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

I'm going to cut to the chase here tonight and I'm going to start introducing the folks who are going to be actually involved in this event tonight.

First, I'd like to introduce to you Dr. James White, the

Evangelical Debater. Dr. White is one of several pastors at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church in Arizona where he also serves as director of a theologically reformed apologetics organization called

Alpha and Omega Ministries. He's the author of 17 books including The Roman Catholic Controversy, Mary Another Redeemer, Answers to Catholic Claims, and The Potter's Freedom.

A New Testament Greek scholar, he also served on the translation team for the New American Standard Bible Update. Here he is ladies and gentlemen,

Dr. James White. Now I'd like my friend

Arnold Pilsner of Americans United for the Pope to step up. He is going to introduce to you our Roman Catholic Debater, Fr.

Peter Stravinskis. Arnold, ladies and gentlemen, Arnold Pilsner. Thank you,

Chris. It is my pleasure this evening to welcome and introduce to you

Fr. Peter Stravinskis. Fr. Stravinskis is the founding editor of The Catholic Answer, a widely read magazine that answers questions about the

Catholic faith. Fr. is also the author of 21 books and more than 500 articles which explain the

Catholic faith. As an apologist, he participates in debates around the country to let people know what the church teaches and to answer their questions.

Fr. Stravinskis is the founder and head of Newman House, which is an association of priests who specialize in teaching at the elementary, high school, and university levels.

He likewise serves as adjunct professor of education at Seton Hall in South Orange, New Jersey, adjunct professor of education and classics at Holy Apostle Seminary, and adjunct professor of humanities at the

Graduate School of Drew University. Fr. has conducted retreats and lectured in 70 dioceses of the

United States and overseas. Fr. was born in Newark, New Jersey, where he attended parochial, elementary, and secondary schools and then entered the seminary in 1968, and he was ordained a priest in May of 1977.

He has taught and administered Catholic education institutions at the elementary, secondary, and university levels.

Fr. holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in classical languages and French from Seton Hall University, a

Master of Arts in school administration, a Master of Arts in biblical theology, a

Doctor of philosophy in school administration, and a license of sacred theology and systematic theology.

Fr. is the author of many books that answer a wide variety of questions commonly asked about the

Catholic faith. Tonight, Fr. will speak about the church's teaching about purgatory and its biblical foundations.

I want to personally welcome and thank Dr. James White for being with us again this evening.

I thank Dr. White for all that he has done to make this debate in the past a dignified, informative, and lively exchange each year.

My final thanks to Chris Arnson for all the hard work he does each year to make the great debate a huge success.

Thank you, Chris. Now I'd like to introduce to you our moderator.

We are very privileged to have Dr. Warren Frazina of Hofstra University as our moderator.

He is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies and Acting Dean of the Honors College at Hofstra University.

He earned the PhD in theology, philosophy, and the history of religion at the University of Chicago's Divinity School.

He writes on Chinese Confucianism and American philosophy and teaches courses in Eastern religion, religion and the news media, and American philosophy.

Here he is, Dr. Warren Frazina. I would just like to let both of our debaters know that I care deeply about your safety tonight because you never know in a situation like this when you have a mixed group what kind of explosive situation you might have.

And today, serving as bodyguards for Dr. White, we have the Christian Motorcycles Association of America.

And I want, I want it all, I want to be clear to all of you that I care deeply about the safety of Father Stravinskas as well, so we do also have a bodyguard for him.

I was just wondering, has Mother Angelica arrived yet? Don't, don't laugh.

I saw her, I saw her once throw an ornery Jehovah's Witness through a plate glass window, so believe me, she can take care of herself.

Well, I hope you're all prepared for an exciting and edifying debate. This is a very important issue we're hearing about tonight, folks, the issue of purgatory, because it addresses the very nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Last week, when I opened up the debate on homosexuality, a liberal minister in the audience, who may even be here tonight, let me know if you see a glowing orange dot on my forehead, but he, he was very upset merely because I said at the opening statements that only one side can be right at this debate tonight, and it was totally baffling to me that he would be so upset being a liberal, that I said only one side could be correct, and I actually responded to him in a letter and said to him, well, how much of the evangelical view that unrepentant homosexuals who do not come to Christ are damned, how much of that do you believe in?

How much of that are you willing to concede is correct? Obviously, as a liberal, he would not concede to any of that, so this was merely, obviously, a smokescreen.

He knew only one side in that debate could be correct, and the thing that I feel at ease about tonight is that I know that both

Father Stravinskas and Dr. White know that this is not a gray area. Only one side of this issue can be correct, and I ask of you all to really pray seriously as you listen to these men, and when you leave here, pray with diligence and fervency with open

Bibles about this matter, because it is indeed a serious one, and now I'd like us all to bow for a silent word of prayer before we begin.

Amen. Thank you very much. I will now turn the debate over to our moderator, Dr. Warren Frisina. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. It's good to see some of the faces from last week. It's a pleasure to be back with you again today.

As I said last week, I spend my life in universities, and the heart of universities is inquiry, and one of the best things about inquiry is when two people engage in serious and impassioned debate on important questions, so it is a pleasure to be back.

Let me remind the folks who were here last time and tell those for whom this is their first visit what our format is.

We'll begin with opening remarks. Each of our speakers will have 30 minutes. That'll be followed by 15 minutes of rebuttal.

Each will, in turn, have 15 minutes to speak. We'll stand up and stretch, take a 10 -minute break after that, then we'll begin the cross -examination periods.

There'll be two cross -examinations. The person who is doing the cross -examining will be able to ask whatever questions seems appropriate to him.

The person responding will be expected to answer the questions but not ask any new questions.

That opportunity will come when he gets the turn to ask questions. Both those sessions will go 25 minutes.

We'll take a second round of cross -examinations, again, each with 25 minutes, and then we will have final remarks.

10 minutes from Father Stravinskas and 10 minutes from Reverend White. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry, and then there's one last step here.

We didn't have this last week. There'll be time for questions from the audience after that, so I want you to be thinking about the kinds of questions you'd like to ask, and also keep in mind that when that time comes, we want you to ask questions rather than make long extended speeches so that our speakers can have an opportunity to respond to those issues that are so important to everybody.

Okay. My job is really easy today. I have this little mechanical timer. We set it. I don't have to do much.

They pretty much know what's going on. We just push two, oops, two fives, and then two zeros.

Oh, I'm sorry, 30 minutes. That's right. The first is, thank you very much. See, I don't have this gig down yet. Three, zero, zero, zero, and we'll, our first speaker tonight will be

Father Stravinskas. Thank you.

As a Johnny come lately to the great debate, I really wish the title of this would be a little different.

I would frankly prefer something like the great conversation or the great dialogue.

Why? Well, because I think we should have learned a lesson from history that, for example, the medieval disputations with the

Jews did little to bring them to Christ or to his church, and nor did their 16th century equivalent do all that much for Martin Luther.

In our own time, however, we have found a couple of very promising things occur.

First of all, the Catholic dialogue with the Nestorian Church, which broke from Catholic unity about 15 centuries ago, has, as a matter of fact, resulted in a theological consensus, poising us for serious talks on organic reunion.

And secondly, the very impressive fruit of the Lutheran - Catholic dialogue, which has been the joint declaration on justification.

I think these results were achieved because we decided to set aside an approach which might be termed a theology of confrontation in favor of a theology of convergence, which should not be confused, however, with compromise.

In other words, what I hope is that we can try to find some language which stresses important areas of agreement, which can then help us move more confidently into areas of continued disagreement.

Another point I'd like to raise from the beginning is the importance of recalling that Dr. White's theological agenda has far more in common with that of Catholicism than perhaps he, either he or I, might be tempted to admit.

For example, an acceptance of a religion with a transcendental horizon, the maintenance of a stance which operates from the centrality of divine revelation rather than some sort of erector set approach to the formation of theology, a firm adherence to most of the doctrines which the 19th century evangelicals termed the fundamentals.

So, for example, the inerrancy and inspiration of sacred scripture, the divinity of Christ and his virginal birth, the atoning value of Jesus's death along with his bodily resurrection, and the glorious return of Christ.

Which leads to my next point. We Catholics here need to applaud Dr. White's commitment to doctrine, because no ecumenism worthy of the name is possible without taking seriously doctrine and theology.

Otherwise, we're all reduced to some kind of vague do -goodism. And so we need to present the truth in love.

Our goal should never be simply to get another notch in one's apologetical belt.

After all, it is possible to win an argument or a debate and lose souls in the process, either one's own or someone else's.

Therefore, it's necessary to try to understand what's really being said, rather than listening for key words or slogans which would just manifest a gotcha attitude.

And that would demonstrate, of course, an interest in neither truth nor love. With those principles in place, allow me to share with you three stories about purgatory and Protestants.

First, some years ago, when Jimmy Swaggart and I were theological pen pals, before his fall from grace, which we need to explain,

I guess, if salvation is assured once one is justified by faith alone, but that's a topic for another moment.

But at any rate, he and I got on to the topic of purgatory and prayers for the dead. He assured me that if he lived to be a hundred, he could never accept the doctrine of purgatory.

A bit tongue -in -cheek, I responded, Brother Swaggart, on your deathbed you're going to be praying there's a purgatory.

I'm not sure he quite got my point. Two, at about the same time,

I was party to a conversation with the great Dr. James McCord, longtime president of Princeton Theological Seminary.

Another priest asked him about Protestants and the doctrine of purgatory. Somewhat glibly, he replied,

Father, our Reformed theology tells us there is no purgatory, but I can assure you that every

Protestant I know prays for his deceased relatives and friends. Third, John Henry Cardinal Newman, the bicentennial of whose birth we commemorate this year, at the age of 15 embarked on a decades -long journey, in the words of his motto,

Ex imaginibus erumbris in veritatem, from images and shadows into the truth.

For many years on his theological sojourn, Newman stood by the teaching of the 39 articles of religion of the

Anglican Communion, one of which describes purgatory as a pernicious doctrine.

With much prayer, intense study of the whole thrust of sacred scripture, as well as the convincing witness of the

Fathers of the Church, he ended up writing one of the finest works on purgatory written in Christian history,

The Dream of Gerontius, which rivals the depth and beauty of Dante's appreciation of purgatory in his

Divina Commedia. These vignettes are fairly typical of where most

Protestants are on the theological radar screen regarding our topic this evening.

Those who hold and live their opposition, those who maintain one position in their head and a different one in their heart, and those who come to a completely opposite stance after a period of time, sometimes after years of study and prayerful reflection.

So, having backed into the issue, let us ask and answer directly just what purgatory is, relying on the

Catechism of the Catholic Church. We read, 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 heaven.

The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on purgatory, especially at the councils of Florence and Trent.

The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire.

Here is cited 1st Corinthians 315 and 1st Peter 1 7.

Then, quoting a passage from Pope St. Gregory the Great, which in turn is a comment of his on Matthew 12 31, we read,

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that before the final judgment there is a purifying fire.

He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come.

From this sentence, we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The Catechism goes on. This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in sacred

Scripture. Quote, therefore Judas Maccabeus made atonement for the dead that they might be delivered from their sin.

From the beginning, the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers and suffrage for them, above all the

Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.

The Church also commends alms -giving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead.

At that point, we're treated to an excerpt from a homily of St. John Chrysostom on 1st

Corinthians, in which the Great Eastern Father quotes Job 1 .5.

Chrysostom urges his listeners in these words, Let us help and commemorate the dead.

If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why should we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation?

Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

In just three short paragraphs, the whole doctrine is set forth, which we might summarize in this way.

First, the Church sees her position as consonant with the Scriptures as they have been received and interpreted within the tradition from time immemorial.

Second, some of the elect, perhaps many, need post -death purification.

Third, there is a hierarchy of sin, found explicated clearly in 1st

John 5 .17, such that lesser sins can be atoned for after death.

Fourthly, prayer for the dead, especially the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice for them, is not a novelty of the

Catholic Church, but goes back to the earliest days of Christianity, and that, in turn, has its roots in the

Judaism lived by our Lord. The current teaching is in the trajectory with the entire tradition, beginning with catecholm inscriptions, as well as with fathers like Tertullian, around the year 200,

Cyril of Jerusalem, 350, Gregory of Nyssa, 380,

Epiphanius of Salamis, 374, Chrysostom, 398, the

Liturgy of Serapion, 350, and Augustine in 392. One should notice that the authorities cited reflect the broad sweep of Christian theology from East and West alike, as found on the three continents where the

Church existed at that time, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Furthermore, I've deliberately refrained from citing anyone beyond the fourth century, because the preponderance of evidence at that point, then, becomes unbelievably unwieldy.

These early indicators of how the Church understood the afterlife, and the standard exegesis of various pericopes, was then crystallized in the teachings of the councils of Lyon in 1274,

Florence in 1439, and Trent in 1563.

Very simply put, that is the broad picture of the Catholic position on purgatory.

Now, because Catholic theology is of one piece, a seamless garment, if you will, this necessarily touches on a host of other issues as well, like the communion of saints, like intercessory prayer, like the nature of justification, and how one achieves justification, salvation, etc.

I find it significant that we do not discover any opposition to the doctrine of purgatory until the 16th century, for all practical purposes.

A couple of heretical marginal groups here and there, but as a matter of fact, they dissented on a host of issues with which

Dr. White himself would not be comfortable dissenting either. It's significant, for example, that when

Martin Luther posted his 95 theses to the cathedral door, absent from that list was an attack on the doctrine of purgatory.

And over 30 years later, at the Augsburg Confession, absent from a list of neuralgic issues was any discussion of purgatory.

Indulgences, yes, but not purgatory. Very simply, I think we have to come to the conclusion that the novelty in regard to purgatory is not the

Catholic position on it, but those who would dissent from it. To discover 16, 17, or 20 centuries after the fact that there's a problem with a teaching is, as a matter of fact, a novelty.

Thank you. Reverend White.

Good evening. Thank you for being here. I would like to apologize ahead of time. Should I join my brother

Chris in a massive fit of coughing. We seem to share much in common and, sadly, we seem to be sharing an allergic reaction to something in the

Long Island air as well. So, of course, I come from Arizona and that means there's all sorts of stuff in your air that I don't encounter but once a year and so it wreaks havoc.

It is good to see you all here this evening. I commend you for being here.

Each year I try to commend the audience for being concerned about issues of truth.

There are so few in our society who care about these things today that it is indeed heartening, no matter what side you are on, to see someone who is concerned about truth.

I'll admit that my encounter last week in debating with a liberal on a subject of homosexuality made me look forward to this evening because,

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it significantly easier to deal with someone who actually believes in truth than someone who does not.

I've often said when someone says, how do you witness to someone from the Christian Science Church? And the Christian scientists don't believe that any of this is real.

We're all an illusion. I've often said, well, I'm really not sure. I suppose you could punch him in the nose and say, does that hurt?

Okay, there's a place to start. Probably not, might not work very well, but I have a hard time with those who don't believe that truth exists.

I have a hard time dialoguing in that area. This evening we address a momentous topic.

There have been those who've been going, ah, purgatory, didn't they get rid of that at Vatican II? So they didn't show up tonight.

In reality, I think that this subject this year applies with clarity the vast differences between our two sides that we saw last year in the debate on justification.

I believe that we see here the difference between the theocentric position that I presented then that is focused upon what

God has done in Jesus Christ and his sovereign decree and the issue of sacramentalism and the concept of grace that is inherent therein.

Now very few in our society today know the history of the development over time of this doctrine of purgatory, so let's review that then look at the scant number of biblical passages that Roman Catholicism has cited in defense of this doctrine and close by noting the vast number of biblical passages that teach contrary to the fundamental elements of the

Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, most especially the teaching of Holy Scripture that Christ's death is complete, perfect, finished, and fully propitiatory.

Now the idea of suffering for sins after death before entering into a state of bliss is really nothing new.

Historians have identified such a concept in many of man's religions.

The sole Jewish source that is cited by Roman Catholicism in defense of this particular concept even by the 1994

Catholic Catechism as we just heard read is 2nd Maccabees chapter 12 verses 39 through 45.

Now I'm not sure how many of you have been reading 2nd Maccabees of late but in that story we read of a group of Jewish fighters all of whom were idolaters.

They carried pagan idols under their clothing and according to the story God struck them down as punishment for their idolatry.

Now this uninspired book rejected as canonical by such notable early fathers as Melito of Sardis, Athanasius the

Bishop of Alexandria, and Jerome as well as Pope Gregory the Great and at least 50 other major ecclesiastical writers up to the time the

Reformation including Cardinal Cayetan, the prelate who interviewed Luther, says that the

Jewish leader offered prayers and sacrifices for these dead soldiers.

It seems that any connection at all with death is sufficient at this point for obviously since idolatry is a mortal sin and would send one not to purgatory but to hell itself this passage is hardly supportive of the doctrine we examined tonight.

At the very best it would have to be said that the passage indicates an error in thinking on the part of the

Jews but given its highly unusual and idiosyncratic nature and the fact that no canonical scripture supports it, its very use begins to illustrate for us the highly questionable nature of purgatory as a dogma of the

Christian faith. When we come to the earliest centuries of the Christian Church we find no doctrine of purgatory.

What we find fairly early on are prayers for the dead often cited even by my learned opponent this evening as evidence of at least an implicit concept of purgatory yet as historians such as Legoff point out these primitive prayers are actually contradictory to the modern concept of purgatory.

They pray for their loved ones that they might have refrigerium, refreshment and yet this is couched in terms of the pleasures of paradise a state defined as peace and light.

Mormon comments that refrigerium referred to heavenly happiness and that quote among later

Christian writers refrigerium is used in a general way to denote the joys of the world beyond the grave promised by God to the elect end quote.

Neal upon collating and studying ancient liturgical sources concluded quote that prayers for the dead have been from the beginning the practice of the

Universal Church but number two and this without any idea of a purgatory of pain or of any state from which the departed soul has to be delivered as from one of misery end quote.

The ease with which modern apologists for Roman Catholicism point these prayers without taking serious note of their character and the lack of a meaningful context by which to make them truly supportive of their case should give us reason to examine their claims more carefully.

Indeed Tertullian upon making reference to making oblations on the anniversary of someone's death frankly admitted quote if you look in Scripture for a formal law governing these and similar practices you will find none.

It is tradition that justifies them custom that confirms them and faith that observes them end quote.

What a strange strange statement if in fact the passages Roman Catholic apologists cite are in fact relevant.

Evidently Tertullian recognized that this was merely a practice not a doctrine let alone a dogma.

How time transformed this simple practice into something wholly different. The chief architects of the earliest concepts that led to purgatory only decrease our confidence in the doctrine.

In the east we have Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Both wrote extensively and much of what they said would not be believed by almost anyone here this evening

Catholic or Protestant. Both engaged in allegorical interpretation that was devoid of meaningful exegetical content and while Origen did know both

Greek and Hebrew his view of Scripture as having all sorts of levels of meaning led him to ignore the literal historical grammatical meaning and focus upon an allegedly higher spiritual meaning.

Both likewise were influenced more by Plato than they were by Paul leading to a strange in fact unorthodox theology.

Both men were led into wild speculations especially in regard to the idea of a corrective punitive cleansing of the soul.

This idea came primarily from Greek philosophy and dualism surely not from Scripture.

At the same time non -canonical Gnostic influenced works such as the

Apocalypse of Peter or the Apocalypse of Paul likewise present a concept of the afterlife derived not from the

Bible but from Greek philosophy. These works despite their non -canonical status deeply influenced the rise of purgatorial thinking in the

Middle Ages. In the West we find Augustine strangely giving credence to a concept of purgation as well though as he likewise believed in predestination election and the idea that saving faith is a gift of God he melded these concepts into a strangely inconsistent hole that led him to believe that such sufferings would only avail for the elect and none others.

He was influenced in his thinking by his mother's dying request to be remembered in his prayers. But most importantly we find a full half millennia after the founding of the church

Gregory Bishop of Rome known as Pope Gregory the Great today. This man's theology was a mess quite simply.

He was at best a semi Pelagian who gave tremendous weight to the idea of merit and works.

He did not believe man was dead in sin but only wounded or sick. He was ignorant of both

Greek and Hebrew and knew absolutely nothing of biblical backgrounds as well. He would not have made it out of any decent undergraduate

Bible program today I can guarantee you that. Yet he wrote extensively putting his manifest ignorance on paper.

One of his works complete after he became Pope was a work on Job filled with the most inane and silly allegorical interpretation.

Schaff gives us an illustration of Gregory's thinking in this work. Here's some of the words. The names of persons and things the numbers and even the syllables of the book of Job are filled with mystic meaning.

Job represents Christ. His wife the carnal nature. His seven sons seven being the number of perfection represent the apostles and hence the clergy.

His three daughters the three classes of the faithful laity who are to worship the

Trinity of course. His friends are the heretics the 7 ,000 sheep the perfect Christians the 3 ,000 camels the heathen and Samaritans the 500 yoke of oxen and 500 she asses again represent the heathen.

That was Gregory's interpretation of the book of Job. Ironically this same work contains

Gregory's rejection of Maccabees as a canonical work but it was another work of Gregory interestingly enough cited by the

Catholic Catechism called the dialogues that is of importance to us tonight. These dialogues between Gregory and the

Roman Archdeacon Peter abound as Schaff says quote an incredible marvels and visions of the state of departed souls end quote.

Gregory admits that he is transmitting hearsay only and did not himself see any of these alleged visions.

This is the work however that becomes foundational to the development in the

Middle Ages of the doctrine that became dogma at the Council of Florence yet nine hundred years in the future.

And so we have the beginnings of what would eventually become the modern dogma of purgatory scattered references from origin the allegorist who believed that even

Satan himself would be saved and who likewise believed in the pre -existence of souls.

Tertullian who became a Montanist Augustine who was deeply influenced by his mother's request and whose exegesis of Matthew 12 ignored the simple parallel passage in Mark 3 that as we shall see renders

Matthew 12 irrelevant to its use by Rome today. And most importantly Gregory who could not even read the original languages offered allegorical interpretation the place of true exegesis and who passed on hearsay stories about visions of the afterlife that became central to the development of the concept of purgatory during the

Middle Ages. Indeed did not Peter warn us about what happens when untaught and unstable persons distort the scriptures he certainly did.

Now time precludes delving much into the development of the actual dogma of purgatory primarily in the 12th century and its elevation to the status of dogma by the

Council of Florence in the 15th century. A council history shows to have been political in nature one that could hardly be said to have seriously considered anything of an exegetical or biblical nature.

Indeed Florence if you read the history of it spent more time worrying about where to put the chairs for the seating of the

Greek delegates than it did on the study of the Bible. Yet the modern Catholic Church views

Florence as the 17th ecumenical council and the modern catechism relies upon Florence and Trent as we've heard to define purgatory in section 1031 despite the fact that it was likewise

Florence that gave us these words words which are so easily understood in their original context but which ring so very hollow in today's ecumenical setting these are the words quote it firmly believes professes and proclaims that those not living within the

Catholic Church not only pagans but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the church of benefit for salvation and do fastings almsgiving and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward and that no one whatever almsgiving he has practiced even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ can be saved unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the

Catholic Church end quote I don't know about you but such a history does not recommend it to my thinking as something worthy of my faith in a sense

I cannot help but think of the words of scripture to the law and to the testimony if they speak not in accordance to this word there is no light in them

Isaiah 820 and so we now turn to the few passages that have been pressed into service by Rome to substantiate the dogma that is purgatory

I hope you have your Bibles with you this evening 2nd Maccabees chapter 12 has already been addressed in the few comments that I made earlier in regards to idolatry

Matthew chapter 12 verses 31 to 32 say therefore I say to you any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people but blasphemy against the

Spirit shall not be forgiven whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man shall be forgiven him but whoever speaks against the

Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven him either in this age or in the age to come the assertion is that the phrase either in this age or in the age to come indicates the possibility of the forgiveness at least of temporal punishments of sin in the age to come after this life the problem with that is that a basic work of exegesis is that when you are studying especially the synoptic

Gospels you see if there is a parallel passage that will help to shed light upon what is being intended there is a parallel passage it is marked chapter 3 verses 28 through 29 here we read truly

I say to you all sin shall be forgiven the sons of men and whatever blasphemies they utter but whoever blasphemes against the

Holy Spirit never has forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin there is the meaning of what

Jesus is saying in Matthew 12 he is not in any way shape or form suggesting the possibility of forgiveness in a future age he is saying that the sin is an eternal sin it is an unforgivable sin and that of course is the context of Matthew chapter 12 it is the unpardonable sin the next passage to look at is first Corinthians chapter 3 and I think we'll probably end up spending most of our time here in the biblical discussion because it is foundational to the concept but as no text exists without a context please note that there is a context this passage it begins in verse 8 now he who plants and he who waters are one but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor for we are

God's fellow workers you are God's field God's building 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

Christ Jesus now if any man builds on the foundation with gold silver precious stones wood haystraw 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 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 now context is the determining factor here

Paul is talking about ministers in the church in the previous section he's been talking about he and Apollos and Cephas and others and he said he has laid a foundation let a man be careful how he builds upon the foundation that Paul has laid the two individuals who are tested our leaders in the church who had good and godly motivations in what they did and leaders in the church with bad motivations you see the problem is we can't always tell which one's which we can't in this life necessarily see the motivations that fill the heart of man but there will come a day when those motivations will be revealed each leaders work is tested it is their work that is tested not their souls there's nothing here about temporal punishments of sins notice that even the godly leader every godly leader is tested in this way are we to believe that every godly leader will go to purgatory there are no saints who have done anything in the church certainly not notice the text says it is the quality of their works that is tested not punished there's a vast difference between testing the quality of a work or punishing someone for the temporal punishments their sins the fire reveals of what sort is the work it tells us what we can't see now is it made of gold is it made of precious stones that have the right motivation or is it wood hay and straw merely something a person did for their own benefit in their own glory all leaders face this test not merely those with temporal punishments the fire reveals that does not purge and is used on all and hence cannot be a reference to purgatory in any way shape or form to suffer loss is to lose reward in the passage not experience saddest passio the suffering of atonement which is what one experiences in purgatory and as Roman Catholic McBride admits there is for all practical purposes no biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory this is not to say there's no basis at all for the doctrine but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it and quote what then in the last 10 minutes we have together is the biblical case against purgatory

I believe the entire doctrine is based upon unbiblical and anti -biblical concepts time is short very short so let's summarize the problems fundamentally their errors concerning sin for example there is the distinction of sin into mortal and venial categories and already first John chapter 5 verses 16 through 17 has been made reference to which speaks of a sin unto death and a sin not unto death but even as Roman Catholic exegete

Raymond Brown admits this passage refers to a form of apostasy not anything else in fact he says quote we should avoid identifying sin unto death with mortal sin and a sin not unto death with venial sin and quote that's a

Roman Catholic exegete making that statement there is also errors in confusing God's fatherly chastening of his children with judicial temporal punishments that must be propitiated before we enter into the presence of God there is a vast difference between the fact that God conforms us the image of Christ that he disciplines us as we read in Hebrews chapter 12 verses 4 through 11 notice very quickly some of those words from Hebrews 12 you have not yet resisted the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin and you have forgotten the exhortation which is dressed you as sons my son do not regard lightly the discipline of the

Lord nor faint when you are reproved by him for those whom the Lord loves he disciplines and he scourges every son whom he receives that is discipline not judicial punishment for the temporal punishments of sins and there is a vast difference between the work of the

Holy Spirit in sanctifying us and conforming us the image of Christ and the idea that we cannot enter into his presence because we died justified yet impure an athlete that disciplines himself in training is obviously not punishing himself that discipline leads him toward ever higher achievements and that is what we experience in the

Christian life but this single error leads to an even worse error the functional denial of the all -sufficiency of the work of Christ in behalf of his people and here is the true reason why we must gather together this evening and why those who said that doesn't sound like an interesting topic obviously don't understand what the topic speaks to begin with Peter taught in first Peter 224 that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross if we believe in a substitutionary atonement we cannot believe in the teaching of the

Council of Trent that says it is possible to die justified yet impure those two words don't go together the biblical teaching is found in these words 2nd

Corinthians 521 he made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf in our place substitutionary atonement so that we might become the righteousness of God in him and don't be confused the word we might become does not indicate some uncertainty it is a purpose clause the reason that he became sin was so that we would become the righteousness of God in him that righteousness that is ours admits of no imperfection the reason that we have peace with God is because the righteousness that has been imputed to us is perfect and whole

Paul brought this out in Romans chapter 4 verses 6 through 8 when he said just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom

God credits righteousness imputes righteousness like it's the my is the

Greek term to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven not held against them so there's temporal punishments to be paid and whose sins have been covered if they're covered as they were on the mercy seat how can

I have to suffer for them before I can enter into God's presence verse 8 says blessed is the man whose sin the

Lord will not take into account the non -imputation of sin is the very foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ it helps us to understand how it is we can have true

Shalom true peace with him and yet we are told that we must undergo satis passio the suffering of atonement and purgatory before our souls are cleansed and we can then enter into the presence of God that means we would stand before God and when you take into consideration the entire sacramental system of the

Roman Catholic Church you would be standing before God cleansed in the righteous deeds of Christ Mary and the

Saints from the treasury of merit and your own suffering I say to you the only person who can stand before God and have peace before his throne today is the person who stands clothed not in a tattered garment made of different patches but the seamless and whole garment of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ Paul says in Romans chapter 5 but God demonstrates his own love toward us and that while we were yet sinners

Christ died for us much more than having now been justified how by his blood we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him there is no more condemnation there is no more wrath for those who are in Christ so what are we experiencing in purgatory we're told today well it's it's suffering that removes self -love it's not a wrathful type of suffering no because all those who are in purgatory are going to enter into the presence of God so God's wrath does not come against sin and its punishments it's not judicial we'll need to find out how that's understood for if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God the reconciliation has taken place through the death of his son much more having been reconciled we shall be saved by his lifetime is going by far too quickly but let me close these thoughts the book of Hebrews says the

Lord Jesus Christ the former priests on the one hand existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing but Jesus on the other hand because he continues forever holds his priesthood permanently therefore he is able to save completely forever those who draw near to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them let me ask a question does not

Christ work in burying our sins in his body upon the tree did he not experience the fullness and the depth of all of God's wrath due to those sins is that not why he is able to save the uttermost for when he presents that perfect work before the throne of God it is a complete and perfect work there is nothing missing there is no need for me to add anything to it my sufferings cannot enable

Christ to save me his sufferings in my behalf are more than enough more than sufficient was not the wrath that was due for every one of my sins experienced by my substitute in my place that is the only basis that we have for peace with God and so the subject this evening is a vital subject and it would be very it would be very common in our society for us to say well look we all believe many things together

I've written a book on the Trinity and and I think all of you whether Catholic or Protestant listen on some

Jehovah's Witnesses snuck in would like most of the things that I said there and if you're here great glad you're here most of you agree with the things

I said there but my friends I want you to understand why we must forthrightly discuss this issue this evening

I still got one minute on my that's right why we must forthrightly discuss the issue this evening just kidding why must we do so Paul wrote a book called

Galatians and he shared with the Galatian teachers a great body of belief we have no indication that the

Galatian teachers denied the deity of Christ the physical resurrection fact we know they preach that Christ is the Messiah and you need to believe in him but Paul because of his love for the gospel and his love for people did not focus upon what they shared in common because he knew that the very truth of the gospel itself was at stake in what was being taught in those churches

I say to you tonight the truth of the gospel is what we are discussing this evening and that's why we come here

I hope that's why you have come here may God bless you for so doing thank you very much thank you both we now have our time for what are called here planet no

I'm sorry rebuttals rebuttals 15 minutes of rebuttals father Stravinsky's will begin and then we'll turn back

I didn't set this right last time

I'm technologically challenged at the outset

I implicitly alluded to a problem that I thought we might be encountering this evening namely that proof texting is a dangerous game no one other than Martin Luther knew this so well and so he made the witty remark once that relying solely on Scripture he could prove that drinking beer was better than drinking wine seriously though just as God listens to whole sentences and not isolated words we have to as well nor can we approach the

Word of God with pre with our preconceived notions many of which do not have their origins with the origins of Christianity but centuries and sometimes a millennium or more later notions which have the effect of eviscerating texts before we ever get to them simply because we know what conclusions we have to arrive at even before the search has begun now in all kindness the problem for dr.

white and his theological fellow travelers is very simple how can one put words into sentences without a magisterium if as a matter of fact the scriptures are so plain and so evident how is it that from the 16th century rebellion of Martin Luther one man today there are 28 ,000

Protestant denominations all claiming to understand clearly the

Word of God obviously something doesn't fit into the equation I just want to enter that into the hopper to start with one of the issues that we have to look at is this whole notion of sin repentance and forgiveness to be sure almighty

God forgives but that does not mean that punishment does not necessarily remain in the book of Numbers for example after Moses is sin we can be reasonably certain that he was repentant and that God forgave him but a punishment remained he could not enter the promised land in 2nd

Samuel 12 David could not be more abjectly repentant and we have

Psalm 51 as the clearest evidence of a man's incredible repentance and yet in 2nd

Samuel Nathan informs him that a punishment is going to be exacted namely the death of the child of adultery in Matthew 526 our

Lord speaks about the fact that so in it one of his parables that someone will not get out of jail until he has paid the last penny there is as a matter of fact and quid pro quo element involved here and we know this simply from human experience as well if a child breaks a window and runs in and says to his mother or father mommy

I'm sorry and the kid is and the parent knows it is that going to stop the parent from grounding the kid for the next week or for saying for the rest of the summer you can't play ball in the backyard of course not these are not mutually exclusive categories in Luke 19 we see the conversion experience of Zacchaeus who repents of his wicked career as a tax collector and he is clearly accepted by the

Lord but the sign of his repentance is his commitment to restitution and I would suggest it is a necessary sign of repentance otherwise the repentance can ring rather hollow that's of course why even repentant murderers still do jail time the confession of the sin if you will is not sufficient that is why in the sacramental system of the

Catholic Church it is not enough for someone to say either to God privately or to the priest individually

I am sorry there has to be a purpose of amendment and a work of satisfaction which demonstrates a commitment to a repented new way of life dr.

white mentioned at the beginning when he referred to as the sacramentalism of Catholicism versus the centrism of his approach to Christianity I would like to suggest that the sacramentalism of the

Catholic Church is intensely and absolutely theocentric as a matter of fact

God the sacramental system of the Catholic Church makes present and celebrates would

God in Christ does for us not what we do for ourselves a sacrament the principal minister of every sacrament of the church is

Jesus Christ that's why for example in the long history of the church we've never been too concerned about saints or sinners either being priests because we know that the effectiveness of a sacrament does not depend on the worthiness of the minister because the principal minister of the sacrament is

Jesus Christ himself citing individual fathers of the church for or against something can be a kind of patristic version of proof proof texting as well and as a matter of fact someone like Cardinal Newman made the point as he began his intense study of the fathers of the church as an

Anglican that this could be a very problematical exercise precisely because individual fathers do not represent the teaching of the

Catholic Church individually it is the sum total of the tradition of the church which represents the teaching of the church as that is revealed to her gradually but effectively through the work of the

Holy Spirit the question of prayers for the dead

I think need to be looked at a little more carefully we find the data as I indicated earlier in the catacombs for example in which we find inscriptions like this sweet Faustina may you live in God Peter and Paul pray for Victor Peter and Paul remembers

Azim and whoever reads this now as a matter of fact we have another whole issue here namely invoking

Saints and this is occurring already at the end of the first century which is to say in the lifetime of people who would have been evangelized by the

Apostles Peter and Paul if they can't get the story straight we're all in an incredible mess we find in North Africa the stories of the martyrs of martyrdoms of perpetua and felicity and admittedly this is a dream a vision that she has but it reveals something that is in keeping with a

Christian instinct and with what is already the practice of the church for a century and a half we read of how one of the martyrs saw in a dream her dead brother in torment causing her to pray for his deliverance the result of her prayer was that she saw him again cleansed and quote realized he had been released from his punishment in 211

Tertullian advised Christians to pray for their beloved dead on the anniversaries of their passing from this world and whatever the weaknesses of Tertullian were as a matter of fact he's not enunciating a new doctrine because precisely because of the difficulties that he had in other areas people would have been very quick to point out that he was as a matter of fact creating a theological novelty dr.

white alluded to st. Augustine and his mother Monica and he made it sound as some sort of sentimentalism that he was fulfilling the dying wish of a silly old lady as a matter of fact she says quite properly all in the context for it for those of you not familiar with his confessions

Augustine and his brother are hovering over the deathbed of their mother and they're arguing about where to plant her when she breathes her last not exactly a delicate bedtime conversation or deathbed conversation at any rate the old lady props herself up with incredible dignity and decorum and says lay this old body anywhere all

I ask you is this that wherever you may be you will remember me at the altar of the

Lord which is the language of the time for saying please pray for me at mass at the offering of the

Eucharistic sacrifice furthermore we can't talk about practices of the church in isolation from doctrine there is a practice precisely because there is a doctrine already in place we have a theological principle lex or on the lex credendi which very simply means that we can determine what the church believed at any given point in her history simply by picking up a liturgical book because what the words that we pray with are the words that we already believe to run around in search of particular scripture quotes in the

New Testament is a rather futile exercise in many ways for the simple reason that what books of the

New Testament were written already at that point let alone the fact that the New Testament canon didn't exist for how many centuries and interestingly finalized where in places like Hippo and Carthage North Africa precisely where we get

Tertullian and other fathers of the church talking about prayers for the dead and offering of the

Eucharist for the dead the doctrine of the

Trinity as it was later developed at Nicaea and Constantinople for example a doctrine enunciated in those terms which dr.

white and every self -respecting evangelical and fundamentalist would accept is as a matter of fact unable to be identified in the pages of the

New Testament and if anyone suggests it's possible I would love to see that conversation go a little farther it is impossible to suggest that what was taught definitively at those two councils and everything else in between has as a matter of fact parallel texts know that it is taught there absolutely that it's there implicitly there is no doubt but this gets us into the whole area of development of doctrine and the

Catholic Church has a very nuanced understanding and appreciation of the development of doctrine which is to say that there are many teachings that are in revelation at the outset there in seminal or implicit form that become clearer only with the passage of time those of you who are married know that or presumably the spouse with whom you've been living for 25 years you know better today than you did on the day of your wedding or the day you met or at least we should hope so and this is exactly the situation that is a parallel for the development of doctrine that the church the bride of Christ living with her bridegroom under the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit over a prolonged period of time centuries and now millennia comes to a deeper understanding and appreciation of truths which are only there in implicit form to begin with of course it's the fulfillment of the promise of Christ given in st.

John's gospel that in due time the Holy Spirit would lead his church into all truth to poke fun at an allegorical interpretation of scripture is somewhat unworthy as a matter of fact it is a process of biblical interpretation hallowed in Jewish tradition numerology is not some kind of Shirley Maclean ism just discovered today this was something law of long -standing in the

Judeo -christian tradition and trying to find connections between the symbols of words these men understood an awful lot more about scripture than any of us in this room all put together first of all they were living a heck of a lot closer to the

Christ event than we are and we have the disadvantage of distance we have the disadvantage in certain instances of disunity within the body of Christ causing jaundiced interpretations of passages that were very clearly understood at the outset the

Council of Florence was first of all most importantly a council of unity and to reduce it all to a game of ecclesiastical musical chairs is unworthy as well the seating of the candidates at the

Council of Florence was a serious attempt on the part of the Catholic Church to ensure that our brothers from the

Christian East who had bolted from Catholic unity several centuries before would find themselves a welcome place at the table of the church thank you proof texting is indeed a dangerous game however

I believe that it is Rome that has engaged in proof texting in regards to the issue of purgatory by ignoring the context of the passages that she has raised as we have already pointed out and I did not hear any response to the contextual reading of Matthew chapter 12 even 2nd

Maccabees 1st Corinthians 3 etc etc we were told that we cannot approach the

Bible with our preconceived notions because that means we'll have our conclusions known before the journey has begun may

I suggest that that is the exact reason why the faithful Roman Catholic has a problem doing the exegesis of Scripture once Rome has infallibly defined what she thinks a passage of Scripture teaches

I don't think that the Roman Catholic has the freedom to allow the Scriptures to teach what the

Scriptures teach because fundamentally the only way to know the Scriptures teach is to bow to a magisterium to an infallible pronouncement once the church has said that the bodily assumption is a dogma well then you need to find that in Revelation 12 or Luke 128 or wherever it might be that does not allow for the exegesis of the text we heard about 28 ,000 denominations

I know of many Catholic apologists who are now admitting that's a gross exaggeration of the actual meaningful number of denominations that exist but I would like to suggest to you as I suggested in the debate on solo scriptura number of years ago that the reason for a plurality of denominations is not because of solo scriptura it's because of not practicing solo scriptura and that those denominations that do practice solo scriptura are significantly significantly more united in what they believe than those organizations that practice the concept of the

Scripture plus an external infallible rule of faith to tell you what to believe there's far more unanimity amongst those of us who hold the

Scripture than those who have some infallible external authority now a number of passages were presented to us as if they present to us the idea there is a punishment that remains

Moses could not enter the promised land entering the promised land is a blessing again you must differentiate between a discipline and a legal punishment that must be extracted to bring about the purification of a soul before it can enter into the presence of God are we saying that that was a part of Moses is suffering to purify his soul in 2nd

Samuel it was told we specifically and I tried to write down exactly as I could the

David was told that a punishment is going to be extracted look at 2nd Samuel 1214 and find the word punishment for me it's not there again this is discipline not a legal punishment the last penny in Matthew chapter 5 well if we want to talk about exegesis let's talk about how we deal with parables and how parables have one point and that point that is forgiveness not something that goes beyond that to some idea that well you know you have pen you have penalties that are the pennies you're gonna have to pay in purgatory

I think we already established and I heard no refutation of the fact that it's Christ and his righteousness that already paid every last penalty for the person who believes in him we were told we were told that sacramentalism is theocentric because it is

Christ who is doing the sacrament the reason that I said what I said is that I have pointed out in a debate two years ago that you can approach under the cross of Christ in the sacrament of the

Eucharist 10 ,000 15 ,000 times in your life and yet die impure and have to go into purgatory to be purged the temple punishments of your sins if you can go the cross of Christ that many times and remain impure then my whole point is that is focused upon you not upon what

Christ has done upon the cross the biblical teaching is by one sacrifice he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified that is what

I was saying in regards to sacramentalism at that particular point I would like to point out that in regards these prayers to the dead found in the various things the various sources as I pointed out they are there to be found however

I also did not hear a response to Neil's statement that in studying them we discovered that no concept of purgatory of pain or suffering can be found within them and so I would challenge my opponent this evening show us where these prayers talk the ones that were read where they talk about redeeming the dead when they talk about shortening the time in purgatory where they talk about relieving the suffering of those in purgatory to my knowledge the first example of that is found the beginning of the sixth century that's a long ways down the road we were told that people in the first few centuries if they can't get it straight we were told then we're in a lot of trouble let me point something out to you to my knowledge and I'd be

I would invite correction at this point at mine to my knowledge the first reference to the phrase apostolic traditions the idea of a tradition passed on by the

Apostles outside of Scripture is found in Irenaeus's discussion of the age of Jesus when he died now

I don't think there's anyone in this room who believes that Irenaeus said Irenaeus claim and he's writing at the end of the second century he's early on and he says those who knew the

Apostles said that Jesus was almost 60 years old when he died now

I don't know of anybody here who believes that and if you don't believe it then you must believe that within one century tradition could get messed up that's why we need a scripture that can't get messed up we were told that the

New Testament canon does not come into existence until North Africa let me point something out since the canon is merely the self -limitation of God as to what he inspires it doesn't inspire all books he inspires some books that canon existed the instant that the last word was written it is the passive recognition of the church as Augustine put it the

Holy Spirit gives the canon to the church to be recognized the church doesn't create canon and isn't it interesting that it is

North Africa and Athanasius in 369 in his 39th Festal letter might be 364 who likewise gives a

New Testament canon before Hippo and Carthage and yet rejects the very books that the modern

Roman Catholic Church says are canonical and in fact uses to base the doctrine purgatory in second

Maccabees I think that is very interesting as well it was said that he would that my opponent would like to hear someone suggest that the doctrine of the

Trinity appears in its fullness in the pages New Testament may I step forward to do so I have written a fairly lengthy book demonstrating the reason why

I am a biblical Trinitarian to believe all of the scriptures is to be a

Trinitarian to accept the Bible's teaching that there's one true God that there are three divine persons and the equality of those persons to not believe any one of those things and those are the foundations the very pillars of the doctrine of the

Trinity is to reject some element of Scripture the very teaching of the doctrine of the

Trinity is not only found throughout the pages of Scripture but it is also found in the earliest of the patristic sources

Ignatius calls Jesus Christ our God 14 times in his genuine epistles he has

Trinitarian passages throughout his writings and he dies in 108 we're talking about the earliest writers here but I must admit that I become somewhat agitated when various doctrines that did not become dogma for a thousand years or more later in some cases almost two thousand years later are paralleled to the blessed truth of the doctrine of the

Trinity which is found throughout the pages of Scripture and from the earliest patristic sources the very same patristic sources that make no mention of the dogmas that are then defined under the concept of development such as the

Immaculate Conception the Bodily Assumption or the Doctrine of Purgatory Ignatius knew nothing of it and yet he knew of the deity of Christ and the

Trinity how do those things fit together we were told that the Roman Catholic Church has a very nuanced understanding of the development of doctrine

I should say so the church has had to nuance even John Henry Cardinal Newman's development of the development doctrine to be able to explain how the fourth ladder and counsel could give plenary indulgences to anyone who took up the sword to exterminate the heretic and how then

Vatican 2 would then go and say that you cannot use force and religious matters you've got a nuanced development to make that work you've got to nuance the statements today about Muslims and the idea of if you follow the right teachings of whatever religion you're in and you're pure in your thoughts and so on so forth you can still gain eternal life with what the

Council of Florence said yeah you've got to nuance those things because things have changed but nuancing does not make it true and the question

I would ask you is do you want a system that has a basis that allows you to teach one gospel from day one until the end of time or a system that because of its nuanced definitions gives you a gospel in one century that differs in great particulars from the gospel a thousand years later who at the

Council of Nicaea taught the doctrine of purgatory who at the Council of Nicaea taught the

Immaculate Conception who at the Council of Nicaea believed in papal infallibility or believed in the bodily assumption of Mary there were none and yet did they not have the gospel the idea of a marriage situation was presented and we all get to know our spouses better over time or at least we better or we're in a lot of trouble

I have a lovely wife and a wonderful family we're coming up on our 19th wedding anniversary she was only two we got married and so it's one of those

Eastern things you know and mountains of North Carolina or something like that I don't know and I definitely continue to learn new things about my wife however

I knew what her name was when we got married and when we talk about doctrines and dogmas that are not little acorns but utterly unknown in the early centuries development doesn't work that's called evolution that's called a fundamental change and it's not based as I have already presented

I've heard no rebuttal of the information I've presented to you that this dogma of purgatory develops not because of the exegesis of the text of Scripture and not because of some tradition that the

Apostles pass on that's not found in Scripture it's extra biblical sources that give rise not only to the dogma of purgatory but certainly to the other dogmas that have been defined such as the

Immaculate Conception bodily assumptions so on and so forth that's how it functions was said that it was unworthy to poke fun at allegorical interpretation when the

Jehovah's Witnesses engaged in the same kind of interpretation to turn the hundred and 44 ,000 into the only people who are in the

New Covenant or when they use it to come up with their 1914 prophecy I think we have very good biblical warrant for quote -unquote poking fun at allegorical interpretation please remember something yes the

Jews had a long history of it and Jesus rebuked them for ignoring the plain meaning of Scripture in Matthew chapter 15 and so it depends on whether we as we as Christians want to follow his example and repudiate origin and his allegorical interpretation and his wild flights of fancy based upon his ignorance of the

Old Testament text and his ignorance of the background of the Jews and recognize that because the split between the

Jewish Church and the Christian Church there is a tremendous ignorance on the part of most people regarding what the

Old Testament was all about how can you ever understand the book of Hebrews if you don't know the Old Testament you see when we talked about right toward the end it sort of fit together here very nicely we're so far removed these people were much closer in many ways folks that's the exact opposite of the truth in many ways you sitting here today who have the availability of the

Word of God in its fullness availability of the languages availability of the historical backgrounds are far closer to the apostolic period in your understanding than people who lived within only a few centuries who were ignorant of the

Old Testament ignorant of the historical setting ignorant of the background we have far more availability to us today than many people who live for centuries during the course of Christian history when it is said to the

Council of Florence is a council of unity I simply invite you go read the histories go read the text yourself don't go read some some biased history on either side go read a secular history the

Council of Florence and find out for yourself what really went on there and whether you want to submit yourself to the authority of a council and what went on in that particular place and now in closing moment of my rebuttal let me refocus our attention 1st

Corinthians 3 doesn't teach purgatory Matthew 12 doesn't teach purgatory even 2nd