Purgatory Debate - White vs Horn 2/17/2024

Debate Moderator Announcements and Format

Moderator for the debate this evening. First, a few quick announcements. If you need to go to the restroom, it's behind me in a hallway. You can access it through that door. You'll just have to get up and walk in front of everyone.

We won't have intermission, so we're all at peace with it. Do what you have to do. If you like these sorts of theological conversations and debates, you might want to check out, especially if you're in Houston, Theology by the Pint, theologybythepint .org.

We have monthly events and a podcast called Theology on Air. So check out the website, and we want you to be a part of that conversation. After the event, Dr. White, who his followers and listeners will know, he is in the midst of a five-debate teaching tour, so he is going to leave after the debate.

He's not able to shake hands and sign books. But if you're coming to the debates about a month from now, then he'll maybe be able to do that then. So please excuse him for that. And after the debate, Mr. Horn will be next door.

He'll be signing books, meet and greet, yes? You are probably familiar with both speakers, and the introductions are in your program, so I'm not going to spend much time doing that. I'll only say that if you want to learn more about our speakers, you can go to Dr. White's website, aomen .org.

That's, of course, for Alpha and Omega Ministries. And Trent Horn, you can learn more at trenthorn .com. Both gentlemen, as you know, are prolific authors and podcasters and YouTubers and all-around influencers, as the kids say these days.

The format, for those who aren't in the room and don't have a program in their hand, 15-minute opening remarks, 7-minute rebuttal, 4-minute rebuttal, 2 10-minute cross-examination periods each, so that's 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 40 minutes total, then 20-minute Q &A.

We're not doing Q &A from the floor. You will have to write your question, and then I will be the one who chooses which questions to ask. They will have one minute to answer and then a 30-second response, depending on who the question is addressed to.

If your handwriting is not readable, if it's illegible, I think is that word, it will not be considered. So please do your best and write carefully what you want the question to be. I will be picking those up before the cross-examination, okay?

So before the cross-examination is when I will be picking them up. That will give me 40 minutes to filter through the questions. So then after that, we'll have 5-minute closing remarks, and that will be it.

Normally, in these events, the person answering in the affirmative goes first. That will be true tonight. The question is, is the doctrine of purgatory true? Our Roman Catholic guest Trent Horn says yes, so he gets to go first.

So please welcome our first speaker.

Trent Horn's Opening Definition of Purgatory

Tonight. All right. Well, I'd like to thank James for debating this important issue and for debating me last night, and First Lutheran for hosting this debate. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraphs 1030 and 1031, all who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation.

But after death, they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

Purgatory is not an alternative to heaven or hell. It is not a second chance to be saved, and it is not a place where sinners work to purify themselves. Purgatory is the way Christ completes our sanctification or growth and holiness.

Protestants already believe in sanctification, so they should have no problem accepting this final part of the process. In tonight's debate, I will not be defending various theological opinions about purgatory, such as its duration or what it entails.

I will also not be defending secondary doctrines related to it, like indulgences, since there are Christians who deny indulgences but believe in purgatory. The Protestant author C .S. Lewis compared purgatory to visiting a dentist and said, our souls demand purgatory, don't they?

The Protestant author Jerry Walls, a frequent critic of Catholicism, defends purgatory in his book, Purgatory, the Logic of Total Transformation. Finally, the Eastern Orthodox believe in post-mortem purification, but they don't call this process purgatory.

Now that we have a better view of what purgatory is, I will present two arguments in favor of this doctrine. First, there is the argument from spiritual cleansing. One, God can purify Christians of their desire for sin.

No one in heaven will desire sin. Some Christians still desire sin at the moment of death. Therefore, some Christians will be purified of the desire for sin after death, but before they enter heaven. Premise one follows from scripture in God's omnipotence.

If God can't free us from the desire to sin, he isn't all-powerful. Premise two follows from Revelation 21 -27, which says of heaven that nothing unclean shall enter it. In heaven, there will be no actual sin or even the desire to sin.

Premise three is known from experience, especially in cases of Christians struggling with sin who die unexpectedly. Since all the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. We will be fully sanctified before entering heaven, even if we are not fully sanctified when we die.

Now, James might refer to Hebrews 10 -14, for by a single offering, he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. However, Paul says in Philippians 3 -12, he is not yet perfect. In Romans 7 -20, Paul says he does evil because of sin, which dwells within me.

God will not allow sin in heaven, even if it is hidden under an alien righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us, as my opponent claims. Instead, God will fully purify us, hence the doctrine of purgatory.

Second, there is the argument from moral correction. It goes like this. When Christians sin, God unpleasantly disciplines them to morally perfect them. Some sins are not unpleasantly disciplined in this life.

Therefore, God unpleasantly disciplines some Christians after death to morally perfect them. Let's start with premise one. Hebrews 12 says, My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him.

For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. The word translated chastises is mastigoy, which in every other use in the New Testament is rendered scourging. The verse literally says God flogs every son with a whip whom he receives.

The text goes on to say God disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment, all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant. Later, it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Even though Christ saved us from the eternal consequences of our sins, God still allows us to suffer the temporary consequences of our sins, such as a disordered will that is attached to sin, a lack of full fellowship with God, the fitting justice of feeling bad when we have done bad, and even suffering in this life.

For example, God forgave David's sins of adultery and murder, but still punished him in this life through the death of his infant son. God does not punish us arbitrarily, but to reorder our wills so we can be morally perfected in him.

Hebrews says earthly fathers do this imperfectly with their children, but God does this perfectly with us. Now what about premise two? Paragraph 1472 of the Catechism says a conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

We can choose to receive God's correction in this life. We can choose to be sorrowful for the sins that we have committed and reorder ourselves to full fellowship with God, and we would no longer suffer the temporary consequences of our sins.

But not everyone does that, as can be seen throughout salvation history. Ancient Jews believe that the dead were purified after death in Gehenna. According to Simcha Paul Raphael, a professor of Jewish studies at Temple University, Gehenna served as a realm of purgation and purification.

After this experience, the soul is sufficiently purified and able to enter the supernatural post-mortem realm of Gan Eden, the Garden of Eden. In the second century before Christ, Judas the Maccabee made an offering of silver on behalf of soldiers who died in battle.

The Jewish text that records this act says he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sins. Jesus and the apostles also never taught that all believers immediately enter heaven free from any unpleasant consequences.

Jesus told his audience to make friends with accusers, or else they will hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

The Protestant reformer John Calvin said, The judge signifies God, the accuser the devil, the guard the angel, the prison purgatory, I shall willingly yield to them. To get around this, Calvin interprets Jesus' advice to be only about worldly law courts.

However, that doesn't make sense given the context in the previous verses of avoiding Gehenna due to anger with a brother. Remember, ancient Jews believed Gehenna was a temporary punishment after death, where you were released once you had paid the last penny.

In 1 Corinthians chapter, did I not have this? There we go. Well, you can read that quickly there. Let's see. In 1 Corinthians chapter 3, Paul describes Christian workers at the final judgment. Those who produced good works are symbolized by precious stones.

Those who produced bad works are symbolized by hay and straw. A fire tests the works and burns up the bad works. Verse 15 says, If any man's work is burned up, suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

It's possible the works symbolized by stones are the Christian disciples of these workers. This corresponds to Malachi chapter 3, a passage that also talks about the temple, the day, the Levites being refined in fire like gold and silver, and others being stubble that are burnt up.

The good and bad materials in 1 Corinthians 3 may very well be good and bad Christians at the final judgment, and the fire will reveal which ones were saved and which were damned. That coheres with verses 16 through 17, which say, You and I are God's temple, and if someone destroys God's temple, one of his redeemed creatures, God will destroy him.

Only God can destroy what he has created, no one else. Now, if a worker's disciples were damned or burnt up at the judgment, the worker would not go to hell with them, but he would still be punished for his failure to shepherd them.

This corresponds with Hebrews 13, 17, which says, Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls as men who will have to give account. Could this be about merely judging the bad motivations of Christian workers, as James often says?

Maybe, but it's more natural to see the disciples as a Christian worker's work rather than his motivations, because the motivations are prior to any work that he does. Besides, motivations are not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3 at all, at least related to this small part of the passage.

Even if James were right, bad motivations, like pride, are sins, and God punishes sins. The Protestant scholar E. P. Sanders says of 1 Corinthians 3, Paul is discussing people who will be saved, but they will be commended or lightly punished at the judgment, depending on their deeds.

Paul confirms this in 2 Corinthians 5 .10, where he writes,. We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil according to what he has done in the body.

In fact, the phrase saved through, as in saved through fire, when it's joined with a noun in the genitive case, is used overwhelmingly in the Old Testament, Jewish literature, and the church fathers in an instrumental sense, or as a reference to purification.

That's why rabbis cited Zechariah 13 .9 in reference to Gehenna. I will put this third into the fire and refine them as one refines silver. The biblical scholar Daniel Freyer Griggs, who claims the New Testament does not teach the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, admits, quote,.

The fire of divine judgment on the day appears to be the circumstance through which the builder is purified of his sins, and through which Christ saves. The BDAG Greek lexicon says the word loss in 1 Corinthians 3 .15 reveres to punishment, and in ancient Greek temple inscriptions, the word referred to fines that were leveled against incompetent builders.

However, in his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, my opponent, like many Protestants, says the loss suffered in 1 Corinthians 3 .15 is only a loss of reward, and that it is not a punishment. But even if that were true, my position would still be correct.

As a parent, I punish my children all the time by taking away a reward they were promised. I'd call that unpleasant discipline, wouldn't you? James even says in his book that it is, quote, terrifying to be in this position before God.

Why? We are only terrified of God because of the unpleasant things he might do to us. But God doesn't arbitrarily cause us pain. He only does it for our good. So James admits it's possible God may provide unpleasant discipline, as described in Hebrews 12, after death.

That's premise two of my argument. In fact, the Protestant author Randy Alcorn summarizes 1 Corinthians 3 in a way that also supports my argument in an article he wrote on heavenly rewards. He writes, maybe one way to say it is that the loss of rewards is in some sense permanent, but the suffering of that loss will be temporary.

God will do away with the suffering, but that is after the judgment, after our giving account to the Lord. The suffering of regret will be there at the judgment. How could it not be? Before entrance to the eternal state.

But then there is the learning and purifying and eternal rejoicing. So Alcorn says that the suffering of loss in this passage leads to moral reform and purification before we rejoice in heaven free from any attachment to sin.

That sounds like purgatory to me. In the second century, Irenaeus said after death, but before heaven, each class of souls receives a habitation such as it has deserved, saying Lazarus received refreshment while the evil rich man received torment.

James has claimed that prayers in the early church for refreshment for the dead, Latin, refrigerium, are only an appeal for an increase in the heavenly happiness of the dead. However, Cara Aspessi, in her 2021 article on refrigerium in the academic Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, says that in classical literature, the term denoted coolness or physical relief.

She writes of these requests that, quote, the use of the subjective demonstrates that final heavenly bliss is not envisioned. Instead, that meaning of refrigerium, which referred to Hades, the interim region of either punishment or consolation, is likely in view.

The third century passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity uses this same meaning when Perpetua prays for her dead brother, Denocritus, to have refreshment after seeing him suffering in the afterlife. The Protestant author Carl Olson admits that Clement of Alexandria, who lived between the second and third century, imagined an afterlife where the correctable sinner experienced a fire that sanctifies and does not consume.

In the City of God, Augustine wrote of some, quote, who suffer temporary punishments after death. In his writings, Augustine specifically uses the Latin phrase, pene purgatoriae, or purgatorial punishments.

Early Christian headstones, like those of the second century Bishop Abersius, ask for prayers for the dead, which makes sense if some of the dead experience unpleasant correction after death. Finally, none of these early Christian sources say all believers immediately enter heaven after death without any purification.

According to Tertullian, for no one on becoming absent from the body is at once a dweller in the presence of the Lord, except by the prerogative of martyrdom. However, this purification comes from Christ and does not detract from him.

According to Pope Benedict XVI, some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the judge and savior. The account with him is the decisive act of judgment.

Before his gaze, all falsehood melts away. So to make his case, James has to do two things. He has to show that all believers immediately enter heaven after death and have no post-mortem discipline or purification, even though this is contradicted by scripture and Christian history.

And then he has to refute the two arguments that I offered. The argument from spiritual cleansing, God can purify Christians of their desire for sin. No one in heaven will desire sin. Some Christians still desire sin at the moment of death, so they'll be purified before they enter into heaven.

And then the argument for moral correction. When Christians sin, God unpleasantly disciplines them to morally perfect them. Some sins are not unpleasantly disciplined in this life. Therefore, God unpleasantly disciplines some Christians after death to morally perfect them.

If James cannot show what's wrong with these arguments, then you should reject his case and believe in the doctrine of purgatory instead. Thank you. Well, good evening. It's good to be back with you again this evening on a very, very different topic.

James White's Opening Response: Purgatory, Sanctification, and Justification

I'd like to begin with a little more formal definition of purgatory from a well-known resource, Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I wish it had been bound a little better. But anyway, speculatively, the existence of the cleansing fire can be derived from the concept of the sanctity and justice of God.

The former demands that only completely pure souls be assumed into heaven. That was just given to us from Revelation 21. The latter demands that the punishments of sins still present be effected. But on the other hand, forbids that souls united in love with God should be cast into hell.

Therefore, an intermediate state is to be assumed whose purpose is final purification and which, for this reason, is of limited duration. Now, I want to point out, aside from the fact that purgatory is yet another dogmatically defined concept within Roman Catholicism, that in the modern period, the language that Rome and Roman Catholic apologists use to describe it has changed really radically over about the past 70 years.

You'll notice, for example, Ott says this, the remission of the venial sins which are not yet remitted occurs, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, it does in this life, by an act of contrition deriving from charity and performed with the help of grace.

The act of contrition, which is presumably awakened immediately after entry into the purifying fire, does not, however, affect the abrogation of the diminution of the punishment for sins, since in the other world there is no longer any possibility of merit.

And catch this, the temporal punishments for sins are atoned for in the purifying fire by the so-called suffering of atonement. Satis Pacio is the Latin. That is, by the willing bearing of the expiatory punishments imposed by God.

So I'm a little surprised, I'll be perfectly honest, that in making this presentation, Trent hasn't used the language that Rome has used in defining her own dogma, that this is a place of purification, not just from attachment to sin, but the remission of temporal punishments for sins, and that this takes place by our suffering, Satis Pacio.

And I can understand why he wouldn't want to defend indulgences, but in Roman Catholic theology they are intimately connected, and that's in the catechism as well, and that is the idea of the treasury of merit, the excess merit of Jesus, Mary, and the saints put into the treasury of merit, it's a withdrawal from that treasury of merit applied to a soul in purgatory that somehow then would in some way hasten this being made more like Christ and purification so you can enter into the presence of God.

It's a very, very different concept, and of course I'll be showing you some books later on that I would recommend to you if you want to really understand what has been understood about the subject of purgatory, is that it's plainly said by people like Cardinal Bellarmine that purgatory could not possibly be as short as 10 or 20 years and could possibly be many hundreds of years in length.

So this is a self-undergoing of suffering, Satis Pacio, that removes the temporal punishments of sins that is necessary before you can enter into the presence of God. It's not just the idea that, well, we need to be sanctified, we need to be made in the image of Christ.

Well, yes, that's what God's doing, and everything that Trent quoted from the New Testament about the Father disciplining his children and conforming us to the image of Christ, we believe all of that, but that is not because of temporal punishments of sins.

That is making us like Jesus Christ. That's the whole purpose of God's work of election. You look at Ephesians chapter 1, what's it all about? Being in Christ and being conformed to his image. And so it's a very different concept because what we're talking about, really, historically with Roman Catholicism, and I recognize modern Roman Catholicism, I doubt Francis actually believes this.

I really, really do. But at least the Orthodox view is represented by someone like Ludwig Gott, is that this is a place, not just a state, it is a place that has temporality to it. Having indulgences for tens and twenties and thirties of years would make no sense whatsoever if that were not the case.

And it is punishment that must be undergone before you can enter into the presence of the Father. And so what passages were brought forward to present that kind of a concept? Well, the only one, really, was 1 Corinthians chapter 3.

So let's look at it. We'll look at a couple others that were mentioned quickly, like paying the last penny, as if that's what Jesus is talking about, is eschatology and punishment for temporal punishments of sin and stuff like that.

No, 1 Corinthians chapter 3, let's take a look at it. It's very, very important. I'm sure we'll be looking much more closely at it during cross-examination. Because Paul is talking about the ministry there in Corinth, and he says, according to the grace of God, which was given to me as a wise architect, I laid a foundation, and others are building upon it.

Let each one look to be careful how he builds upon it. So what's he talking about here? Is he talking about stuff after this life? He's talking about there in Corinth, how do Christian leaders build upon the foundation that Paul has laid?

He says, for no other foundation can be laid other than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ. And if a certain one builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, what will be made manifest?

His work will be made manifest, for the day will show it. What is that day? Well, it's the day of the Lord. It's the day of judgment. So what is going to take place at that time is a manifestation of the character of the work that has been built upon that foundation.

The day will demonstrate that. The day will show what that is, because it will be apocalyptic, it will be revealed by fire. Well, what does fire have to do with that? Well, what's the difference between gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and straw?

What's the difference between these things? Well, if you put gold in the fire, what's the result? It becomes more purified. You remove impurities from it. But wood, hay, and straw, you introduce them to fire, and they are destroyed.

They disappear. They cannot stand the presence of the fire, for it says the fire will prove or demonstrate the nature of these works of what they are made. That's what he's saying. It's very, very clear.

If a certain one's work, not if a certain one, but if a certain one's work remains, which he has built, which he has produced, he will receive a reward. But if a certain one's work is destroyed and consumed, zemiao, he will suffer loss.

When Paul uses this, he says, I am willing to suffer loss of all things for the sake of Christ. Same term. Paul wasn't saying, I'm willing to be punished of all things for Jesus Christ. That's not what he was talking about.

So, you can find other places where this term is used, but when Paul uses it, Paul's using it of suffering of loss. He says he will suffer loss, yet he himself will be saved, yet so as through the fire.

Now, if my works are examined by God on that final day, and he knows the intentions of my heart, he knows the intentions of all of our hearts. In that final day, he's going to reveal why everyone did what they did.

Now, is that connected to me? Is that something that will reveal something about me? Well, of course, but it's through the demonstration of those works, which were built upon the foundation. There is nothing here about different kinds of sins, mortal or venial sins.

There's nothing here about temporal punishments. There's nothing here about saddus passio. These are all things that come centuries and centuries and centuries later, and they go against, at their fundamental foundational level, against how Paul believed that any of us will ever stand before God.

How do we stand before God? Do we stand before God in a robe that is made up of the righteousness of Christ, Mary, and the saints from the thesaurus meritorium, the treasury of merit? If you receive indulgences, then that's going to be part of your standing before God.

Are we standing before God in a robe that includes our own suffering, our own saddus passio in this life or in the next? Or do we stand before God robed in the seamless righteousness of Jesus Christ? He made him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Now look, I can quote quote-unquote Protestant scholars who don't even think that's about you and I. N .T. Wright doesn't think that it is. But the reality is that is the great exchange, that is the foundation upon which any of us can have peace with God, and that's why this topic is so vitally important.

I believe purgatory is a doctrine that developed over the course of at least 1 ,400 years. And when you look at any of the people that Trent cited in that early period of time, they did not, and Roman Catholic scholarship admits it, they did not have a developed doctrine of purgatory.

All you can do is point to, well, here's a little piece here, here's a little piece there, you put this that there, and then this develops, and then Gregory the Great hears about these visions that people had about the afterlife, and my goodness, read the book by F. X. Shoup there on purgatory.

Vision after vision after vision after vision after vision, and it all eventually comes together and is dogmatically defined, even though I would say the clarity of its definition hundreds of years ago is far clearer than it is today.

Modern Rome is somewhat embarrassed by the clarity of the doctrine as it was taught at the time of the Reformation, but what does that tell us about the fundamental differences between us? It tells us that when Paul speaks, when Paul lays out what is the gospel, what gives us peace with God?

Romans 5 .1 says, therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. How do you get to that point? Well, that's what Romans 3 and 4 is about, and as you follow the argument through, you get into chapter 4, and Paul talks about righteousness being imputed to those who do not work.

Those who work receive a wage, what is due to them, but the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned to him as righteousness, and then immediately he says, David spoke of the blessedness upon the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works, and that's the works that come right before that.

Not E .P. Sanders, not N .T. Wright, not all the rest of that stuff. It's the works that are mentioned right before that, the contrast between believing and working, and then to demonstrate what it means to have righteousness imputed to you, he quotes from Psalm 32, and he said, blessed is the man whose sins, the Lord is forgiven, whose sins are covered over, and then he says, blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, and so one of the conversations that we need to have this evening is who is that blessed man, and what does it mean that Paul could interpret the non-imputation of sin as the positive imputation of righteousness, because that's what Romans 4, 6, with the quotation verses 7 through 8, that's what's going on there.

Now, why is this important to you or not? It's real simple. How can you have peace with God? When you wake up in the morning, knowing your own heart, knowing the lust of your flesh, knowing the impurity of your words, and knowing the holiness of God, how can you have peace with him?

How can you know that if your life ends in this day, that you will enter into his presence and not spend 10, 20, 30, 40, or 100 years undergoing satisfacio? How do you have that peace? The only way, and we don't believe the same thing about this, the only way you can have that peace is if you recognize that a true believer in Jesus Christ is a person who has received his righteousness, not only in the sense of the forgiveness of all of my sins, but his positive righteousness.

He has loved the Father perfectly, and when I receive his righteousness, then I am seen in him. That's how we have peace, and that's really what we're talking about this evening. Thank you for your attention.

Trent Horn Rebuts White's Gospel-Centered Objection

What you just heard from James was not an opening statement. It was a rebuttal and an assertion that his particular view about the gospel and imputation means that there is no such thing as purgatory.

That was it. That's all that he offered you tonight to believe that the doctrine of purgatory is false. What are some things he didn't say? He didn't cite any Bible verse that says that all believers enter heaven immediately at death and that they undergo no postmortem purification or punishment.

He didn't cite any scripture about the afterlife to support his view, whereas I did cite scriptures that describe the afterlife and support my view, and how did James react to them? When I cited Matthew chapter 5 about paying the last penny, he gave a scoffer's response.

Oh, it doesn't mean that. Sorry. You're going to have to do a little bit better than that, and he said, oh, like that has anything to do with eschatology, except Matthew 5, 21 through 30 is all about what happens to us after death.

That lust can send you to hell, and anger can send you to Gehenna, so the scoffer's response will simply not work there. The same with 1 Corinthians chapter 3. He told a great story. It's, oh, it's just about revealing the motivations that different workers have.

Read 1 Corinthians 3, verses 10 through 15 for yourself, and ask that if you're standing there at the final judgment and God burns up these works related to you, you shall suffer loss. What are you losing?

I cited a competent, well-respected Greek lexicon that says that the loss being referred to in 1 Corinthians 3, verse 15 is a punishment. The Greek word is zemiato, and James says, oh, well, Paul uses loss.

That's not the way Paul uses the word. Paul uses words in different ways in different contexts. He hasn't rebutted anything that I put there. Also, James really manifested severe lack of understanding of the doctrine of purgatory.

What's interesting is that I cited from the official teaching of the Catholic Church, the catechism of the Catholic Church. James cited from one theologian who's respected, but a theologian and from other sources.

When you're going to be critiquing another view, you ought to represent the official teachings of that view, not just private thoughts and articulations of it. And you should get the view right. For example, what is sadispatio?

Sadispatio is not us working in purgatory to cleanse ourselves to get out of it. The Catholic Encyclopedia says sadispatio, quote, is often spoken of in a loose sense as satisfaction, spoken of in a loose sense of satisfaction.

Sadispatio is a completely passive process where God cleanses us. And I quoted from Pope Benedict XVI in an encyclical where he reflects upon theologians who say that this purifying process is just the encounter with Christ where all falsehood melts away.

We don't do anything. The souls that are in purgatory rest from their labors, as Hebrews 4 .10 says. They know that they're saved. They know that they will not sin anymore. So if anything, they have joy that they're going to enter into heaven.

And there's no magisterial teaching that the joy of purgatory is outweighed by the suffering there, that while in this process of being purified, they recognize they can now rest from their labors while they undergo what has been the technical term sadispatio.

But he said we don't undergo sadispatio in this life. That shows he doesn't understand the concept. Now, satisfaction, some people think, oh, satisfaction is just what Christ did on the cross. No, satisfaction, expiation, reparations, atonement, they all generally mean the same thing, to make up for something that was done, to make reparations.

Now, only Christ, the God-man, can give expiation, satisfaction, atonement, and reparation for the eternal consequence of sin, for fully turning away from God. We can't do that because we're sinners.

We have nothing to offer God except what God already gave us. So if we fully turn away from God, only the merits of Christ can bring us back to God. However, when we partly turn away from God, when we as Christians sin, God as a loving Father will gently turn us back to him.

And James talked about the temporal debt of punishment. It's not a legal debt that we have to pay to satisfy some kind of divine ledger. Rather, God as a heavenly Father and as the divine creator of the universe has what's called an order of justice.

God creates the universe, and it's supposed to work a certain way because he's perfect, all-knowing, and all-good. But we human beings have free will, and we mess that up. For example, one of the ways the universe is supposed to work is that when you do good, you feel good.

And when you do bad, you feel bad. That's how we're supposed to feel. But why do we sin? Well, a lot of times we sin because we feel good when we sin. That was what Pope Paul VI called a perturbation in the universal order.

And so because God has planned that it is fitting that if we're going to feel good when we do bad, then to reorder us into perfect harmony with him, we will feel bad for doing bad. We will have sorrow.

Now I've already shown in citing the catechism, paragraph 1472, that by a fervent act of charity, one can remit all of the temporary consequences of sin in this life. But not everyone will do that. James has tried to say, oh, well, of course we believe in sanctification.

Of course we believe in conforming to God's will. But he describes it as only a purely positive process, where I've clearly shown in Hebrews 12, based on my argument, that this is—you don't have to use the word punishment.