Purgatory Mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line.

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line, a debate on The Dividing Line today between myself and Tim Staples, Staff Apologist for Catholic Answers.

We are going to be discussing 1 Corinthians chapter 3, verses 10 through 15 and the claim that this text clearly presents the doctrine of purgatory.

Here's how it's going to be laid out. We're going to jump right into it so that we can have some time at the end of the program for your phone calls as well.

Fifteen minutes each, opening statements, we're going to be exegeting the text. Then each one of us will have an eight -minute response.

We'll have five minutes to cross -examine each other, eight -minute closers, and that should give us enough time to take about 19 to 20 minutes worth of phone calls at the end of the program.

Please make your question very short, very succinct. It is not a time for you to preach, to add to the presentations made by anyone.

It is a question. A question has one of those little squiggly things at the end called a question mark. So please make sure that you get your question very, very quickly and we'll attempt to answer it as succinctly as possible.

We will not open the phone lines for those questions until five o 'clock

Mountain Standard time, which would be four o 'clock in the Pacific and whatever it is wherever else you are.

You can figure it out from there. So with that, I would like to welcome to the air

Tim Staples and thank you for joining us, Tim. It's great to be with you, James. All right.

So since we have a lot to get to and not a whole lot of time to do it in, we'll go ahead and if you'd like to begin, sir.

Sure. I'd like to begin by thanking you for sending me over a couple of links to audio files from your radio broadcast that really helped me prepare for this dialogue.

The first was a critique of an answer I gave on Catholic Answers Live to one of our callers who had a question about purgatory in 1

Corinthians 3, and that actually served as the impetus for this dialogue. And the other was a section from a debate on purgatory you had, as you know, with Father Peter Stravinskas.

And I'm going to be using these as sort of a foundation for my opening remarks, focusing on the 1

Corinthians 3, 10 through 15, as you said. Now I suppose I could begin by saying from a

Catholic and biblical perspective, this is really not difficult to see. In a nutshell, St.

Paul is here giving us a vivid picture of the judgment, which is obviously after death, and he tells us that at the judgment, and I know we'll get some play on this, there will be some who are already perfectly purified, so that they will not experience the pains of purgatory, but they will receive their reward immediately, and there are those who will not have been perfectly sanctified, so they will undergo a purging of all imperfections so that they can enter into the glory of heaven.

St. Paul says it like this, I'll just read verses 13 through 15. Each man's work will become manifest for the day, referring to the judgment, will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.

If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Now, as James knows, and I've said many times on Catholic Answers Live, we have here depicted a place, or more properly speaking, a state of being described that is obviously not hell, because folks are being saved, it's not heaven, because there's imperfection being taken away, and we know

Revelation 21 -27 says, Nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Habakkuk 113,

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on wrong.

Now, in a nutshell, this is a great definition of purgatory, piece of cake, but what

I want to do here is back up and take the text apart a bit, and I'll start by saying that listening very carefully to your critiques of what

I said, really pretty much everything I've said so far and more, and examining 1

Corinthians 3 again, I found that I agreed with you that St. Paul here is basically continuing a discussion that goes back especially to verse, that would be verse 5, where he focuses on his own and Apollo's apostolic endeavors.

Now you notice that St. Paul uses the metaphor of he and Apollo's being sunergoi, co -laborers with God in verse 9, while the

Corinthians were their cultivated field in which they worked. He then switches metaphors mid -stream, as St.

Paul often does, and moves to the image of the Corinthians being God's building in the latter parts of verse 9.

Then in verse 10, St. Paul moves from considering himself and Apollo's to now focusing on himself as, as he says, a wise master builder who laid the foundation, the

Melian, and he then mentions an indefinite another, Alos, who would then build on that foundation.

But then again, in good Pauline fashion, he changes gears a bit again, and at the end of verse 10, he says, let each man, each man observe how he builds on the foundation.

So now, St. Paul is moving to a more universal statement. He's no longer limiting himself to speaking just about himself,

Apollo's, or even just ministers, but he's making a general statement, let each man observe how he builds on the foundation.

And this leads him to verse 11, where he says, for no other foundation can anyone lay.

Actually, he uses there, which means no one, so we could say here, no one is able to lay any other foundation.

Again, though, he's stressing a more universal application, but at any rate, to quote the

RSV, for no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid,

Jesus Christ. St. Paul tells us, what I assume we, all of us as Christians agree, that Jesus Christ is the foundation of all our apostolic endeavors.

Indeed, he is the foundation of our lives. Now, St. Paul doesn't specifically say foundation of our lives, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that Christ is being presented here as our foundation.

But at any rate, it's at this point in verse 12, where St. Paul then says, if anyone, and here he uses the indefinite, a -t -s, if anyone, again indicating that he's making sort of a universal statement, no longer just speaking of himself and Apollos, or even just ministers, he says, if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, each man's work will become manifest for the day.

Again, the judgment will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, in puri, or by fire.

And the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. Apollon, of course, as you know, is the

Greek word for of what sort, or what kind. So what kind of what is he talking about?

What kind of, what he's talking about is what sort of work each has done.

Now, this is going to be important in a moment. In fact, Mr. White, I noticed on your broadcast you sent to me,

I counted three times, where you claimed that basically all that's happening here is the judgment reveals whether ministers of the

Gospel, as you said on your broadcast, whether they have proper motivations or improper motivations.

This judgment simply discovers, again, to quote you again, the motivations of why people did things.

Now, I would argue the text doesn't say this, you say this. In other words, it doesn't say the fire tests what sort of motivation people had to do works, but it says to test what sort of work each man has done.

Now, contrary to what you claimed, these are different kinds of works, and the image of gold, silver, precious stones, wood, and paint stubble will make that even more clear in a moment.

Now, I suppose in defense of what you said, we could say improper motivation could be a subset of what

St. Paul is talking about here, if we want to stretch the context a bit. But what the text actually says is the fire, which represents the judgment, will test what sort of work each has done.

Now, the Church doesn't limit this to some arbitrary notion of proper motives, because we let the text speak in its proper context, and we understand that what sort of works would entail lots of kinds of works.

And we'll get back to the kinds of works being spoken of in a minute, but I want to correct you on another point,

Mr. White, and something else you said during your critique of me, and by the way, where you claimed,

I massacred this text, and by the way, I was deeply hurt when you said that, and I'm kidding, of course.

I actually got a kick out of that one. And as you know, James, I've said it often, I've always said,

I like James White, I like your passion and your diligence, even if I don't agree with you, but at any rate, you erroneously claimed that the

Catholic Church's position is that this fire represents purgatory, both here in verse 12 and in verse 15, and that's not true.

And you ridiculed the notion by saying, well, who are these who receive the reward without suffering loss?

How are they in purgatory? Well, the Catholic Church has never claimed the fire, per se, as purgatory.

The Church has never defined this as such. The fire here is actually the judgment, as we'll see in a moment.

If one wants to find a location for purgatory, purgatory is not a place, as in, you send people over there to a chamber called purgatory.

The Catholic Church teaches purgatory is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1472 says, a state rooted not in some external imposition by God, but proceeding from the nature of sin and the effects of sin on our souls in the context of the revelation of Christ at the judgment.

So again, if you want to find a location for purgatory, it's found in the subjective experience of those who are being judged, and imperfections are found on their souls.

These imperfections that St. Paul speaks of are in perfect keeping with the biblical notion of, for example, sins that are not mortal, mentioned in 1

John 5, or breaking of the least commandments that Jesus talks about in Matthew 5, 19, that one can commit, yet remain in the kingdom of God.

But just so you'll know that the Church does not teach, and your listeners will know, it doesn't teach, as you've claimed over and over in your radio show, that the fire is purgatory.

Let me quote a guy who knows a little bit about Catholicism, Pope Benedict XVI, from his encyclical,

Letter, Space, Salvi, in paragraph 47, he says, quote, the fire which both burns and saves is

Christ Himself, the Judge and Savior. The encounter with Him is the decisive act of judgment.

Before His gaze, all falsehood melts away. This encounter with Him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves.

All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses.

Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation.

His gaze, the touch of His heart, heals us through an undeniably painful transformation, as through fire.

But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of His love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God.

Now, I know you said on your broadcast that you sent to me that we Catholics read into this text the fact that the fire purifies.

In fact, you claimed on that broadcast that there's nothing in here about a purifying fire.

In fact, let me quote you, you said plainly, the fire does not purify. Now, I find this to be fascinating, because even an evangelical scripture scholar like Dr.

W. Harold Mayer in the Expositors Bible commentary, who says in a commentary on these very verses that we're talking about, let me quote it here, he says, fire in the scripture is used figuratively in two ways.

As a purifying agent, and by the way, he references Matthew 3 .11 and Mark 9 .49 as two examples of our

Lord using fire as a purifying effect. And as that which consumes, and he gives a bunch of verses.

So it is a fitting symbol here for God's judgment as He tests the quality of the

Christian's work. And he makes a good point there, but I also want to point out what you'll find from another

Protestant work and a good one called Kittles Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 6, page 944.

Here, these Protestant scholars teach what I would argue it is impossible for any

Christian to ignore about this text if he's serious about studying it, and that is that St.

Paul is here referring to, to quote Kittles, let me quote, he is referring to the idea of an eschatological refining fire.

And they reference here Malachi 3 .2. Now if we examine

Malachi 3 .1 -3, we discover this is a text, especially verses 1 and 2, that's either quoted or alluded to six times in the

New Testament as fulfilled in John the Baptist and Christ. And notice what it says prophetically of our

Lord, it says, quote, and John the Baptist, Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the

Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple, the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight.

Behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?

For he is like a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver.

Now, isn't this interesting? Even Protestant scholars, at least some of them, have to acknowledge what it seemed to me in listening to your radio broadcast that you sent to me, you're not willing to admit.

And that is that St. Paul here uses language that indicates he's hearkening back to Malachi, and as such, it becomes even more obvious.

St. Paul is talking about Christ the Judge in his role as purifier. He will also be described in verse 16, by the way, and verse 17, as the one who will destroy or consume as well, you know, those who defile the temple of their bodies.

The fire of judgment can also denote destruction, as Dr. Mayer pointed out.

In fact, St. Paul says just after finishing his description of the judgment and purgatory in verse 15, he says in verse 16, do you not know that you are

God's temple and God's spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him.

Alton, the personal pronoun is used here, emphasizing the destruction of this person rather than purification.

That's a reference to hell. But at any rate, here in verses 12 through 15, which is our focus, we have a reference to folks being purified from these imperfections on their way to heaven.

And I think I'm about out of time, but folks, this is a textbook definition of purgatory. I actually had about 36 seconds left.

Do you want to add anything else? No, I think that'll do it. Okay. I'm being good. Okay. All right.

Thank you very much, Mr. Staples. Let me go ahead and read the entirety of the text at the beginning of my time here.

According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder, I laid a foundation and another is building on it.

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

Jesus Christ. Now, if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and straw, each man's work will become evident for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

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

Yet so as through fire. Now, the context of the preceding nine verses is really quite simple. Paul is discussing the problems that exist in the

Corinthian congregation. He has used harsh words with them in the preceding verses, referring to them as men of flesh and infants in Christ.

He refers to the strife and jealousy that exists among them. He zeroes in on their partisanship, the fact that they are saying,

I'm of this Christian leader or that Christian leader. He reminds them that leaders are but servants of the

Lord and that it was the Lord that even gave those servants the opportunity to preach the gospel to them. He writes in verse six,

I planted Apollos watered, but God has caused the growth. God used Paul and Apollos as means, but the growth was caused by God, not by the

Christian leaders themselves. At this point, then Paul begins to speak of the role Christian leaders have in the work of the church.

Note his words in verse eight. Now, he who plants and he waters are one, but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

For we are God's fellow workers, your God's field, God's building. Verse eight provides the first reference to reward misthoughts, and it is clearly in the context of the

Christian leaders who labor in the work of ministry. It will be significant to note that the phrase receive reward in verse eight is identical in terminology, the same phrase in verse 14.

Since in this context, we know that the planting and watering mention goes back to Paul and Apollos. The topic remains consistent throughout this passage.

Paul then speaks of himself and Apollo says, God's fellow workers at his workers owned by God, not equal with him.

He uses two terms, field and building, but picks up only on the second God's building. A fellow worker of God works in God's building, and that building is the church.

This then brings us to the main passage versus 10 through 15. Give us an illustration of how weighty it is to minister in the church and how

God will someday manifest the motivations of the hearts of all those who engage in that work. Then in verses 16 through 17,

Paul adds a further warning, speaking of God's certain judgment upon those who do not build, but instead tear down or destroy.

There is an obvious movement between 10 through 15 and 16 through 17 for in 10 through 15, the metaphor remains the construction of a building upon a foundation in 16 through 17.

This switches to the metaphor of the temple of God already constructed further in 10 through 15. The certain ones are those who are indeed building upon the foundation, even if they have less than perfect motivations or understanding.

The certain one in verses 16 through 17 is not building anything at all, but is instead tearing down and ruining what has already been built.

This distinction is important as well as we shall see. And so we enter into the text itself.

According to the grace of God, which was given to me like a wise master builder, I laid a foundation and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it for no man can lay a foundation of the one which is laid, which is

Jesus Christ. Paul continues the context, insisting that by God's grace, he has laid a foundation, knowing that others would build upon that same foundation.

This foundation, of course, refers to the work of ministry and building up the church that he has engaged in. But there is an element of personal responsibility that's part of ministry in Christ's church.

A man must be careful how he builds upon the foundation, which Paul reminds us is holy. The only foundation of the church is

Jesus Christ himself. The minister is to recognize that ministry in the church is a holy task and he must look well, a literal rendering of the

Greek upon how he goes about this work. This leads to further expansion upon this thought in the following section, verses 12 and 13.

Now, if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and straw, each man's work will become evident for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

The first thing to see in verse 12 is that we are still talking about the same group, Christian workers. Those under discussion build upon the foundation.

We will see that in verses 16 through 17, Paul refers to a different group, those who do not build, but instead tear down.

So we have one group who build upon the one foundation, but with different quality materials.

Now, obviously, the terms gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and straw are all figures of speech.

They're all metaphors. Christian leaders are not known for having an abundance of gold, silver, precious stones, let alone is the building being done here a literal activity either.

These are terms referring, as Paul himself puts it, to the quality of each man's work.

Some labor selflessly and in obscurity with motivations pure and honorable, while others have mixed motivations, tinge to a lesser or greater degree by selfishness and vainglory.

During this lifetime, we cannot necessarily know which Christian leaders, even within the bounds of Orthodox teaching and practice, are doing what they do with motivations that are pleasing to God.

But Paul is reminding us that such will not always be the case. God will reward those who have labored diligently for his glory in that day when all the secrets of men's hearts will be revealed.

Paul says that each man's work will become evident for the day will show the nature of the Christian minister's work will be made plain and clear.

The lack of clarity that exists during this lifetime will no longer cloud our vision at the judgment. What a tremendously sobering thought for those who labor and building upon the foundation of Jesus Christ.

God, who searches the hearts, will reveal our true motivations on that day. A declaration, Delosai, will be made about the nature of the works of all those who worked in the church.

But please note, this is everyone, all saints, all workers in the church will experience this judgment from the greatest saints to the least in the work.

There is no room here for any idea of anyone bypassing this judgment, but it remains the same judgment, the judgment by fire of the works they have done.

The revelation of whether one's ministerial works are precious and lasting or surface level and temporary will be accomplished by fire.

Obviously, fire differentiates the most basic level between gold and wood, silver and straw, precious stones and stubble.

The precious elements withstand the fire's presence, whereas the others are consumed in their entirety. Given that it has already been established that gold and silver, etc.,

are figures for the quality of men's works, so it follows inexorably that fire refers to a testing that makes its verdict as clear as the destruction of wood, hay, and stubble by the raging flames of a fire.

The works that were not done to God's glory are destroyed, and those works having the proper character pass through unharmed.

But please note, the verb used the fire is apocalyptic. This is a term of revelation.

It does not mean to purify. It does not mean to cleanse. It does not mean to purge. The object of the actions in this verse is always the works.

The day will manifest the character of the works. The fire will reveal the nature of the works.

And so we see in verses 14 and 15, if any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.

If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The context continues unbroken. Note the repetition of the preceding concept of building on the foundation.

If a man's work built upon the foundation of Christ and the church remains in the presence of the judgment of God, he receives a reward, a misthos.

But in direct parallel, if another worker's labors are burned up, he will suffer loss.

Now, the opposite of the reception of reward is to suffer loss. The Greek term that Paul uses, zemiaomai or zemiao, is translated by the vast majority of recognized translations as suffer loss, and there is a reason for this.

Despite the fact that you can render the term as punish, its normative meaning, especially in the New Testament, refers to experiencing the opposite of gain, that is, loss.

And often what is not gained is found in the immediate context of the words used. For example, in Philippians 3 .8,

Paul says, more than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus, my

Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but rubbish that I may gain

Christ. Obviously, this does not mean Paul has been punished, but has suffered the loss of all things.

The same is true in Jesus' use of the term in Matthew 16 .26, for what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?

Or what will a man gain, give in exchange for his soul? In 1 Corinthians 3 .15, the term is used in a context that provides a direct correlation to the term.

The one whose work remains receives reward, so the one whose work is burned up does not.

Hence, they suffer loss. If you want to see further information on this, you can see the Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament, volume 2, page 888. We are reminded, however, that despite the seriousness of the loss of reward for the

Christian worker, we are still talking about those who have found salvation in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Paul tells us that despite suffering loss, these are saved, yet so as through fire. Note that the text does not say that they are saved having been purified by fire.

They do so as one who has escaped from a fire in his house, having lost all but saved his life.

As one commentary has expressed it, The fire tests the work, destroying what is of poor quality and perishable.

A wage will be paid only for good, durable work. The man whose work will not endure the searching test of judgment will suffer a loss.

Like one escaping from a burning house, he will be saved, but his work and his reward will be lost. This metaphor clearly teaches the responsibility of ministers of the gospel, who will be rewarded or punished for the manner in which they have fulfilled their ministry."

I note that the commentary I just read is the Roman Catholic Jerome Bible commentary, which goes on to directly state that this text does not teach the doctrine of purgatory.

However, the doctrine can find, quote, support, end quote, in the text, a far cry from the claim that this text clearly teaches purgatory.

So, let's summarize. First, the passage is about Christian workers, not all the Christian faithful.

Any wider application would only be secondary in nature. Secondly, the passage says nothing about the purification of individuals.

Works are tested in this passage. Rome teaches souls are purified from the temporal punishment of sins by suffering satis passio in purgatory.

But there is nothing about temporal punishments, satis passio, or suffering of individuals for their sins anywhere in this passage at all.

All these are extraneous to the text itself. Further, the insertion of the Roman concepts into the passage turns it on its head.

Remember, those with works of gold, silver, and precious stones, that is, Christian workers who had godly motivations, appear in this passage.

Their works are subject to the same testing as the others. If this fire is at all relevant to purgatory, and certainly historically that has been the understanding, then are we to assume that even those with godly motives suffer?

Are there no saints involved in building upon the foundation? Modern Roman Catholics have started to move away from the term fire, though this was inarguably what attracted the attention of Rome to the passage in the first place, and seek to focus more upon the suffering of a loss, so that only the second group is seen as being relevant to purgatory.

Of course, this is made possible by the constant repetition of the assertion, Rome has never officially declared the meaning of this passage, nor that there is fire in purgatory, nor that purgatory is a place, nor that we experience time in purgatory, etc.

etc. etc. The fact that one can go into history and determine with great clarity what was taught and believed only a few centuries ago does not seem to matter in this case.

Anyway, the text simply will not bear the weight that is placed upon it by Roman tradition.

Paul knew nothing of purgatory. Instead, this same author, the Apostle Paul, informs us of the real and only source of purification and cleansing for the

Christian. The same writer who wrote the words of 1 Corinthians chapter 3 also wrote these words to Titus in chapter 2 verse 14.

Speaking of Jesus Christ, it says, who gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds.

So who is it that does the purification? Is this something that we somehow contribute to through our experience of saraspatio, in purgatory?

Or is it something that Jesus Christ does not simply for the alleged eternal sins, but instead, as it says in the text, for every lawless deed?

Even if one accepts the unbiblical distinction, and I believe if we looked at 1 John 5 we would see that it's an unbiblical distinction that is made there.

Even Roman Catholic exegetes recognize that John is talking there about apostasy, not some kind of class of eternal sins, mortal sins versus venial sins.

But even if one were to accept that, the assertion of the Apostle Paul is that Christ gave himself to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself a people for his own possession.

Either his death can purify us and make us ready for our entrance into the very presence of the

Father, or he cannot. The addition of anything to that is,

I think, one of the key issues in regards to the gospel as it is taught by the Bible and by the Roman Catholic Church.

And so as we look at this text, these are the issues that we need to be focusing upon. Even if we could find places, as we can, in the

Bible where the term fire is used of purification, is that how it's being used here?

Or do we not have certain verbs that are specifically used by the Apostle Paul that have certain meanings?

Can Mr. Staples provide us with lexical sources that tell us that here in 1

Corinthians 3, remember any word is defined by its context. Any word has a semantic domain and then when you use the word, you place it in a particular context and that determines the meaning of the word.

Can we find lexical sources that say that the verbs found in this text actually refer to purification?

When Mr. Staples gave his interpretation of this text in the Catholic Answers Published CDs, God's Perfect Plan, Purgatory and Indulgences Explained, in the fifth

CD when he went through 1 Corinthians 3 very closely, eight times he used purified, purification, or purging.

Eight times. The question will be, is that found anywhere in 1 Corinthians chapter 3?

That is really where the debate needs to focus, I believe, today. So I'm going to wrap up in an almost exact same time period that Tim did with about 30 seconds left to go there and let folks know you're listening to a debate on the dividing line between James White and Tim Staples.

We're finished with the opening statements and now Tim will have eight minutes for a response and then

I'll have eight minutes after that. So, sir, your time begins. Okay, a lot to choose from here, but first of all,

I find it odd how you, as well as other Protestants that I read, separate so radically the works from the person.

And granted, in verses 14 and 15 we see, if any man's work abides which he's built, he will receive a reward.

If any man's work shall be burned, no doubt there's an emphasis on the works. However, it's not quite as clear -cut as Mr.

White is making it sound, because it's not only the works that go through the fire of the judgment, but he himself.

There are no works floating around separately from someone. This betrays a very poor understanding of the human person, but most importantly, it contradicts the

Scripture, because the Scripture says, he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

So, he goes through the fire, not just the works. I also noticed, both in his critique of me before and now, he asked the question, where are temporal punishments due to sin mentioned?

They're nowhere to be found, he says. Well, again, I say this is not difficult, but perhaps with this wimpy, modern, sentimental view of Jesus in popular

Christian culture, as a fluffy little guy who would never cause anyone pain, we need to point out what Jesus himself says in Revelation 3 .19,

referencing back to Proverbs 3 .12. In fact, I'll start at verse 11. My son, do not despise the

Lord's discipline, or be weary of his reproof, for the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father to son in whom he delights.

In Revelation 3 .18, Jesus himself says, I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire.

There again, we have the image of Jesus as the refiner and the refining fire.

In verse 19, those whom I love, I rebuke and I chase, and he who overcomes, verse 21 says,

I will grant him descent with me on my throne. I think it's important that we understand that we see this theme of a purifying fire throughout sacred scripture.

St. Paul is not speaking in a vacuum or writing in a vacuum here. For example, and we also see clear texts of scripture that talk about how we are made holy through the discipline of the

Lord. 1 Peter 1, 6 and 7 says, In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold, which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and honor and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Revelation being Apocalypse there. Or Hebrews chapter 12, which references the discipline aspect of our being made holy.

Our earthly fathers disciplined us for a short time and at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good in order that we may share his holiness.

Very important. In order that we may share in his holiness. For the moment, all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful or peaceable fruit of righteousness.

Justification to those who have been trained by it. Verse 12. Strive for peace with all men and for the holiness without which no one will see the

Lord. The texts of scripture are many and varied. 1 Peter 3, 12.

Love it. Do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you as though something strange were happening, but rejoice in so far as you share

Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. Or St.

Paul himself in Romans 8, 17 says we must, quote, suffer with him in order that we may be glorified together with him.

I would argue that this is clearly what is going on in 1 Corinthians 3.

At the judgment, those with these imperfections that are mentioned here will experience the pain of the discovery of how holy the

Lord is and how unholy they are. But thanks be to God, these in 1 Corinthians 3 will be saved as the text says because of the nature of these imperfections.

Though they keep them from final salvation, and that's important. This is obvious from verse 15 which says they will be saved yet so as through fire.

They're only kept from the beatific vision temporarily. That is what the church means by temporal punishment.

These punishments are not eternal, they're temporary. Now, what about the problem specifically with sin being mentioned here by the church?

James, you claim that this text has nothing to do with sin. Well, I would ask your listeners to ask this question.

What is it that keeps us from full communion, or as my Baptist friends will say, fellowship with God? It's sin.

Psalm 66, 18, and a whole host of biblical texts we could cite tell us sin separate us from God.

And not only sin, but any defects or impurity caused by sin, such as bad habits, attachment to sin.

That's right. There will be none of this in heaven. These keep us from God, and this is precisely what we see in 1

Corinthians 3. The souls mentioned that suffer loss are those who have wood, hay, and stubble, and I would argue on their souls, because you cannot separate, as Mr.

White has done, works from people. These are imperfections that must be cleansed, purified, removed, whatever you want to say.

They must be removed. Why? According to the text in verse 15, if any man's work is burned, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved yet so as through fire.

They are removed so that these individuals can receive final salvation.

That's what the text says. This separation is here revealed to be temporal, that is separation from that final separation, hence the punishment from the

Lord, the discipline of the Lord, if you want to call it that, is revealed to be temporal as well.

Now what about what Mr. White mentioned about the reward of 1 Corinthians 3 .14? What's the difference between the reward in verse 14 given to those who we assume had nothing to burn up and the salvation received in verse 15 by those who do?

Mr. White has said this doesn't make sense. How can there be, you know, how can there be reward in verse 14 if the fire mentioned in verse 13 is purgatory?

How can this be purgatory, Mr. White has said in the tape that he sent me, if you have gold there?

How can the gold be in purgatory? Now it's obvious Mr. White did not understand that the fire represents in Catholic teaching the judgment of Christ, and I quoted from our

Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, that is an official magisterial teaching, that those who have no imperfections that need to be burned will go immediately to heaven.

That's what the text indicates. They're not in purgatory. Purgatory again is found in the subjective experience of the individuals going through the judgment, not in some sacred cubicle over there somewhere.

Now as far as the reward in 1 Corinthians 3 .14, the answer is simple. St. Paul tells us, for example, in Romans 2 verses 6 and 7, that among other things, the rewards for Christians who perform good works in Christ are not only salvation.

He lists glory, honor, incorruption, and eternal life as rewards for good works.

It's obvious that these souls who need no purification are receiving, to use St. Paul's language, a greater degree of glory.

In fact, we see St. Paul using multiple metaphors for degrees of glory in heaven in the same letter in 1

Corinthians 15 .41, where he says there's one glory of the sun, another of the moon, another of the stars, for star differs from star in glory.

So it is with the resurrection of the dead. Thus we see varying levels of reward in heaven.

That's what's being referred to here in 1 Corinthians 3. The individuals, however, who have...

Okay, Tim, that's eight minutes. You have to slow you down there for a second. I only had one, two more sentences, but all right, go ahead.

Okay, all right, thank you. You're listening to a debate between James White and Tim Staples. Let me just remind you very, very quickly before I go to my section, we will be opening the phones in approximately 20 minutes or so.

Please don't be calling right now. We already have a couple folks do that. But in about 20 minutes from now, you'll be able to call and get online.

And please, once again, make your questions on the topic, 1 Corinthians 3 specifically, and as clear and succinct as possible.

Questions about, well, all sorts of other issues will only detract from the focus of the debate.

So with that, my response. My desire is to stay in this particular text.

I could quote all sorts of texts from other places, and then I would have to, if they're going to be relevant, demonstrate that the topic of those texts is the same topic that Paul is addressing here.

And I would submit to you that Mr. Staples did not demonstrate that any of the texts that he quoted had anything to do with Paul's purpose and his words here.

Instead, he's grabbing words and assuming that these words have the same meaning wherever they're found.

And that is a very common error of eisegetical interpretation of the text of Scripture.

You simply cannot assume that just because Dikaiosunes appears over here, it's being used in the same sense as the text you're examining over there.

And so, for example, we saw Revelation 3 and Hebrews 12, but these are talking about sufferings and purifications in this life.

They have nothing to do with the idea that before you enter into the presence of God, there's going to have to be a post -mortem cleansing or purification of your soul before you can experience that.

You're having to undergo satispasio to be cleansed from the temporal punishments that cling to your soul that you did not manage to deal with through the penances and sacraments of the church during life.

And so, without making that connection, I would simply submit that all of those had nothing to do with this.

Some of them were not even written by Paul, or at least you could say, at least the same author said this. But one that was, that really struck me, was the assertion that Mr.

Staples made that Romans 8 .17 is what is going on in 1

Corinthians 3. But Romans 8 .17 is saying, And if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joiners with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together with him.

This is talking about now. This isn't talking about some post -mortem experience of purification of the soul.

And so, when we come back to the text, we were told that the text says, verse 15 refers to sins that have to be removed before receiving final salvation.

Where does it say that? I even quoted the Drone Bible commentary, which gave the same interpretation that I did.

Let's once again focus our attention here. We can find other passages in the

Bible where fire has something to do with purification, but we have not heard anything from Mr.

Staples where this text mentions purification. He said, Well, there are sins that have to be burned up here.

Well, actually, it's talking about demonstrating what kind of work

Christian leaders have done. What kind of work? There is a revelation, an apocalypsis that takes place at the judgment.

People are going to know which Christian leaders did what they did for the right reasons and which Christian leaders were simply seeking to gain followers.

That's what this text is talking about. And we have yet to see how apocalypsis or the fire or the giving of a demonstration or showing what kind, how any of this has anything to do with the removal of temporal punishments of sins and the completion of a sanctification process that must take place before one enters into the very presence of God.

That would require a complete change of context. You'd have to have a complete modification of the context in 1

Corinthians 3, 10 through 15 from what's come before and what comes after. But as we said in our opening statement, there is no change of context.

The context is very clear. We do not have to insert a tremendous amount of material in here to do this kind of thing.

Now, we were also told, well, the gold, silver, precious stones are different levels of rewards.

Folks, gold is already pure. That's the whole point of saying that they built with gold. There are going to be people who had absolutely pure motivations here only by the work of the

Holy Spirit, but they did. And yet, their works are tested just like everyone else's.

And so to, I really believe, twist the text to say, ah, but it says that they go through the fire.

See, they go through the fire themselves. Even the Drone Bible commentary recognizes that this is a way of speaking, that it's simply saying they have suffered loss.

And to say that they are saved just so as to fire is not some secondary statement that has nothing to do with the preceding statement.

It is a statement that expands upon that and explains what it means, the nature of their loss. The nature of their loss is they have lost everything that they thought they were building because they did not build it properly.

And they are saved as a person who has escaped from a burning house. That's what it's talking about.

To turn that into the concept that, well, they themselves are being purified by this fire is, again, to engage in absolutely wishful eisegesis.

Where else does Paul teach this? This requires, again, an external authority. And it is my assertion that just as we just recently listened to Mr.

Staples talk about how Luke chapter 1 has nuptial language so that Mary is the spouse of the

Holy Spirit, when you have an external authority, when you have an external dogmatic authority, specifically here in the dogmatic teachings, the magisterium of the

Roman Catholic Church, this becomes the overriding concern in the exegesis of the text of the

Bible. It is no longer what Paul would have understood his words to mean or what his original readers would have understood his words to mean.

Now it becomes, well, Rome has said this. Rome has used this text. And even though I would assert, and I would just simply suggest to anyone, go pick up a book by F .X.

Shoup called Purgatory, published by Tan. Read that and tell me that Roman Catholics have not for a long period of time believed things about purgatory with papal approval that are no longer believed.

For example, we're just told that a single document from Benedict XVI provides us with evidently an infallible interpretation of this text, where this fire becomes the judgment of Christ.

Well, are there not all sorts of other papal pronouncements that we could look to that would give us completely different understandings of this?

How many people have thought that the promise of wearing the scapular that Mary would descend into purgatory and release you on the

Saturday after your death had to do with time? And now we're told that what they just misunderstood. But how many people lived and died on the basis of those things?

You see, the addition of external authorities does not clarify the text. It only muddles the text. And so my questions remain.

You can't go to other texts and say, well, fire means purification over here. So that means that that means it has to mean it here.

No, you have to establish that you have to. True exegesis means that you go into the text and demonstrate that in this context, as it rolls along, that that is what is being taught.

And that is not what is being taught. That wasn't established in the presentation that was just made.

And so once again, focus your attention upon this. Does revealing the kind of works mean the same thing as making the final preparation for entrance in the presence of God by the removal of the temporal punishments of sins from the soul, as Sadas Passio is meant to be in purgatory?

That is the question of the debate today. All right. With that, we move on to the next section.

Let me again let the listeners know where we are here. We have so far had the first two 15 minute opening statements, eight minute rebuttals.

Now each will have five minutes for cross examination. Tim will get to ask me questions for five minutes and then

I'll ask him questions for five minutes. Then we'll have eight minutes statements at the end. I will try to be as succinct and concise there to maybe open up a little more time for callers if we can.

And then we will start taking phone calls. So that means in approximately 10 minutes, we will open up the phone lines for your calls at 877 -753 -3341.

It's 877 -753 -3341. So five minutes,

Tim, go ahead. First, in the audio that you sent to me, you said that you have developed your understanding and your ability to defend the divinity of Christ by demonstrating

Christ being referred to as Yahweh. And you've done that by listening to the other side and so forth.

Is that correct? You've developed your understanding to where you're a more effective presenter of the divinity of Christ?

I think what you're referring to very quickly was my statement that in listening to Greg Stafford's attacks upon the identification of Jesus as Yahweh, that greatly increased the solid nature of the arguments that I presented in The Forgotten Trinity.

Is that what you're referring to? Yes. Yes. So you've gotten better in your presentation. Well, it's no different in the church.

Over 2 ,000 years and thousands of minds and some of the greatest minds that have ever been on the planet.

Would you agree that it would be reasonable to say that there can be development of doctrine with over 2 ,000 years?

Never an essential change, but a development and understanding since you've had it in your own life. Isn't that reasonable?

Are we talking about the general concept of the Newman's Development Hypothesis, are we talking about the definition of the doctrine of purgatory and then its development since, say, the

Council of Constance? What I'm saying, isn't it reasonable that the church can grow in the way that she presents doctrine?

There's no essential change that has occurred in the nature of purgatory, but our understanding and the manner in which we explicate it can develop.

Are you saying that's unreasonable? Well, I would say that the change that has taken place is not a development, it is a mutation.

There is a difference between a change and mutation. One is a better way of expressing a truth.

The other is having once said X and now saying not X or not X but Y.

Can you prove that? Well, if you're asking about changes in the teaching of the doctrine of purgatory, yeah,

I think that it is beyond question that until recent times when a person stood before the relics in the castle church in Wittenberg in 1510 and was told that they would receive an indulgence of a certain number of months for saying a certain number of our fathers while standing in front of a feather that was supposed to be from Gabriel's wing, that person believed that that was a temporal concept and the church used the money he paid to go see it to build

St. Peter's. And so I would say that on a historical level it can be easily demonstrated that for hundreds of years the concept of indulgences and time in purgatory was one of the primary motivating factors in all sorts of religious devotion, shall we say.

So even if what you're saying was true, this is not a change in the teaching of the church.

Where has the church changed essentially in her teaching? Well, I'm not sure what this has to do with purgatory, but Tim, one of our biggest questions always of you guys is how come you get to determine what is and is not teaching?

When I quote a pope, well, that wasn't a conciliar document, that wasn't his or their thing, but then someone else can quote a pope and all of a sudden that's an infallible thing.

You haven't quoted a pope, you haven't quoted the teaching of the church. I am, of course, referring to many previous encounters that I've had with yourself and other folks at Catholic Answers.

Okay, let me move on to another question because you're not giving me any real change in teaching because, in fact,

Mr. White, there hasn't been an essential change in teaching. We're talking about changes in emphasis in the way that we present the truth of purgatory.

But let me ask you another question. Can you tell me where improper motivations are found in 1

Corinthians 3? You said this is what's being judged here. Yeah, I presented this in my opening statement.

Again, Paul is saying, Let each man look well to how he builds upon the foundation, for a judgment is going to be made showing what kind of works he did.

That what kind, Hapoyan tells us that we're talking here about an examination of what kinds of works.

Now, we're obviously not thinking here that we're talking about people who were destroying the church.

They were actually building upon the foundation. That's why I made the distinction between verses 16 and 17. But what else can

Hapoyan mean and the revelation of what it means, what kinds of works they did, then what motivations they had, whether they were seeking to glorify

Christ, whether they did so for the right reasons, as Paul and Apollos are doing, or not so good reasons as we see throughout 1

Corinthians, where we have all sorts of people that are causing problems. That's a great example of Isaac Jesus.

Okay, well, except your time is up. Let me ask you this. Excuse me, Tim, your time is up.

It's my turn. Okay, that was five minutes. So I get to ask five minutes and we have someone else watching me to make sure, and anyone can listen to this tape.

We're being very, very careful on the time. Okay, you said in your presentation on Purgatory, Quote, All scholars agree that this text is dealing with the judgment of mankind after death.

End quote. Is it not true that many scholars restrict this text, the judgment of the works of Christian leaders, not to the general judgment of all mankind?

Can you ask that again? You said in your presentation, All scholars agree that this text is dealing with the judgment of mankind after death.

Is it not true that many scholars restrict this text, the judgment of the works of Christian leaders, not to the general judgment of all mankind?

Yes, there are scholars that would limit that, yes. Okay. In your interpretation of this text on the fifth

CD of your Purgatory set, you used the term purify or purification or purging eight times. Could you please give us which

Greek terms in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 should be translated here as purifying, and what lexical sources give this as the meaning?

No, I didn't give you lexical sources. What I did is gave you an example from, for example,

Kittel's Greek Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which you also quoted. Where you have scholars, and these are

Protestant scholars, who acknowledge that this text refers back to Malachi chapter 3, verses 1 through 3, where Jesus is clearly revealed to be, in a prophetic sense, the one who will purify, at the judgment, the people of God.

Okay, so which... There we have an antecedent in the Old Testament that's being referred back to, and I quoted a

Protestant scholar to show that. Which verb, however, in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 means to purify?

That wasn't my argument, James. There is no verb that means to purify. There doesn't have to be.

Okay, in the New Testament, what is the verb for purification? I don't know, tell me.

Katharidzo. Is it used in 1 Corinthians chapter 3? I already answered that.

Not to my knowledge, it's not. Okay, you said in your presentation, Catholics and Protestants also agree that some of the works mentioned here in 1

Corinthians 3 are being burned up, and some are being purified. Wouldn't you agree that...

Where do Protestants agree, and if you want to just talk about German liberal Protestants, I guess that's okay, but where do

Protestants agree with such a reading of the text, and where does the text ever use such language? How does showing what kind of work something is equate to being purified from temporal punishments of sin?

Great, because, as I was going to say before my time ran out, when it talks about kind of works, sins are a kind of works.

You limit kind of works to motivations, but the word motivation is nowhere to be found in here.

And again, I'll grant you that. That could be a subset of what we're talking about, but kind of works includes sins.

And when you further consider that the language being used here, not a verb for purifying, but the metaphor of fire, which is used for purification in the

New Testament, as well as in the Old Testament as Protestant scholars. I only quoted two of them from Kittel's Greek Theological Dictionary, and Dr.

Mayer in the Expositor's Bible Commentary. Yes, but Dr. Mayer actually says, so is a fitting symbol here for God's judgment, but he does not say anything about purification in the quotation that you provided, at least as you quoted it in that.

So did I miss something? Yes, you missed that. Dr. Mayer said that fire is used in two senses in Scripture, one as purifying, and the other as consuming.

And he is specifically referencing 1 Corinthians chapter 3. Thus, and I agree with him, you may not agree with him, but this is a

Protestant scholar who acknowledges that fire is in fact used, and it's certainly used for purification.

And when you consider that you have these kinds of works that are being burned up, these people are going through fire, not just the works, but them, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that these works are being purified.

Are the people destroyed? Are the people in this text ever the direct object of the action of fire?

They go through fire. But it says, yet so as through fire. Even the Drone Biblical Commentary recognizes what that means.

So is that the only text that you believe, that fire is the direct object of a purifying of them?

That's the one text that you would use? Yes, as through, in fact, I would back up here.

They all go through the fire, both those who have no works that burn up and those who do.

They all go through the fire of judgment. The fire is symbolic of judgment. However, if those who, if I could finish.

But you're going to have eight minutes, so you're next up anyway. So no reason to hold off the callers.

Folks are already calling at 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341, very quickly to keep everyone knowing where we're going.

Right now, Mr. Staples will have eight minutes to conclude his thoughts. I will have eight minutes to conclude mine. I will try to be as concise as I can.

And then we will start taking your phone calls, 877 -753 -3341.

Tim, you have eight minutes. Well, boy, this thing goes by way too fast. But I do appreciate you having me on.

And I think this time has been fruitful. But I guess if I could toss out a few final thoughts.

First, I think everyone listening to me needs to realize something. You've been listening to a man in James White, who

I respect greatly as a man and as one who is very fervent in his beliefs. And I want to be clear on that.

But you're also listening to a man who can keep a straight face and say that St. James taught justification by faith alone, even though St.

James says you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone, which is a fascinating way to approach

Scripture, to say the least. But when it comes to we poor Catholics exegeting 1 Corinthians 3, we can't say this refers to the judgment of Christ as a fulfillment of, or at least a reference back to Malachi 3, 1 through 3, which prophetically speaks of Christ as a judge who will, quote, sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver.

Even though Protestant scholars, as I mentioned, as well as Catholics, do see an obvious reference here back to Malachi.

But we can't say there's any purification going on here in spite of this. Even though the text refers to certain kinds of works, as I mentioned, some of which need to be burned up and some which don't.

And these works, according to Mr. White, have nothing to do with imperfections on the souls of these individuals.

But what we see is that these works are so radically attached to these individuals that not only the works, but these individuals themselves must go through the fire of judgment.

Or, as Mr. White said, as through fire. Why? Because we're talking about a metaphor of judgment.

It's not real fire. Their souls are not being lit on fire. But as through fire, they suffer loss in order to finally be saved.

And even though there are certain kinds of works represented here that are clearly keeping these individuals from final salvation, they're keeping these folks from heaven until they are removed through fire.

And even though we know, as Psalm 66, 18 and a host of scriptures reveal, that it is sin and the effects of sin that keep us from full fellowship with God, we can't say sin is involved here.

Folks, the bottom line is that is bogus. Sin and the effects of sin are being described quite effectively here for those who have eyes to see.

Now then, I also have to say that I do see hope here. Hope, I say, because Mr.

White clearly did not understand the Catholic position on this text. When he claims that, you know, how can this be purgatory since you have gold there?

How can gold be in purgatory? It was obvious he didn't understand that the fire represents judgment, the judgment of Christ in Catholic magisterial teaching, as I have quoted.

And those who have no imperfections that need to be burned up go to heaven immediately. They're not in purgatory. Again, purgatory is found in the subjective experience of the individuals going through the judgment, not in some sacred cubicle over there with purgatory on the door.

Also, Mr. White has claimed, you know, what is the reward spoken of here in 1

Corinthians 3 .14 that the individuals receive that have nothing to burn up? It can't be salvation because they're all going to receive that, right?

Well, the answer is simple. St. Paul tells us in Romans 2, 6 and 7, as I said before, that among other things, the rewards for Christians who perform good works in Christ are glory, honor, incorruption, and eternal life.

It's obvious that these souls who need no purification are receiving, to use St. Paul's language, a greater degree of glory.

And remember this. We see St. Paul using multiple metaphors for degrees of glory in heaven in the same letter of 1

Corinthians 15, 41. Remember, there's one glory of the sun, another of the moon, another of the stars, for star differs from star in glory.

So it is with the resurrection of the dead. How much more clear can it be that folks will receive different levels of reward?

I did not say that the gold, silver, and wood, hay, and stubble represent different levels of reward.

They do not. They represent different kinds of works. At any rate, the individuals who have their works burned up suffer loss.

What loss do they suffer? They suffer the loss of the degree of glory they would have had if they did not have these imperfections.

We also have to say that they suffer greatly because they would have a much more profound sense than we do of the nature of these imperfections or sins that are keeping them back from experiencing heaven or the beatific vision.

That's the very root of their suffering, as our Holy Father has pointed out. However, this suffering, according to the text, is temporal and they are purified.

Yes, purified. These imperfections are removed. And though the verb purify isn't used there, that's what is happening.

These imperfections are being removed by the refiner's fire and they are finally saved.

The bottom line here is that I believe Mr. White has failed to show how

I have massacred the scriptures. But really, who cares about Tim Staples anyway?

What matters here is truth. Mr. White's attempts to show the teaching of the Catholic Church is in error have failed.

But there is good news. As I said before, Mr. White obviously did not understand the Catholic position on this.

And in other important ways. But Mr. White is at least open to the dialogue.

And for that, I am most grateful to you, James. Scripture says, Rebuke a wise man and he will love thee.

Consider yourself rebuked. But I only do so out of great charity toward you and all of your listeners.

And for those of you listening, check out our website at catholicanswersatcatholic .com. You can email me there as well.

But I would finally exhort all of us not to follow, as St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 4 -7, godless and silly myths.

And quite frankly, you're going to get a lot of silly myths with Mr. White, with all due respect. Train yourself in godliness.

For while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way. As it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.

This saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance. For to this end, we toil and strive because we have our hopes set on the living

God. And I will leave you, at least in this section, with one of my favorite verses of the Old Testament, Sirach 4 -28, which says,

Fight for the truth unto the death and God will fight for you. Please, folks, don't fight for the opinions of James White or John Calvin or any other fallible man giving nothing but fallible opinions.

Fight for truth. And folks, when it comes to truth, we have the fullness of it in the one holy

Catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ in A .D. 33 and presently presided over by Benedict XVI, where we have proclaimed one

Lord, one faith, and one baptism for 2 ,000 years. And I hope to hear from some of you soon, not only on the phone lines right now, but also via email.

God bless you. All right, thank you very much. My eight -minute closing statement, I believe.

Do we have one line left open or are we full up right now? I'm sorry? We're full. Okay. All right. So we'll get to this as quickly as we can.

All right. First, I would like to point out that the citation of W. Harold Mayer, he specifically says, as Tim himself cites it, is used figuratively in two ways, as a purifying agent in Matthew 3 -11 and Mark 9 -49, and as that which consumes.

So it is a fitting symbol here for God's judgment. Notice the purifying agent, which, of course, is Mr. Staple's whole position, is the position that Dr.

Mayer doesn't give for 1 Corinthians 3, as he cites it. I would encourage folks to get past the rhetoric that we just heard, the silly myths,

Mr. White doesn't understand the Catholic position, when Tim is giving a position that he knows. There are many

Catholic scholars who would agree with me today against him on this matter. He probably would disagree, for example, with Richard McBrien when he said,

There is for all practical purposes no biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory. That is not to say there is no basis at all of the doctrine, but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it.

He would simply dismiss those folks. You have to do some homework for yourself, but I hope you look past the rhetoric and the rah -rah going on there.

The only thing we were missing to recreate the 1996 debate we had was the Roman Catholic in the audience that yelled out,

Purgate of Eucharist! And then everybody starts clapping as if somehow yelling out the word

Eucharist is an argument in a debate. That doesn't actually help us at all.

We just heard that, well, you know, you got to be careful. Mr. White there thinks that James believed in justification by faith.

I've never seen Mr. Staples respond to the 24 pages of exegesis I've provided of James chapter 2 in The God Who Justifies, and I honestly don't believe that he would be capable of interacting with it, though I would challenge him to do so.

I'd be glad to debate him on that subject. But remember, I did mention, and you can go back to the archives, it was just last week that Mr.

Staples answered a question in Catholic Answers Live where he defended as a biblical concept the idea that Mary is the spouse of the

Holy Spirit. Now there is nothing farther from history, tradition, and scripture than that concept.

Nothing whatsoever. No one in the early church had any concept of anything like that, and yet Mr. Staples has presented that soberly as being something you can actually trace through Episkeiods or the

Book of Judges, even though Episkeiods never appears in the Book of Judges in the Greek Septuagint. But be that as it may, I would encourage you to look past that rhetoric and realize that Mr.

Staples has failed to show us any purification in this text. He's gone to all sorts of other texts, but he has not been able to demonstrate that any of those texts can be drawn back to 1

Corinthians chapter 3 that overthrows the immediate context. Mr. Staples has failed to provide any contextually based connection between any of those other texts he has cited, most of which had to do with suffering in this life, especially

Romans 8 17, which in the very next verse says it's talking about suffering in this life. Mr.

Staples has failed to show us where the actions of fire in this text are purifying. He's asserted it, but he hasn't been able to show us where the actual words mean that.

He's assumed it based upon his external authorities. Mr. Staples has failed to show us that Paul has moved his discussion to the cleansing of sins before entrance into God's presence.

He has not been able to show us sins or anything like that in this particular text.

Now, some of you Roman Catholics were sort of wondering, wow, this guy doesn't understand anything about what

Roman Catholics believe when he talks about purgatory. And what is that based upon?

Well, that's based upon saying, well, you know, this particular word means the encounter with Christ in judgment.

I would like to ask, and maybe one of the callers will ask too, has that been infallibly defined by the church as the infallible meaning of this text?

And if it hasn't, then how can I be faulted for not, quote unquote, understanding that or for going with so many statements, such as those of Ludwig Ott, the cleansing fire, purgatorium is a place and state of temporal penal purification, fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

Who's right, Tim Staples or Ludwig Ott? How about Nicholas Patrick Wiseman, Cardinal Archbishop Westminster?

We see that the fathers of the church have called it a purging fire, a place of expiation or purgation. The idea is precisely the name, almost the same.

There's so many of these things. Read F. X. Shoup's book, Purgatory. Lagasse's book,

The Birth of Purgatory. Read these things for yourself, and you will be able to see that it is not a matter of misrepresenting the

Roman Catholic perspective. There has been change. If you want to call change development, well,

I guess that's how you get from the first 500 years of the Christian church knowing nothing about the concept of the bodily assumption of Mary to dogma.

I call that not development. I call that perversion and mutation. They are not the same things.

The fact of the matter is the context is clear and the meaning of the words are clear. What is going on in 1

Corinthians 3 is a demonstration of the people who built upon that foundation and why they did.

Those with gold, silver, and precious stones, their works are tested in the exact same way as the works of anyone else.

And every Roman Catholic who has ever turned to 1 Corinthians 3, and I hear them call Catholic answers all the time, and they see the word fire, they immediately connect it with Purgatory.

I guess they don't understand it just as badly as I didn't understand it, or maybe they've been taught differently. I'll leave that up to you to determine.

But the fact of the matter is that this text is not talking about how sins are purged. There's nothing about temporal punishments.

There's nothing about penances. These are extra biblical concepts that have no place in Paul's presentation in this text.

And so I simply ask those in the listening audience, take the time to go to the text yourself and ask yourself the question, did

Paul and those to whom he was writing have a context to be able to understand this text as it's been presented?

Not only by Tim Staples, but look at how other Roman Catholics present it. Did they have the context to understand that?

If they did not, then you cannot embrace this interpretation as being exegesis.

You have to recognize it for what it is. It is eisegesis. Well, I still have two minutes left there, but I'm going to go ahead and wrap up because I want to allow the callers to participate.

As soon as you hear someone hang up, that would be the time to call. And we will process calls as quickly as we possibly can.

If you're getting a busy signal, just hang up and try again. But like I said, the best time would be when someone hangs up.

Hopefully, Tim, you'll be able to hear the callers very clearly. If you cannot, please let us know. We'll try to make an adjustment. And let's begin with Roger.

Hi, Roger. Hi, James. How are you? Good. Speak up a little bit. Go ahead with your question.

My question is, do you think that these verses could be referring to believers being cast in the outer darkness during the millennium?

And because they weren't, they were believers, but they weren't, they didn't have good enough works to make it into the inner circle, say.

Okay, Roger, thank you for that phone call. And my answer would be no. There's nothing about a millennium here or anything about outer darkness whatsoever.

Did you want to comment on that at all? No, I would have to agree with you on that.

I would just emphasize that verse 15 clearly says, but he himself shall be saved.

So they're clearly not being cast into outer darkness. Yeah, outer darkness. So the Left Behind series isn't one of your favorite series to read?

No. Okay, all right. Just checking, just trying to find some common ground there.

Okay, let's... We've got it there, I think, yeah. All right, let's talk with Greg. Hi, Greg. Hello for Mr.

Staples. In as much as the Bible says that our sins were dealt with on the cross, in the body of Christ, cleansed by the blood of Christ, that this was done perfectly and forever, and that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sins, how then is there any sin left to be dealt with?

And secondly, how is it that the blood of Christ was sufficient to cleanse a believer from the mortal sins that he committed before he came to Christ, yet somehow these venial sins are still left over?

Okay, thank you, Greg. That's a great question. I think the key is you have to understand the difference between the objective sacrifice of Christ, which is infinite, perfect,

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not only our sins, but the sins of the whole world, as 1 John 2 verses 1 and 2 tell us.

However, the subjective application of that sacrifice is what we're talking about as the

Council of Trent declared, November 25, 1551, when it talks about, and by the way, this is quoted in the

Catechism, paragraph 1460, under the heading of satisfaction, that when we talk about making satisfaction, suffering for our sins and such, we become like Jesus who made satisfaction for our sins, and from whom is all our sufficiency.

We also have a most sure pledge that if we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified with Him, as Romans 8 .17

says, for this satisfaction which we offer in payment for our sins is not so much ours that it is not also done through Christ Jesus, for we can do nothing of ourselves as of ourselves.

With His cooperation, we can do everything in Him who strengthens us. So we have nothing to boast, all our boasting is in Christ, as the

Catechism of Trent. So this is not about adding to what Christ did, but it's about applying what

Christ did in our lives subjectively. Okay, well my comment would be, as I note in Titus 2 verse 14,

He redeemed us from every lawless deed. There is no distinction made in that which Christ redeemed us from, and the book of Hebrews makes a very strong argument that is by one sacrifice,

He has perfected forever, not made perfection available that we then through sacraments apply it to ourselves, but He has perfected forever those that are being sanctified.

That is why I am the blessed man of Romans chapter 4 verse 6, when just as David also speaks the blessing of the man to whom

God credits righteousness apart from works, blessed are those whose lawless deeds have all been forgiven, whose sins have been covered, blessed is the man whose sin the

Lord will not take into account. There is a fundamental difference. This goes to the difference between Roman Catholicism and what

I believe in regards to the biblical gospel, and it would be a very, very good subject for a future debate.

Can I respond to that? He asked you and I didn't ask for a comeback on yours, so let's just do one response.

You took it a long way away from what he asked. I think you did, but let's just go out with Jason here, okay?

Jason, go ahead. This is for Mr. Staples. Did the idolaters in 2

Maccabees that were being prayed for die in mortal sin? If so, can you please explain how this is possible in light of the

Roman Catholic position, namely that if you die in mortal sin, you will not enter purgatory?

Thank you, Jason. Thank you, and it's a good question. And the answer is no, they did not die in mortal sin, which is obvious because, or at least the people in Maccabees believed they did not because they believed they could still make what today, you know,

Orthodox Jews call the mourners kiddush for their loved ones, praying for their purification. So they had amulets on their bodies and whatnot, which would be kind of akin to, you know, something like carrying a rabbit's foot or being superstitious baseball players and so forth while it's sinful to trust in anything other than God.

We don't believe that this was, it appears from the text that this was not mortal sin, but I would add this, even if it was mortal sin, we are not the judge of that and we pray for everyone.

So if somebody dies, you know, I don't make a judgment. Oh, I think he died in mortal sin. I pray for him.

And so there's really no contradiction, even if it was, you know, mortal sin, when a family member or a loved one dies, we as a practice always pray for them, as did the

Orthodox Jews who went before us. I don't believe there's any reason to believe that the Jews held to a mortal and eternal distinction that is fundamental to this very question.

It is very clear that they were idolaters, and that is why

God struck them down. God doesn't strike people down for carrying a rabbit's foot. It is very clear they were idolaters. I don't know what else could be a mortal sin, but idolatry in the

Old Testament. But I honestly think that that text is being torn way out of its context to be applied to this situation in any way, shape, or form.

Let's go to Michael. Yes, hello? Yes, sir, Michael. Yes, I think the two of you have missed a key verse, which is conclusive in this argument.

And in verses 8 and 14 in your passage, it refers to rewards. And in verse 13, it refers to a specific day.

And I propose to you that that day is the day of the Lord, as referenced in Revelation 22, 12, where it says,

And behold, I will come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

So the rewards are given on the day of the second coming, and therefore cannot possibly be referring to Catholic purgatory, which is not supposedly an ongoing process.

I'd like both of you to comment. Thank you. Thank you very much, Michael. Would you like me to go first? You get the last shot on this one.

Sure, okay. I'll be real brief. I agree. I did not miss that.

I specifically made that as a part of my opening statement that we have the exact same terminology being used in verses 8 and 14. And that I would agree that this is, at the final judgment, the day of verse 13, for the day will show it.

I do believe Hemera there is clearly the day of the Lord. It is the day of judgment. So I would agree with the caller's statement at that point.

I hoped that I had made that point, but evidently, given that he thought I missed it, I didn't make it clear enough. So I apologize.

Your comments. Yeah, I would say that on the literal level that St.

Paul is talking about the day of judgment, but we can also, by illusion, refer to this text not only to the final judgment, but also to the particular judgment that each one of us will face at the moment that we die.

And so you receive a reward long before the final judgment.

In other words, as soon as you die, as we see in Luke 16, you know, when Jesus talks about the rich man and Lazarus, when they die immediately, they go one to paradise and the other to hell there.

So I think this text can apply to either the final judgment or the particular judgment.

All righty. Now we go to John. John, your question, please. Hey, James. This is John Salz.

I'm a fellow apologist with Tim. I've enjoyed the debate. James, you've pointed out that you can't find purification in these verses, but the

Greek for suffer loss, that hasn't come up. And I think, as you know, that's referred to punishment, zemiaho.

In fact, I can cite a number of verses in the New Testament where zemiaho is used as eternal punishment. You can go to Matthew 16, 26,

Mark 8, 36, and Luke 9, 25. So if we have an individual here who has died and who is being punished post -mortem but is still saved, where is that person,

James? Okay. Thank you very much. I actually did specifically address that. I'm not sure how my opening statement got lost, but I specifically addressed zemiaho and its forms and its uses in the

New Testament. I specifically made an argument that the range of zemiaho has to be translated based upon the context which is found based upon its semantic domain.

And I demonstrated that given that it's used in contrast to misthos, that that is why it's translated as suffer loss, not as punishment, and then gave further references to that.

So I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but I did make that very statement in my opening statement.

Tim, some response? Sure. I appreciate the caller, and he is correct.

The semantic range of the term does include punishment, and it is used elsewhere for punishment.

And so, again, I think that adds more evidence to what we've been saying and what

I've been saying and what the Church has been saying for 2 ,000 years, and that is that these works that are being burned up, it's not just the works out there floating around, but the individual who must go through the fire, as through fire, because it's not a literal fire, in order that he may attain that final salvation.

So you have not only from the word, but also the context that we're talking about, purification, suffering, and such.

Okay, Frank, your question, please. Hi, in a debate with Robert St.

Genes, this is Dr. White. You said that verse 17 does not refer to a

Christian because verse 16 is in the plural, while verse 17 is in the singular.

However, verse 14 and 15 are also in the singular. So why aren't the people in verse 14 and 15

Christians while the people in verse 17 are not Christians? Okay, Frank, actually, what

I pointed out, even in my opening statement today, did we broadcast my opening statement? Seems to have gotten lost. Maybe there is a problem with webcast or something.

But as I pointed out, the contrast between 10 through 15 and 16 through 17 is found the fact that those in 16 and 17, or the individual

God will destroy him, it's individual judgment comes upon him, is that in 10 through 15, there is a building upon the foundation.

In verses 16 through 17, there is a destruction of the already built temple. And so that is the contrast.

I don't recall the specifics in regards to, I think I pointed out in verse 16, you are the temple is to the church, but him, and if a man destroyed the temple of God, God will destroy him, is about a person who's tearing down that temple, a person who's profaning the church, and hence it's a reference to the holiness of church.

But I'm not sure what else I can comment on that because I'm not sure what he was referring to. Go ahead,

Tim. Sure. Yeah, I don't disagree with anything that you say.

One thing I would add is, know you not that you are the temple of God.

He does move from the singular to the plural here in verses 16 to 17.

So he seems to be indicating here that you are the temple of God and that the spirit of God dwells in you for the temple.

Let's see now. If any man defile the temple, him shall God destroy. I think this refers to not just temporal punishment, but this would seem to indicate that the people are going to be destroyed.

I think this is a reference to hell, whereas verses 14 and 15 would refer to purgatory.

Okay, let's try to sneak one more in here. Let's talk to Turretinfan. Hello, Mr. Staple.

Yes. This is a question based on the fact that you had related this fire to judgment. The question is, who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?

It is God that justifies. Who is it? Who is he that condemns? That's right.

Amen. I don't know what the question is, but I sure agree with the scripture verse. Absolutely no one can.

And in context there, I think, is that in Romans chapter 8 you're referring to? Yes, that was

Romans chapter 8. Yeah, that in context, of course, St. Paul is talking about people who were suffering persecution and such, and is encouraging them to know that there is no power that can separate them.

I love verses 35 through 39 there. Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things that come, height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus.

That's the security that we have as Christians. Of course, there's one thing he doesn't mention there is mortal sin.

We can choose to walk away from God, and maybe that's what you were angling at there, but I appreciate the call.

Okay. Well, I think what he was angling at was if the fire is the judgment of God, and God is the one who justifies.

Specifically it says, who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies it. I think what his point was, you have

God not only bringing the charge, but also being the one who justifies at the same time. With the statement then, who is the one who condemns?

Christ Jesus, he who died. Yes, rather, who was raised, who's the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. And it is that intercession on our behalf that is the guarantee of the believer's salvation.

It is not my continued faithfulness. It is the continued faithfulness of Jesus Christ in my behalf.

And that, again, would be something we could really get into as time would allow. But time does not allow, as we have gone through our 90 minutes.

Mr. Staples, thank you very much. I hope that as you go back and listen to this encounter, that you'll be able to see that the time frames, the time allotments were exact.

And I believe everything was done in a way that is honoring to our commitments. And I would love to have an opportunity to do it again in the future.

All right, James. Well, I appreciate the time, and God bless you all and your listeners. Okay, thank you, Tim. And don't forget, if you ever want to do this on Catholic Answers Live, you've got my phone number.

All righty, thanks for calling. All right, thanks to you for listening. We'll be back, Lord willing, on Tuesday here on The Dividing Line.

We'll see you then. God bless. Phoenix, Arizona, 85069.

You can also find us on the World Wide Web at aomin .org. That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.