as the essence of it is there from the beginning, yes, it could grow in different ways.

You see? Now, I would like to ask you to defend sola scriptura on the basis of the early church.

It was not taught by the early church, and yet it developed really a little bit maybe by Wycliffe and Huss.

It's not even clear then. Well, Dr. Steege, let me respond to the last one by again offering you a public debate to a challenge to debate sola scriptura.

I'd be glad to demonstrate many early church fathers who taught this that. But that's not our debate topic today. Instead, we go back to what

Leo said. He said the righteous have received, not given crowns. No concept of the righteous taking some sort of their extra merit and inserting into a treasury of merit that then is distributed to other people.

He says from believers forward to become examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness. And what is an indulgence if it is not the transfer of merit to someone else's account, if that cannot be described as a gift of righteousness?

The simple fact of the matter is Indulgentiarum Doctrina is giving us a falsehood when it says that they have carried their crosses to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others.

Now, you brought up a number of passages. You brought up 1 Peter 4 .8, James 5 .16. Dr. Vestigi, where is merit in these passages?

Where is the treasury of merit? Where is expiation? Where are indulgences? Love covers a multitude of sins,

Dr. Vestigi, is a long stretch from you have a treasury of merit and you get merit that's transferred to your account so that you can somehow get a lesser period of time in purgatory suffering to make expiation for your sins.

You say that these passages speak of a spiritual benefit. Of course, there's a spiritual benefit, but that's vastly different than the expiation of sins,

Dr. Vestigi. And finally, you said, I don't understand doctrinal development. Well, Dr. Vestigi, I understand it very, very well.

But I try to distinguish between doctrinal development, which is curved and defined by the scriptures as the word of God with the perversion and denial of the teachings of scripture by those who set up an authority outside of scripture and then force their interpretation and their understanding onto the pages of scripture.

There's a vast difference between the two. Since Rome has said that there is more outside of scripture, there is this oral tradition, then the development is not limited by the confines of what that which is theanustas,

God breathed. And hence you have this perversion of the grace of God and the doctrine of indulgences.

That's not development. That's denial. Well, you continually go back to these caricatures of what is meant by the treasury of the church and the treasury of the saints.

Let me read to you from Pope Paul VI Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences.

He says, the sublime bond exists in the supernatural unity of the mystical body of Christ and constitutes the one mystical body.

That is the basis of the treasury of church. The treasury of the church is not to be likened to a centuries old accumulation of material wealth.

It means rather the inexhaustible and the limitless and inexhaustible value that the expiations and merits offered by Christ have in the eyes of God for the liberation of all humanity from sin and for the creation of communion with the father.

The treasury of the church is Christ the Redeemer himself in whom the atonement and the merit of his redemption exist and are at work.

Now, in terms of this, added to this treasure is also the vast incalculable ever increasing value in Christ's eyes.

Well, it looks like we've run out of time. Yes. First of all,

I'll make it a two part question. Mr. White, would you deny that scripture does encourage prayers of intercession for the living?

Let's just stick to the living now. And secondly, how do these prayers of intercession help in any way if there's not a way in which something that is done by a person as an appeal for another cannot be spiritually beneficial?

And so I'd like you to just answer that. I believe I have three minutes still.

Thank you very much. Yes, we are told to pray for one another. So yes, there are prayers of intercession in that sense.

However, Dr. Vestigi, it is plainly evident on the pages of the New Testament that these prayers of intercession are based solely and completely and only upon our access and our approach under the throne of grace, which we have solely, completely, and only due to the merit of Jesus Christ, his righteousness, which is imputed to us by faith.

Our prayers of intercession do not in any way, shape, or form involve our doing certain things that then have merit attached to them, that merit then being transferred to another, that this merit somehow having something to do with the remission of temporal punishments of sins.

As I said in my opening statement, Jesus Christ reconciled us to the Father. If you have a relationship with someone else,

Dr. Vestigi, that is ruptured and you are reconciled, and yet that person may still have to spend a couple hundred years being purged and whipped and punished because of your relationship, that, sir, is not reconciliation.

To say that we have been reconciled with God, and yet we still have all these temporal punishments of sin that are going to cause us to go to purgatory or cause us to need this infusion of merit from the treasury of merit is to utterly undo the

New Testament doctrine of the concept of reconciliation, redemption, which is the forgiveness of sins, and its punishment, etc.,

etc., etc. Now you say, why intercede for someone if your works cannot somehow spiritually benefit them?

Again, the reason we intercede for someone else in the body of Christ is for his glory and the only thing that can be helpful to anyone.

My merits can't help anyone. God help us if we depend upon each other's merits. There is only one who is meritorious.

The term merit itself could only be applied to one in the scripture, and that is applied to Jesus Christ and to Jesus Christ alone.

Now, Dr. Vestigi, you keep saying that as I am addressing these things, I just mentioned the treasury of merit, that I am somehow giving up caricature, and yet over and over again,

I'm the one who's read what the Roman Catholic doctrine is. You stopped your quotation, and I admit you were about to try to continue on with it and ran out of time.

You stopped your quotation where, the quotation continued, this treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the

Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the

Lord, and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. They attain their own salvation. I have read that before.

If you're going to call that a misrepresentation, then you're going to have to say that Indol Gentiarum Doctrina misrepresents the

Roman Catholic doctrine. But there you have it. This treasury of merit is made up of the excess merits of Christ.

You know what Clement said in regards to the one drop of blood would be sufficient to save the world, and the merits of Mary, and the merits of the saints, all together in one treasury.

Well, once again, there is this ongoing confusion between the once and for all sacrifice of Christ, which is totally meritorious for the sake of our objective salvation and taking away the eternal guilt, with our merits and good works and our prayers, which could be beneficial for healing people of the temporal punishment due to sin.

So this is where I find you continually go back and using the word save and so on, and that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about how prayers and good works and sacrifices within the mystical body of Christ can be of spiritual benefit.

Now again, to go back to the new catechism, the merit of man before God in the

Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace.

Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ from the predispositions and assistance given by the

Holy Spirit. And then it goes on to quote Saint Augustine, our merits are

God's gifts. So the initiative is always God. So in a sense, then, strictly speaking, the treasury of the church, as Pope Paul VI pointed out, is

Christ. But Christ is linked to all of us because he wants to make us into his body, and we are doing this.

So therefore, he wants to join with us. He wants to join us into this marvelous work of assisting one another in the work of purification.

I mean, even preaching is something that we do, and it could help people be purified, praying for others.

In other words, whatever we do within the mystical body helps others. So this is really what is operating with the notion of the treasury of saints, that Christ has now linked himself to his body.

Dr. Vestigi makes reference to the ongoing confusion between the concept of Christ's expiatory sacrifice and the personal prayers of saints and the mystical body and things like this.

Dr. Vestigi, I would suggest to you that it's not a matter of confusion. It's a matter of the fact that Rome's doctrine that distinguishes between these two things is false.

That's the whole problem. You see, the New Testament does not allow for expiation of sin, and that's the document's language.

That's what you all are saying is expiation of sin outside of the finished, completed work of Jesus Christ upon the cross of Calvary.

And so the confusion is introduced by the false teaching of Rome, inserted into scripture that is not anywhere a part of the apostles' doctrine.

It's not anywhere a part of their thought that you can somehow have expiation for sin outside of the shedding of the blood of the

Lord Jesus Christ. So when you say the confusion exists, you're right, but it's a confusion that comes about because of Rome.

He states that indulgences aid in making the church pure and spotless without wrinkle. Yet the Bible says in Ephesians 5, 25 -27, quote, husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her.

That he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, and that he might present to himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and blameless, end quote.

This is the language that Indulgentiarum Doctrina borrows, but in doing so, utterly denies the very truth spoken in this passage.

Ephesians 5 teaches that Christ, not Mary, not the saints, not the pope and his alleged power of the keys, has already washed, past tense, the church, and that he will present her to himself without spot and wrinkle.

Dr. Vestigi, how can you say that indulgences aid in making the church pure and holy when Christ himself is said to be the one who makes her holy and blameless and pure, and that, as Paul says elsewhere, by the sanctifying work of the

Holy Spirit, not by the use of indulgences? Well, there's no separation between the grace which is operating in Mary and the saints from the grace of Christ.

Council of Trent is very clear that the meritorious cause of justification is the death of Christ on the cross, and that the efficacious cause, or the efficient cause, of our justification is the mercy of God.

So in other words, we cannot separate the purification that's going on, the ongoing purification, from the power of the grace of Christ.

In fact, it's rooted in that. In fact, I said at the very beginning something you seem to ignore, that indulgences can only be received by those who are in the state of grace.

And so then in terms of what are the norms for receiving or benefiting from an indulgence, you know, it's very clear that to gain a plenary indulgence, as the

Pope points out, there must be the performance of the work and the fulfillment of three conditions, sacramental confession,

Eucharistic communion, prayer for the Pope's intention. A further requirement is the exclusion of all attachment to sin, even venial sin.

So this is where we're becoming purified, by detaching ourselves from sin. And the prayers within the body of Christ, the prayers of Mary, the prayers of the saints, again, they're not operating apart from the power of Christ justifying grace.

In fact, when we discussed Mary, I'll make this very clear, yes, we have only one mediator, but that does not preclude a sharing in that one mediation of Christ.

And this is an act of sharing. So that would be my response to that. I would simply respond by pointing out that I believe, again, this illustrates very clearly, as I said in my opening statements, the vast difference between the biblical perspective on salvation and the

Roman Catholic perspective. The scriptures say in Ephesians chapter 5 that Jesus Christ is sanctifying his church.

Now, Dr. Vestigi says, look, I'm not saying that the merits of Mary and the merits of the saints, these are operating separate from the grace of Christ.

In fact, the only reason they exist is because of the grace of Christ. That's the position that is taken. I have said that from the start, but there's a little bit of a problem.

You see, this position tells us that in addition to the grace of Christ in the treasury of merit, you have the real merits of Mary, which she only has because of grace, but they're still real merit.

And you have the merits of the saints, which are only theirs because of grace, but they're still merit. And what you have in the doctrine of indulgences is the idea that the church is going to be made spotless without wrinkle.

How? Whose merit will she have? Oh, but all the merit that she can have is because of Christ.

But whose merit does she have? Does she stand clothed only in the merit of Jesus Christ? Or does she stand clothed in the merit of Christ and Mary, the saints?

And the same is true of the individual believer when they stand before God, if they have depended upon indulgences and used indulgences.

You see, we again come back to this point where you say, well, it's all possible because of Christ. And I say it is all

Christ, period. By attempting to say, well, Christ makes it possible for us to do this and for us to do that, and then making those a part of salvation, you are,

I think as any person can see, detracting from the uniqueness and the solidarity of Jesus Christ as Savior.

That's what this doctrine is all about. Only Christ sanctifies his church. No one is needed to help him.

Respond. Well, he just fell into the error that I've been pointing out. He says nothing is needed to be part of our salvation.

And Mr. White, I again repeat, we're not talking about earning our salvation.

We're talking about sanctification. We're talking about how the prayers of the saints, the sacrifices of the saints, the things we do can be used by God to help us.

After all, I mean, Paul says in 2 Corinthians, we are ambassadors for Christ. God, as it were, appealing through us.

So in other words, what you simply don't seem to understand is that now in the age between Christ's first coming and his second coming, he is making us into his body, and he has chosen to use us to be instruments of his purifying effect.

I mean, after all, when you go and preach, aren't you, in a sense, sharing in the work of Christ and helping to awaken people for conversion and purification and so on?

Yes, Doctor. Okay, thank you for being such a fair moderator.

One issue we haven't addressed, it seems, in our discussion after the opening statements is the issue of temporal punishment.

Now, I gave you two passages from the Westminster Confession of Faith, which

I think very clearly imply temporal punishment. I mean, after all, when one loses the light of God's countenance, that seems to me to be a punishment.

Is it an eternal punishment? Or is it a temporal punishment? It has to be a temporal punishment by your own definitions.

And then in chapter 15, section 3, although repentance be not to be rested in any satisfaction for sin or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ, yet it is of such necessity to all

Christians that none may expect pardon without it. I'd like to know how you get around these passages of the

Westminster Confession of There's a need for penance.

Dr. Fastigi, again, I want to say this with all the respect I can, but you have no idea what the

Westminster Confession teaches. I have attempted to come here today and accurately represent

Indulge in TRM Doctrine. I've been the one who's ended up reading most of it and presenting most of the Roman Catholic position in regards to the theology of it from that document.

The Westminster Confession of Faith specifically denies, in the sections that you even read, the concept of making satisfaction, so on and so forth.

In my opening statement, I clearly differentiate between the concept of temporal punishment of sin, a legally exacted forensic punishment upon someone, and the very words of the

Westminster Confession of Faith, the fatherly displeasure. There is a vast difference that, again, I will simply repeat for you so that you can understand what it is.

You see, the difference between Rome and the Bible is just this. While Rome teaches its followers that God's justice and holiness is bringing judgment to bear upon their sins, as Indulge in TRM Doctrine says, the

Bible teaches that God's justice and holiness brought judgment upon Jesus Christ in the place of sinners.

The chastening, and that's the terminology, that believers experience is not demanded by justice,

Dr. Fastigi. As justice was fully satisfied in the perfect substitute, Jesus Christ, God chastens us as a father, conforming us to the image of his beloved son, not as a judge exacting justice from us.

That is the position that is taken by the Westminster Confession of Faith to attempt to attach to that the

Roman Catholic concept of temporal punishment, the expiation of sins, the expiation of temporal punishment by status postulum purgatory, is to connect two things that have absolutely positively nothing to do with one another.

Well, I'm just amazed at how you didn't understand the point I was trying to make, Mr. White.

I'm trying to say that there is some kind of punishment due to sin that is different from the eternal punishment, and that is what we mean by temporal punishment.

And so if you fall out of God's countenance, the light of his countenance, isn't that a type of punishment?

And if it's not eternal punishment, it must be temporal punishment. So you just missed the point of my question.

You see, I'm well aware of what your position is and what the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith is.

I study this very carefully. What disturbs me are the inconsistencies. You know, for example, like you despise the word synergy, and yet I found about five different examples of synergy in the

Westminster Confession of Faith. I could read them to you. You despise the notion of the infusion of grace, and yet in chapter 16, it talks about the grace of God that is in them.

So there's all these playing around with words. Dr. Vestigi, Indol Gentiarum Doctrina states that the treasury of merit is made up of the merits of Christ.

Clement VI and his jubilee bull, Unigendius Dei Filius, asserted that the excess merit of Christ was drawn from his having shed a copious amount of blood upon the cross, while a single drop would have been sufficient to save the whole human race.

Given that Indol Gentiarum Doctrina states that the treasury of merit is made up of Christ's excess merit and the merit of Mary and the merit of the saints, does it not follow then that the merits of Mary and the saints are of the same kind and type as the merit of Christ, though simply lesser in amount?

Does not this doctrine again show us that the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is compromised by many

Roman doctrines, indulgences included? Go again. Go to the quote you just read.

A single drop of blood would have been sufficient to have saved the human race. We're not talking here about salvation.

We're not talking about earning the grace of justification, which is a pure gift. Again, I don't know how many times

I could repeat this. We're talking about how Christ, in the realm of the church as a pilgrim, as the pilgrim church on earth, wants us to pray for each other, wants us to offer our sacrifices for each other, wants us to link our sufferings with the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, the church, as Colossians 1 .24

said. Now, as the Pope clearly taught, the redemption wrought on Calvary was totally complete and totally sufficient.

But in terms of the pilgrim church, the church here on earth, in the wayfaring state, here is where we as the body of Christ can join our sacrifices and prayers for the mutual benefit of our brothers and sisters.

And logically, it follows that if our prayers of intercession can help them, if God could be appealing through us as ambassadors of Christ, and we could be

God's co -workers, then certainly that's all a sign of what I've been saying from the very beginning, that Christ wants to link us to himself as his body, and that as his body we are meant to bear each other's burdens, as Paul said.

And so this is something where you just simply don't seem to understand, that we're not talking about the blood which is sufficient for the salvation.

We're talking about how Christ is trying to teach us. It gets back to what

I read at the beginning of the debate, of how Paul says, be imitators of me as I am of Christ.

And in Ephesians, where he talks about how we are meant to be imitators of God. Isn't it interesting,

Dr. Fastigi, that in the first debate you distinguished clearly between justification and sanctification. My distinction between the two is a tact.

And now, in this situation, you're saying, we're not talking about earning salvation, we're talking about sanctification. Now you're dividing them in half and you want to say, it has nothing to do with that.

And yet you just don't seem to understand that what I'm saying is, you're saying that these indulgences in our wayfaring state, that this is helping us in the body of Christ.

Dr. Fastigi, the blood of Jesus Christ, as you just said, is sufficient to bring about the salvation of all mankind.

Dr. Fastigi, the blood of Jesus Christ is sufficient in of itself, alone, to sanctify all those for whom it was shed.

Hebrews chapter 10 says, he has perfected forever by the shedding of his blood. You are saying, well, it may be sufficient, but there are going to be people who stand before God someday who are going to stand there, not clothed only in that sufficiency, but they are going to have this mixture of other merit in from Mary and the saints.

And that is the contradiction with Scripture, sir. Could I respond? Okay. Well, I think this last question illustrates the tremendous confusion

Mr. White has of our teaching about indulgences, you see, because the merits of Mary and the saints are not separate from the merits of Christ.

In fact, they are only possible because Christ is living in them. Recall what Cardinal Cajetan very perceptively pointed out, just as Paul in Galatians could say,

I live now, not I, Christ lives in me. He could also say,

I live now, not I, I merit now, not I, but Christ merits in me.

So we're talking here about a different understanding, especially of the church and the mystical body of Christ.

And we're talking about the fact that Scripture is very clear that there's temporal punishment for sin.

You never address my examples from the Old Testament of Solomon and David.

You never even mentioned that. You just let it brush aside. You do not seem to understand that in your own confession of faith or a confession of faith you hold very dear, that there is implied a notion that there is a type of punishment which is other than the eternal punishment.

So we're talking here about the purification. Now, I agree.

We are purified only by the Holy Spirit. We are purified only by Christ. But it's very clear in Scripture that the church is the body of Christ.

When one part of the body suffers, all suffer. When one part of the body is honored, the whole body is honored.

You see, this is something you just simply do not understand that Christ wants us to be again his ambassadors.

He wants us to be his co -workers. But we as co -workers rely entirely exclusively upon the grace of Christ.

He just wants us to be vessels of his grace. He wants us now to be spiritually mature.

He wants us to take up our cross and follow in his footsteps. Now, Mr. White, why would

Christ call upon us to take up our cross if what we do cannot be of any spiritual benefit?

In other words, if it can't be of spiritual benefit to others, how could it be of spiritual benefit to even ourselves?

That would logically follow. I don't think you have really addressed the issue. I try to appeal to the notion of purification going back to Matthew 5, 8.

Blessed are the clean of heart. Revelation 21, 27. Nothing unclean can enter the kingdom of heaven.

We need purification. We need sanctification. The prayers of the saints, the sacrifices of the saints, not separate.

They're not adding a thing to Christ as the meritorious cause of our redemption. But in the church on the wayfaring state, they do help in terms of our sanctification.

And they could only help because they are part of Christ. You see, now it's true we have but one mediator.

But Numbers 5, 5 tells us that Moses was a mediator. Read it.

What can we say then? It means that Christ is the complete and full mediator, the perfection of mediation.

But this in no way precludes him on his own free will, wanting to make us sharers in the divine nature, wanting to be of assistance to our brothers and sisters.

So now I will read to you from Indulgentiarum Doctrina that you said I've ignored only because of the lack of time.

But he says, the Pope says, following in Christ's footsteps, his faithful have always sought to assist each other along the road to the

Father by prayer, spiritual kindness, spiritual kindnesses, and penitential expiation.

The more ardent the charity motivating them, the more closely they have followed Christ in his suffering by bearing their own cross in atonement for their own sins and the sins of others, and with the conviction that in the eyes of the

Father of mercies, they could be of service to the salvation of their brothers and sisters.

Now of service, not in meriting the salvation, but in helping others in the pilgrim state.

This, of course, is the ancient dogma of the communion of saints, namely that the life of each of God's children is in Christ, through Christ conjoined with the life of all other

Christians. That sublime bond exists in the supernatural unity of the mystical body of Christ and constitutes one mystical person.

This is what the whole notion of indulgences is based on. Now the church does not require anyone to make use of an indulgence.

Thank you. I just want to remind all those who are watching and listening of where we started, because we've gone a lot of different places in the process of this debate.

The doctrine of indulgences has been shown to, first of all, be absent from Scripture.

Dr. Festigi has shown us no passage that talks about indulgences, and has in fact admitted the development of doctrine over time, as in fact

Indulgentia Arum Doctrina admits. It's something developed over time, over a period of time. We would disagree as to whether it developed properly or as a perversion of Scripture.

We have seen that it is not in Scripture. Dr. Festigi has made reference to some early fathers in the 3rd, 4th century to talk about things related to catharsis and things like that, but not to indulgences, because even

Indulgentia Arum Doctrina does not make the claim that it existed, the doctrine existed at that time.

Furthermore, we have seemingly focused in upon the difference between my perspective and his in regards to how a person is made right before God.

And Dr. Festigi said right at the beginning, this has nothing to do with justification. This has nothing to do with that at all.

And yet, over and over again, in fact it was very interesting. I was following along in my copy of this as Dr. Festigi was just reading, and when it came to this passage it said, speaking of these who have imitated

Christ and His sufferings, they have carried their crosses, in my mind says, to make expiation for their own sins and the sins of others.

I believe his said, to make atonement for their sins and the sins of others. And over and over again,

Dr. Festigi keeps saying, you don't understand, you don't understand. No, I simply will not accept the false dichotomy between saying, well you've got the sacrifice of Christ, you have the atonement of Christ, you have the expiating work of Christ, but then we've got this other kind, this other thing, but it's all due because of Christ.

You see, everything is because of Christ, but we still have this idea of these indulgences. Why are they needed?

If Christ's atoning work, if His expiating work was full and complete, are we actually saying that all

He did was take care of eternal guilt and not anything else? You see, this goes back to the fact that Rome does not understand the death of Christ.

The Mass demonstrates this very plainly, but here it's demonstrated very plainly again. The death of Christ is limited in its effect.

The fullness that it brings about redemption and sanctification and reconciliation, oh no, oh no.

You see, there's other things that can be used as well. You see, you can undergo satispasio and purgatory and you can also have indulgences.

And my point, my friends, is according to this book, that's never taught, it's never understood, and every single time that propitiation, expiation, salvation is spoken of, there's only one who does it.

That's Jesus Christ. And that's why it's to Him and to Him alone that glory can be given. It's because it is

Jesus Christ who alone is meritorious, and when we stand before God, we will stand before Him solely and completely robed in the spotless robes of righteousness given to us as a gift by Jesus Christ.

Not in robes of righteousness made up of the righteousness of Christ and Mary and the saints. That type of robe of righteousness will never, ever avail before God.

Now, Dr. Fastigi said, your own Westminster Confession of Faith, I'm sorry, Dr. Fastigi, but that is so inaccurate, it's on the level of my saying that Mary needed no

Savior. I'm sorry, Dr. Fastigi, you just don't know what the documents state, you have misinterpreted, misunderstood it, and I hope you'd be willing to be corrected by someone who obviously knows more about it than you do in regards to its background and its meaning and its language.

What is more, you said, well, you skipped over those passages I gave you about temporal punishment. No, let's look at just the one that was very briefly given, 2

Samuel, David and his son. This is the classic passage that's utilized, and let me just ask the listeners to think of one thing.

When this passage is brought up, and Nathan comes before David, did God have to take the child?

Did God have to kill the child? To substantiate the Roman Catholic position, you'd have to say, yes, because it's a punishment that is being legally leveled against David.

But was there a purpose in the fatherhood of God, which is what Westminster talks about, which is what I said from the beginning, in chastening

David? You see, if you admit that God didn't have to do that, then you're admitting that was not a legal punishment that was exacted upon David.

And you don't understand what we say in regards to the difference between the chastening of God, where he conforms to the image of Christ because he's our father, and the punishments that you say will eventually put you in purgatory, where you have to undergo purifying punishments and suffering before you can ever be in the presence of Christ.

The difference between us is that I can stay in the presence of Christ right now if I die, because Jesus Christ is the one in whose merit

I stand. The Roman Catholic cannot say that. The Roman Catholic does not have that concept of the completed and finished work of Christ, the sculling completely meritorious.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. White. Thank you, Dr. Pestigi. We hope you've enjoyed this debate. This was the second in a series of four debates with these gentlemen.