Debate: Is Purgatory Biblical? (White vs Sungenis)

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated and is protected by copyright laws of the

United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated is prohibited.

Welcome to tonight's debate. The moderator tonight is

Kelly Reed. He has received his Bachelor's Degree from San Diego Christian College, double majoring in Bible and Theology, and Music with a minor in Psychology.

He received the highest honor awarded from the school, a faculty award the year he graduated. He holds a

Master's Degree from Biola University in Organizational Leadership and will graduate in the spring with his

Master of Divinity from Liberty Theological Seminary with an emphasis on Christian leadership. You guys are in for a very special treat tonight.

We have these two lovely gentlemen that I'll introduce to you in one second.

But the debate tonight is Purgatory is a Doctrine of the

Christian Faith and is supported by the Holy Scriptures. And Dr. Robert St.

Genes takes the affirmative on that, and Dr. White will be opposed. Dr. St.

Genes is to my right, your left, and he is the

President of Catholic Apologetics International, an international evangelistic organization dedicated to teaching and defending the

Catholic faith, which you could also check out online at www .catholicintl

.com. He has his Bachelor, Master's, and Doctorate in Religious Studies from Westminster Seminary.

He's written 12 books on Catholic apologetics. There's one that you can grab in the lobby during the break time.

This is just one of them, How Can I Get to Heaven? He's been on EWTN, CNN, BBC, Defending Catholic Doctrines.

He's a father of 11 children. His wife is a saint.

I have 11 children. I just have a saint. This is recorded, right?

We'll make sure that she sees that. Dr. James White, to my left, is the

Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization, the author of more than 20 books.

This is one of his out in the lobby, Scripture Alone, that you may want to look at, thumb through, and pick up.

James is a professor, accomplished debater, and an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

James also hosts the Dividing Light podcast at www .aomin .org.

Are you still at Phoenix Baptist? We'll find out soon enough. He's been a professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

But other than that, we will begin. The basic rules for the audience, for you guys, is kind of audience etiquette, if you will, is to keep your applause until the very end of the conclusion and closing comments, as well as don't shout out anything, don't boo, piss.

I don't know if you would, but just to allow these gentlemen to share with you,

I would encourage you also to dig into your word if you brought your Bibles with you as well.

And there's also going to be an opportunity where you'll be able to actually write down questions that you have for either of these gentlemen to ask.

So it should be a very stimulating night. Can I pray to start the night off?

Dear Heavenly Father, Lord, I just thank you for these two men and the opportunity, Lord, to dig into your word on a subject that many of us may not even know the definition to,

Lord. But God, I pray that tonight, that as we examine your scriptures, Lord, I also pray that we would do this with any subject in your word,

God, that we would dig into your word, taking away our own biases or our experiences or things that may cloud our ideas,

Lord, that get in the way of your word. So Lord, allow your Holy Spirit to truly penetrate hearts tonight as we desire to grasp such a subject.

We pray this in your beautiful Son's name. Amen. So Dr. Roberts and Janice will begin with an opening statement.

It will be about 25 minutes, so. You ready?

I'm ready. Okay, so we're here to talk about Purgatory, a

Catholic doctrine. I think the place to start with this topic is why

Purgatory? Why does the Catholic Church believe in Purgatory? As I go through my opening statements here,

I'm going to keep asking that question, why, and give you the answer. Granted that Purgatory is not directly accessible in many passages of the

Bible. It's not overflowing in Scripture, and that kind of trips many people up, because Bible believers, and I'm a

Bible believer just like you are, want to see very explicit teaching in Scripture, and you find it in any book of the

Bible kind of thing. Well, you're not going to get that with Purgatory. There are many people, and I don't think

James is among them, who believe in infant baptism. But there's actually not one verse of Scripture that talks about infant baptism.

That doctrine is believed by those denominations, Protestants, because after a thorough analysis of all of the

Scripture, an analysis of what salvation is all about, an analysis of how

God treated the people in the Old Testament, you put this all together, and in their view you come out with infant baptism.

Now I happen to agree with that view. That's another doctrine the Catholics believe that we extract from a total sum of passages in the

Bible in principial analysis. There's no direct passage that teaches infant baptism.

Purgatory is like that. You have to take the whole ball of wax, and you arrive at this doctrine,

Purgatory. However, there are specific passages that we can point to that lead us in that direction, and then

I'm going to go through those with you right now. For example, one of those is the Apocalypse.

Some people call it Revelation. I call it the Apocalypse. Apocalypse 21, verse 27 says,

Nothing impure will enter the kingdom of heaven. Nothing impure will enter the kingdom of heaven.

Now if we take that literally, and not just a figure of speech, and the reason

I say that is because there's a lot of things in the Apocalypse that are symbolic, that you don't take literally.

This is one of those passages that we do take literally. Nothing impure will enter the kingdom of heaven.

No idolaters, no whoremongers, and he goes on and on with his list of sinners. Now Protestants have a particular way of arriving at this pure state, and they say that Christ's righteousness covers their sins, to be very casual about that analysis.

I know there's much more to it than that, but that's the basic idea. Christ's righteousness covers your sin. When God looks at you,

He doesn't see your sin because Christ is covering it. He's looking at Christ. I understand that.

I was a Protestant for 18 years. I understand that concept. The Catholic says that the way we are made pure to enter the kingdom of heaven is intrinsically.

God makes us pure, as if He washed us in a washing machine, and we came out pure, and then we were ready to enter the kingdom of heaven.

It's not like we are this big black mass of coal, and He puts a white garment over it, and that is allowed to go to heaven.

Catholic says, no, He changes us to the ball itself. He changes that from black to white, and that's made pure and it can go to heaven.

So you have two different concepts working here. Now, the way we support the doctrine of purgatory is we first make this principal statement.

When we sin and are justified, as Paul talks about being justified in Romans 4, for example, the guilt of sin is taken away, but not the temporal punishment of that sin.

The guilt of sin is taken away, and when that's taken away, then there is no eternal punishment, because you're not guilty for that sin anymore.

The eternal punishment is taken away. Because, as Paul says, for any sin you're eternally damnable.

So the guilt of that sin is taken away, so you're not eternally punished, but the temporal punishment remains.

Now, how do we prove this? Well, there's many examples in the Bible. First of all, in Romans 4,

Paul talks about David being justified from his sin. And his sin, as he recalls for us in Psalm 32 and Psalm 51, is that he committed adultery with Bathsheba, and then he murdered her husband,

Uriah the Hittite. In the Catholic Church, we call those mortal sins. Deadly sins, because those two sins will send anyone to hell.

Murder and adultery. And you can read about Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 and 12, and you can read about other sins that David did.

For example, in 1 Chronicles 21 verses 1 -24, David took a census of Israel because he didn't trust

God to be with the armies of Israel. He wanted an exact count of how many soldiers he had, basically, to see if it was worthy to go out and fight.

And God took that as a sign that David didn't trust God. It was a big sin, because David was basically rejecting

God. And in that passage, in 1 Chronicles 21,

God gives David a choice of three punishments. For three years, there will be famine in the land.

For three years. For three months, he will be chased by his enemies.

Or, the third one is, for three days, he will be in the hands of God, and God will determine the punishment.

And David figures, well, okay, I will allow God to punish me, because I trust

Him. He'll be lenient. And so he does. So what does this tell us? Why am I going through this?

Well, it tells us that David's sin of adultery and murder were forgiven. The guilt was taken away.

And David was still going to go to heaven, but he was still punished for those sins. He was punished when he committed adultery with Bathsheba because God said,

I'm going to take the son that's born from that union. And David was very upset about that.

And not only that, but all your daughters are going to be raped. And they were raped by, all your wives, rather, are going to be raped.

And they were raped by his own sons. So that's a very, very fierce punishment.

David didn't get away with anything. The guilt was remitted, but not the temporal punishment. Same thing with the census.

When David took the census, God forgave him of his sin, but the temporal punishment was remained, and he went through it.

And as a matter of fact, we can even say that David received an indulgence at this time, if you know what

Catholic indulgences are. Because when God administered the punishment, he killed 70 ,000

Israelites. And even God was so alarmed at the punishment that it says he was grieved at what was going on and told the angel to come down and stop the punishment.

And David saw the angel come down and he says, please don't come down anymore. And the angel went back up to heaven and the angel told

David, well, if you don't want me to come down anymore, I want you to go offer a sacrifice. So he goes to Arunah and he pays him 600 shekels to buy animals to sacrifice to God.

And once the sacrifice is made, the angel goes all the way up to heaven and doesn't come down anymore. So here

David pays an amount of money, he sacrifices and he has a confirmation from God that the punishment is over.

So in that sense, we have an indulgence, you see. So the principles are there in scripture. The question is, do these principles carry over from our life into the afterlife?

That's the next question we have to answer. Do the principles carry over? Well, Matthew 12, 31 -32 gives us information that it does carry over.

Because in that passage Jesus is talking about the blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit and he says that that sin will never be forgiven either in this world or the other world.

Some say the next world. Some say in the next age. It depends because that Greek verb there melody is very ambiguous.

The idea is there that if it's not going to be forgiven here or there, that implies that there are some sins that will be forgiven there.

Otherwise it would be superfluous for Jesus to say it's not going to be forgiven here or there. This one particular sin.

So that's where we start with this idea that there is another place where sins are taken care of.

Now this is the same reason why Christians prayed for the dead. And I think James will admit that Christians did pray for the dead.

At least that's what he says in his book. James, if you remember this book, The Fatal Flaw.

He wrote that many years ago. But it's one of my favorites that he's written. On page 77 he admits there that Christians did pray for the dead.

So he knows that is a tradition of the church. And it's the same reason why many church fathers taught about purgatory and prayers for the dead.

For example, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and the great

Augustine all believed and taught in purgatory and prayers for the dead. So we do have a pedigree in history of the church fathers.

Now this is interesting too because if you've studied her church history, you know that the church was very strict on heresies at these times.

In the first four years, the first four centuries rather, of the church's history. The church was very cautious about doctrine.

And that's when she made the Doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, and the Holy Spirit, and all those very important things that we still hold to today.

The church condemned all heretical ideas surrounding those doctrines. So we would figure that if the church thought that purgatory and prayers for the dead was heretical, she would have condemned it a long time ago.

Not only did she not condemn it, but she actually enforced the deep teaching of the fathers in 1220 -24 at the

Council of Lyons, in 1439 at the Council of Florence, and in 1563 at the

Council of Trent. Made them dogmas of the church. And it's for the same reason that Augustine taught that 1

Corinthians 3 .15 teaches the doctrine of purgatory. Now this is going to be the passage

I spend most of my time on, and if you have a Bible, turn to that with me and I'll exegete it for you.

Now, let me just preface it by saying in the Corinthian church, they're having problems. Paul begins his letter by pointing out a problem, and that is that he hears from Chloe's people that there are quarrels and divisions among you in verse 11 of chapter 1.

And he finds out that the Corinthians are boasting against one another. Some say, I'm with Apollo, some with Cephas, some with Christ, blah blah, back and forth.

And he says in verse 3 of chapter 3 that there is jealousy and strife among them, and then in the latter part of chapter 3 he says, let no one boast against another, so on and so on.

This church has a lot of problems, okay? So in the midst of this he comes and talks about this building of the temple, building of something with gold, silver, precious stones and wood, hay, or straw in verse 12.

So we know that there's a division of building materials here. Gold, silver, precious stones imply that these are the good material, and wood, hay, and straw are of course the bad material.

And then he says each man's work will become evident, and I'm reading from the New American Standard Bible in case you want to know, for the day, but he doesn't tell us what the day is.

It could be any day, but he says 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.

So there's a testing here of what they're building with. Part of this is metaphorical, obviously.

We have to know what the metaphor applies to. It applies to the building of the church.

What that implies is that it applies to how they preach the gospel, how they live among one another.

Jealousy and strife, for example, would not be a good way to live one another and build the temple of God. Preaching the gospel of Christ crucified, as he says in chapter 2, would be a way of building with gold, silver, and precious stones.

And then he says the fire will test the quality of each man's work, each man, individually. And then it says in verse 14, if any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.

Now this reward could apply to heaven itself, it could apply to a personal reward, he doesn't say. It could apply to both.

The fact is, he's going to receive a reward if he does good work. Then in verse 15, he says if any man's work is burned up, and he's still talking a little metaphorically here, he shall suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so is through fire.

Now here's the crucial passage. It's a little difficult to understand because Paul seems to shift back and forth between metaphor and reality.

And it's actually through the whole passage he does this. And then in verse 16, and I'll come back to verse 15 in a second.

In verse 16 it says, do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the spirit of God dwells in you?

If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him. The temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

So here, let me start from verse 17. Verse 17 is very ominous. If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him.

Well that doesn't sound like purgatory, does it? If God's going to destroy someone that sounds like hell itself.

That's the normal way these words are used in scripture. So we have two opposing ideas here.

One in verse 14 where he receives a reward and we all know what that reward refers to.

It refers to a personal reward in heaven. Well that means he's in heaven. So you have heaven given in verse 14.

You have hell because I can't find any other description for this verse in verse 17.

So what do you have in between? Well you have an in -between state in verse 15. If his work is burned up, in other words he has partially destroyed the temple because he's filled it with wood, hay, and straw.

But not sufficiently enough where God says, okay, because you've done this, I'm going to destroy you.

No, it says his work is burned up and he will suffer loss, but he will be saved.

Just as the man in verse 14. And here comes the crucial passage, yet so is through fire.

So what does all that mean? And so is through fire. Now, in order to get to that I'm going to have to critique what

Dr. White has said about this passage. Dr. White in page 194 of the

Roman Catholic Controversy that's this book right here Dr.

White says this This judgment, referring to the judgment in 1 Corinthians chapter 3, verse 15 is not a judgment relative to sin, but to works and rewards.

Okay? Now that's a premise that he's made. That's a presupposition. Before he comes to the passage, that is his basis for interpreting the passage.

Now he must do this in order to have this whole passage jive with his theology.

He has to separate sins from works. Okay? But if wood, hay, and straw are what we would consider bad works, where does the

Bible distinguish between bad works and sin? We definitely have two different kinds of building material here.

Gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and straw. And it's so bad that he who builds with wood, hay, and straw to the point that it destroys the temple of God God says,

I'm going to destroy him in verse 17. Now if that's not sin, what is it?

How could God destroy him for building with wood, hay, and straw if it wasn't sin that he was committing?

And again the question would be where does the Bible distinguish between bad works and sin? I know of no passage that makes that distinction.

Okay? So that's the first thing. If sin is not in view, as I said why is

God destroying this man in verse 17? If sin is not in view, why does 1

Corinthians 3 verses 1 -4 speak in the context of jealousy and strife among the

Corinthians? For example, in verse 3 it says, you are still fleshly, for since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly?

And are you not walking like mere men? Well jealousy and strife, aren't they sins? Isn't that the context of this passage?

Jealousy and strife. And why does 1 Corinthians chapters 1 and 2 begin with Paul referring to the

Corinthian divisions? I hear from Chloe that there are divisions among you, quarrels among you. Okay?

Are they sins or not? Okay? Well he carries it over right to chapter 3. Jealousy and strife among you.

You're boasting. You're picking men to follow. You're carnal. Okay? Well are they a sin or not?

1 Corinthians chapter 5 speaks of the great sin in this church. The sin of incest.

Chapter 6 verses 9 and 10, war against fornicators and idolaters. 1

Corinthians 11 -29 says they sin against the body and blood of Christ. And because of that some of you are sick and have died.

1 Corinthians chapter 10 warns them against their sin and compares them to the people of Israel and says look what they went through.

They went through the wilderness. They were baptized into Moses and the cloud and all this and many died in the wilderness.

And only actually two of them made it to the land of Canaan after a million and a half left Egypt. That's pretty dead, don't you think?

So yeah, there's a lot of sin involved here and that's what Paul's comparing these Corinthians to. Now in 2

Corinthians chapter 13 verses 2 -5 Paul says when he comes back the second time and writes this letter he says many of them did not repent of the sins he had warned them about in his first two letters.

They have sinned and not repented. And he's going to come to them and chastise them. So we know there's sin all over this church.

Okay? So for Dr. White to say that 1 Corinthians 3 is dealing with works but these aren't sins well

I don't think the text supports that. On page 193 of the Roman Catholic controversy

Dr. White says the passage does not say the person goes through fire is punished or suffers to make atonement for sin.

He says he does not go through the fire. But if you look at the Greek word here in verse 15 the

New American standard has yet so as through fire. Now this is the Greek adverb koutos.

Koutos means likewise or in this way or in this manner.

Okay? What it's doing is comparing one statement of fact with another. In other words it's saying if any man's works shall be burned up he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved likewise as going through the fire.

Well what went through the fire prior to him? Well his works went through the fire. And this man is also going to go through the fire likewise or in this way in the same way is the way that Greek adverb can be translated.

So he does go through the fire. Dr. White says he is not punished but if you look real close at the other

Greek word here it says he will suffer loss. Now that's the

Greek word zemiaho and that can mean suffer loss but it can also mean punishment.

As a matter of fact the preponderant meaning of zemiaho is punishment as it's used in the

LXX. As a matter of fact you can go to Bauer, Art, Gingrich and Danker and you can look up zemiaho and it says this in the first definition to inflict punishment or injury, to sustain injury.

And the second definition it says be punished and he uses 1st Corinthians 3 .15 as his citation to prove that it means be punished.

This comes from one of the most famous lexicons that is used in the Protestant and Catholic world.

It's on page 338 4th edition. So yes we can say that the passage talks about punishment.

In other words we could say, we wanted to use the variant of this word if any man's work is burned up he shall suffer punishment likewise as going through the fire.

Now Dr. White also says that he does not suffer to make atonement for sin in this passage.

Well that's rather convenient I would say because if you already dismissed the passage of sin by saying that the bad works are not sins well of course he's not going through any atonement here for sin because you've taken sin out of the passage.

Okay, but if you take, if you put sin in the passage and say that those that destroy the temple or those that build with wood, hay and straw are sinning when they're doing these things to the temple of God well yeah there is an atonement going on here for sin you see.

So I would beg Dr. White to take another look at that. Dr. White says in the same paragraph on page 94 of his

Roman Catholic Controversy quote it is no light matter to stand before the judgment seat or the judgment throne of Christ in relation to 1st

Corinthians chapter 3. Okay, well that means that Dr. White is connecting 1st

Corinthians chapter 3 verse 15 to 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 verse 10 and what does that passage say?

That passage says this, listen to this for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may be recompensed for the deeds of his body according to what he has done whether good or bad.

Okay, so Dr. White thinks that 1st Corinthians 3 is talking about the judgment seat of Christ well right here

Paul says that that judgment seat consists of good and bad works that are going to be judged. So there's no way that you're going to say that there's no sin in 1st

Corinthians 15 unless you can prove from the Bible that bad works are not sins. And then we have a whole host of passages,

John 5, 28 and 29, there's going to be a resurrection of the just and of the damned based on their good and bad deeds we have

Romans 2, 6 and 8, it says the same thing God will judge them based on their deeds, good or bad, those that have done good get eternal life, those that have done bad get

God's wrath many many passages like that in the scripture and I think my time is up, thank you.

Thank you Dr. St. Janus Dr. White? Well good evening, thank you for being here this evening, it is an important subject that brings us together the very subject of the gospel of Jesus Christ itself and this evening we will be discussing the subject of purgatory,

I wish there had been a little bit more of a definition of purgatory given, I'm not going to have time really to go through all of that but hopefully a lot of that will come up in the discussion this evening, this topic illustrates the vast difference

I believe between a God -centered biblical gospel and a man -centered non -biblical system of salvation,

I want to present three areas of discussion in the brief moments that I have first, how did this dogma come to definition

I will provide a brief and I think somewhat troubling history of its background and then the number of texts cited by Roman defense of purgatory are few as we saw, but must be examined carefully we will look carefully at them, and then thirdly, what are the ramifications of belief in purgatory, how does it impact the gospel itself, those are the three areas we will try to get into this evening the sole

Jewish source that is cited, even by the 1994 Catholic Catechism, 2

Maccabees 12, 39 -45 where we read of a group of Jewish fighters, all of whom were idolaters they carried pagan idols under their clothing and God struck them down as punishment, this uninspired book rejected as canonical by such notable early fathers as Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Jerome, as well as Pope Gregory the

Great and at least 50 other major ecclesiastical writers up to the time of the Reformation including

Cardinal Cajetan, the prelate who interviewed Luther, says that the Jewish leader sent money for the offering of prayers and sacrifices for these dead soldiers, it seems that any connection at all with the dead is sufficient at this point, for obviously since idolatry is a mortal sin and would not send one to purgatory but to hell itself, this passage is hardly supportive of the doctrine we examine 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 nature and the fact that no canonical scripture supports it, its very use begins to illustrate to us the highly questionable nature of purgatory as a dogma of Christian faith.

When we come to the early centuries of the Christian church, we find no doctrine of purgatory what we do find fairly early on are prayers to the dead, often cited as they just were, as evidence of at least an implicit concept of purgatory, yet as historians such as Lagoff 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.

Now, what's important to recognize there is, for example as Mormon points out, 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, and Neal likewise upon collating and studying ancient liturgical sources concluded one that prayers to the dead have been from the beginning the practice of the universal church and two, 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.

The ease with which modern apologists for Roman Catholicism point to 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 as you see on the screen, 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.

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

Evidently Tertullian recognized 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 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 historical grammatical meaning and focus upon the allegedly higher or spiritual meaning.

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

Both men were led into wild speculations, especially with 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 itself.

At the same time, non -canonical Gnostic -influenced works such as the Apocalypse of Paul likewise presented 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 giving credence to a concept of purgation as well, though as he likewise believed in predestination and election and the idea that saving faith is a gift of God, he melded these concepts into a strangely inconsistent whole that led him to believe that such sufferings would only avail 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. He was at best a semi -Pelagian who gave tremendous weight to the idea of merit in 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. Yet, he wrote extensively, putting his manifest ignorance on paper.

One of his works completed 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. Notice what he says.

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.

That's part of his interpretation. His three daughters, the three classes of the faithful laity who are to worship the

Trinity. His friends, 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, the heathen.

Ironically, this same work contains Gregory's rejection of Maccabees as a canonical work. But it was another work of Gregory, the

Dialogues, that is of importance to us tonight. These dialogues between Gregory and Roman Archdeacon Peter abound, as Schaff says, quote, in 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 900 years in the future. And so we have the beginnings of what would eventually become the modern dogma of purgatory.

Scattered references from Origen, the allegorist, who believed even Satan himself would be saved, and who likewise believed in 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. We've already had it used this evening. And, most importantly,

Gregory, who could not even read the original languages, offered allegorical interpretation to plays 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?

Time precludes delving much into the development of the actual dogma of purgatory primarily in the 12th century, and its elevation of 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 spent more time arguing about where to put the chairs to the seating of the

Greek delegates than it did on the study of the Bible. As a council of reunification, it failed completely.

Yet, the modern Catholic Church used Florence as the 17th ecumenical council, and the modern catechism relies upon Florence and Trent to define purgatory in section 1031.

I don't know about you, but such a history does not recommend it to my thinking as something worthy of my faith and ascent.

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.

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

There are really only two texts to examine, both have been presented to you already, when it comes to the alleged biblical support for purgatory.

Matthew chapter 12, verses 31 through 32, and 1 Corinthians chapter 3, verses 10 through 15.

Notice Matthew 12, 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, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. Now, the context of course is that of the unforgivable sin, not purgatory.

Well, when Catholics seem to believe the final phrase, either in this age or in the age to come, while not specifically mentioning purgatory, at least opens up the concept of forgiveness of sins after death in the age to come, exactly as Dr.

St. Genes said. But what is often missed at this point is the fact that what Jesus means by this important phrase is clearly explained by reference to the parallel passage to one of the other synoptic

Gospels, that being Mark. Note how he records the exact same discussion.

Notice his words, Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men of whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the

Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

Jesus is not then referring to the possibility of cleansing the future, but is instead speaking of an eternal sin, one that has no forgiveness whatsoever.

If the Roman interpretation already presented to you of Matthew 12 is valid, then

Mark's rendition of Jesus' words is not. Obviously this cannot be, hence it is the

Roman interpretation that must be rejected. And so we turn to the key passage 1

Corinthians chapter 3. 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, and you are God's field, God's building. Please follow along with the text.

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

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

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

If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he 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, the context of the preceding 9 verses is really quite simple. Paul is discussing the problems that exist in the

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

He zeroes in on their partisanship, the fact that they're saying I am this Christian leader or that one. He reminds them that leaders are but servants of the

Lord, and that it was the Lord that even gave those servants the opportunity to preach the Gospel to them. At this point then,

Paul begins to speak of the role of Christian leaders that they have in the work of the church. Note his words in verses 8 and 9.

Verse 8 provides the first reference to reward, this than, and it is clearly in the context of the

Christian leaders who labor in the work of ministry. It will be significant to note the phrase receive reward in verse 8 is identical in terminology to the same phrase in verse 14.

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

This then brings us to the main passage. Verses 10 -15 give us an illustration of how weighty it is to minister in the church and how

God will someday manifest the motivations of the hearts of all those who have engaged in that work.

Then in verses 16 -17 Paul adds a further warning, speaking of God's certain judgment upon those who do not build, but instead tear down and destroy.

There is an obvious movement between verses 10 -15 and verses 16 -17. For in 10 -15 the metaphor remains the construction of a building upon a foundation.

In 16 -17 this switches to the metaphor of the temple of God already constructed being destroyed.

Further in 10 -15 the certain ones are those who are indeed building upon the foundation even if they have less than perfect motivations or understanding.

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

This distinction is important as well as we shall see. Paul continues the context, insisting that by God's grace he has laid a foundation knowing that others would build upon that same foundation.

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

A man must be careful how he builds upon the foundation, which Paul reminds us is holy. The minister is to recognize that ministry in the church is a holy task and he must look well upon how he knows about this work.

This leads to further expansion upon this thought in the following section. The first thing to see in verse 12 is that we are still talking about the same group,

Christian workers. Those under discussion build upon the foundation. We will see in verses 16 -17

Paul refers to a different group, those who do not build but instead tear down. So we have one group who build upon the foundation but with different quality materials.

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

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

These are terms referring as Paul himself puts it to the quality of each man's work. Some labor selflessly in an obscurity of motivations pure and honorable while others have mixed motivations tinged to a lesser and greater degree by selfishness and vainglory.

During this lifetime we cannot necessarily know which Christian leaders even within the bounds of orthodox teaching and practice are doing what they do with motivations replaced into God.

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

Paul says that each man's work will become evident from the day we'll show it. The nature of the Christian minister's work will be plain and clear.

The lack of clarity that exists during this lifetime will no longer cloud our vision at the judgment.

A declaration will be made about the nature of the works of all those who work in the church. De loci means to make some matter known that was unknown or not communicated previously.

To reveal to make clear. This term combined with the term apocalyptic as in revealed or made known by fire makes it plain that judgment is making clear what had been unknown to us but not to him before specifically who were serving him and who were in fact serving themselves.

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

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

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

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

The precious elements withstand the fire's presence whereas the others are consumed in their entirety.

Given that it has already been established that gold and silver, etc. are figures for the quality of men's works. So it follows inexorably that fire refers to a testing that makes its verdict as clear as the destruction of wood, hay and stubble by the raging flames of a fire.

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

But please note, the verb used for fire is apocalyptic, this is a term of revelation. It does not mean to purify cleanse or purge.

The object of the actions in this verse is always the works. The day will manifest the character of the works.

The fire will reveal the nature of the works. There is nothing here about the gold being made pure, for example.

There is no refining of the gold, silver, precious stones, let alone a purification of wood, hay or stubble which by nature cannot be refined or purified.

There is nothing about removing some wood so that the remaining gold will be more clearly seen. All these concepts central to the idea of purgatory are not only missing from Paul's words, they are completely contrary there too.

Now, the context continues in verse 14. Unbroken, note the repetition of the preceding concept of building on the foundation.

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

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

The opposite of the reception of reward is to suffer loss. The Greek term

Paul uses, ze neothemai or ze neotho, is translated by the vast majority of recognized translations including

Roman Catholic translations as suffer loss, and there is a reason for this. Despite the fact that you can render the term as punished, its normative meaning, especially in the

New Testament, refers to experiencing the opposite of gain, that is loss. And often what is not gained is found in the immediate context of the word's use.

For example, please note other places where it's used. In Philippians chapter 3, verse 8, more than that,

I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Jesus Christ my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss, ze neotho, of all things, and count them but rubbish, so that I may gain

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

The same is true of Jesus' use of the exact same term. Notice here in Matthew chapter 16, for what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits, from ze neotho again, his soul?

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

The one whose work remains receives a reward, so the one whose work is burned up does not, hence they suffer loss.

If you want to have further information on this, see the rather full discussion of the theological dictionary in the New Testament, volume 2, page 888.

We are reminded, however, that despite the seriousness of the loss of reward for the Christian worker, we are still talking about those who have found salvation in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Paul tells us that despite suffering loss, these are saved, yet so as through fire. Note that the text does not say they are saved having been purified by fire, they do so as one who has escaped from a fire in his house, having lost everything, but saving his life.

As one commentary has expressed it, and I think this commentary puts it quite well, the fire tests the work, destroying what is of poor quality and perishable.

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

Like one escaping from a burning house, he will be saved, but his work and his reward will be lost.

This metaphor clearly teaches the responsibility of ministers of the Gospel who will be rewarded or punished for the manner in which they have fulfilled their ministry.

That the preacher will be saved implies that his sins were not serious and have not ruined the Christian community because God destroys such a one.

Now I note that the commentary I just read is the Roman Catholic Jerome Bible commentary, which goes on to directly state this text does not teach the doctrine of purgatory, but they say the doctrine can find support in the text, which of course is a far cry from the claim that this text clearly teaches purgatory.

Now, time is very brief. Purgatory in the Gospel, what is the effect of believing that there are temporal punishments that are placed upon your soul that your penances must work off, so that you have to experience something called purgatory, and you experience suffering called satispassio, the suffering of atonement, before you can be purified enough to enter into the presence of God.

What does this mean to us? I believe it means a full overthrow of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Why? Well, what does the Scripture tell us? In Titus chapter 2, we are looking for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great

God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself.

He purifies for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Can Jesus do that? Or are there always going to be these temporal punishments that we have to undergo suffering for to atone for them before we can enter into the presence of God?

The biblical Jesus is able to atone for all. In Hebrews 7, we're told, consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost, completely, forever, those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

He has the capacity to save perfectly. He does not lay his priesthood aside.

He always lives to make intercession. His intercession is perfect. He is the perfect Savior to say that I must undergo satispassio, that I can receive indulgences, that I can receive the righteousness of Christ, Mary, and the saints so that I can stand before God, which is what indulgences are.

All of these things related to doctrine of purgatory is to completely overthrow the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Notice in Hebrews 10, 14, for by one offering he has what? Perfected. Perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Who has done this? He has done this. Not I have done this. If I have to undergo satispassio to complete this work, then

Jesus Christ has perfected no one. The best that the Roman Catholics say is that Jesus Christ has perfected a way of salvation, but now it's up to us.

That is not the message of the New Testament in regards to these subjects. Now again, I wish that there had been significantly more definition of the doctrine of purgatory itself because some of you might be wondering why we're talking about a couple of things we're talking about.

I would like to invite Robert in his next section to maybe add some specific information so all of us can understand exactly what it is that doctrine of purgatory states.

I think that's vital for us this evening. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you Dr. White. That concludes the opening statements and you guys get a break.

You can stand and stretch your legs. We're going to give you 3 minutes and 15 seconds so enjoy.

Thank you again for joining us and for keeping the seats warm. Remember that you have a card that's probably the size of this that you can write down questions and actually drop them off at the book table at the back during any time, preferably by the next break that you take them back there.

Anything for either one of these gentlemen of what you would like for them to address.

We're going to move into the next section of rebuttal starting with Dr.

St. James. Let's start the rebuttal.

Okay, I guess I should start with a definition since Dr. White asked me to do so.

Let me just read from the Catholic Catechism under purgatory. Section 1030 says 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 a name purgatory for this final purification of the elect which is entirely different from punishment of the damned.

The church formulated her doctrine of faith on purgatory especially of the councils of Florence and Trent. Tradition of the church by reference to certain texts of scripture speaks of cleansing fire and it goes on and on.

So I hope that suffices for a definition. There's a lot of remarks that Dr.

White made about the fathers Gregory and I really don't have time to get into those unless time affords me the opportunity after I deal with Matthew 12 and 1

Corinthians chapter 3 which I think are the most important issues in this debate right now.

Regarding Matthew 12, 31 and 32, Dr. White made the statement that this is not the context of purgatory.

Well I would agree with that but that doesn't mean that the context has to be talking about a topic specifically in order for that passage to have an implicit reference or a tangential reference or some kind of indirect reference to another idea or doctrine that we believe in.

That comment really doesn't have any impact. He said that because Mark chapter 3 changes

Matthew's wording to an eternal sin the way he put it was either

Rome is right or Mark is wrong. Well I don't see it that way because all that Mark is telling us is that there won't be any forgiveness in this age or any age.

It's an eternal sin. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is eternally unforgivable.

Matthew just has another way of explaining that. It won't be forgiven here or elsewhere.

But the fact that Matthew changes it gives us another piece of information that ties in with the doctrine of purgatory.

Now I'm not saying this is the strongest verse for purgatory. I'm just saying that Dr. White's analysis of this to say that Mark negates

Matthew's statement I don't think is correct. Now let me deal with 1

Corinthians. This has to go pretty fast. You'll notice that in Dr. White's presentation he's afraid to call jealousy, strife boasting and every other mention of sins in 1

Corinthians chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 he's afraid to call them sins.

Not once did he say that they were sins. He kept stressing well these are just works. Just works. But as I stressed in my opening statements the whole context of 1

Corinthians is these Corinthians are in sin. You can go through almost every chapter and find sins that they're committing.

So for him to insist that these are just works and not sins is really stretching.

As opposed to that he likes to refer to motivations. He says that Paul's only concerned with the motivations for building.

Well I don't see the word motivations here, number one. I see them building with wood, hay and straw.

They're actually doing the sin. If the work is bad then the motivation is certainly going to be bad.

But it's not that Paul's just concerned about motivations here. He's concerned about the end product of the motivations, that is bad work.

Then he tries, Dr. White tries to cut the context for us in half by saying that verse 12 refers to Christian workers but verse 17 refers to some other kind of workers.

Where does he see that division here? The text is flowing from one verse to the next. He just says, you're the temple of God.

If you destroy the temple God will destroy you. He just keeps on going. The same thought pattern. And then as a matter of fact in verse 21 he says, so then let no one boast in men.

For all these things belong to you. Paul, Paul, seekers, whatever. So he's still on the whole context of boasting that he started in chapter one.

So there's no demarcation of context here. He's talking to two different people. I think what's happening here is

Dr. White's theology is dictating that there has to be two different kinds of people here. Because he believes that there is the elect that won't lose their salvation and there's these other people in the church that were never saved in the first place and can't be saved and so they have to be a whole other group of people.

That's what I think is happening here. He ran from 1 Corinthians chapter 4 verse 5 where Paul says that all the works will be disclosed.

Let me read that because that's an important passage. Paul says here verse 4, I am conscious of nothing against myself.

I am not by this acquitted. But the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment for the time but wait until the

Lord comes. That's the second coming. Who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motivations of men's hearts.

Well that's a context of God's final judgment, is it not? Isn't that where God's going to judge sins and doesn't

Jesus talk about things that were hidden in darkness in the gospel that they will be disclosed to be what they really were and that's in the context of sin?

Of course it is. And even here the disclosing of the motivations of the heart are considered something that Jesus is going to judge.

You see, it's not just the outcome, it's the motivations that they have. So that's sinful too. If you have sinful works, you're going to have sinful motivations.

And again, this all ties in with 2 Corinthians chapter 5 verse 10.

Let me read that again for you because it's such an important passage. 2 Corinthians chapter 5 verse 10 and 11.

For we must all appear before the judges to Christ that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body. Now Dr.

White himself attached this passage in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy to 1 Corinthians 15 and according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

So there you have it. The works that are going to be disclosed that Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 4 and 5 have to be the works that are good or bad according to Paul in 2

Corinthians chapter 5 verse 10. So this is the same reason that Paul says in 1

Corinthians chapter 9 when he's again admonishing the Corinthians. He says, do you not know that those who run in a race, all run, but only one receives a prize.

You run in such a way that you may win. And then he goes on I box,

I box good, when I run I run well and then he says in verse 17, but I buffet my body and make it my slave lest possibly after I have preached to others,

I myself should be disqualified. And that's the word adikimos in Greek which means reprobate.

Lest I become a reprobate. Now he's using disqualified here because you have a context a metaphor of running and boxing.

But this is a very strong word in the Greek here. So he's warning these Corinthians, look he says in 1

Corinthians 10 and 12, take heed lest you fall. I'm giving all these examples of the

Israelites and what happened to them in the Old Testament don't think you stand high in money because you may fall also. So these constant warnings, constant admonitions going on in this chapter here and so we have, why else would he give them admonitions?

Because he doesn't want them to fall into sin, he doesn't want them to be judged eternally and that's why verse 17 of chapter 3 says if you destroy

God's temple, God will destroy you. Why? Because the whole context is talking about sin and he wants them to avoid sin.

Now Dr. White made a comment also about the word suffer loss now

I believe Greek, you know, a lot of translations translate to suffer loss and they are very correct in doing so 1

Corinthians 3 says if any man's work is burned up he shall suffer loss they do so because the context is a metaphorical context about a man building a building and it's on fire and the work is burned up so obviously he's going to suffer loss.

So in the context this is the best translation of the passage. Well all I'm suggesting is that Paul has a double meaning for using zemiaho here because he knows that it also connotes punishment and any

Greek lexicon will tell you that. That was my point there. Obviously if he suffers loss he's going to suffer according to what the metaphor is teaching us which is he's going to lose his reward and what is the reward?

Well the reward is heaven. He's going to suffer the ability to go to heaven. He's going to be detained in this purgatorial fire here for a certain period of time.

That's how he's going to suffer his loss. Now it just so happens that in the Catholic doctrine of purgatory we believe that that's a place of punishment also and you'll notice that Dr.

White was talking about Christ paying it all as if he's going to pay for punishment too.

Well if that's the case, why when David was justified in Psalm 32. Thank you Dr. St. Janice.

Sorry to interrupt you. I have eight seconds left. Why since David was justified was he also punished for his sins if Christ paid it all for David?

Zero. Dr. White. Let me answer that question.

I think it's a very good question. There is a vast difference my friends between God's fatherly actions toward his children, his discipline and the idea of legal punishments.

This is one of the most important things this evening and that's why I'm concerned that there may not be a full understanding of part of what purgatory is about.

Purgatory is about you undergoing satis passio, the suffering of atonement because of legal punishments that have been applied to your soul that you by your sufferings in this life have not atoned for.

The guilt removed by Jesus' death. However, you by your suffering, you by the acts that you do, your penances have to get rid of these temporal punishments.

They're not fatherly discipline. They are punishments. Just as a judge would give you punishments.

There's all the difference in the world between the fact that David for example knew that this was a fatherly discipline and not a punishment.

Can you tell why? Because he prayed that God wouldn't have to do it. It wasn't to pray that God would be unjust.

That God would just get rid of his legal punishments. And he didn't try to buy

God off. He didn't try to make sacrifices to get rid of a legal punishment. He left it in God's hands.

Why? Because God's punishments are always free. That's what a father is free to do. That's the vast difference between the two.

The New Testament talks about God dealing with us as a father deals with his children.

If there is not discipline in your life then what does Hebrews say? You're an illegitimate child.

God will discipline his children, but it is not legal punishment. That's the difference.

And that's the difference between a finished work of Christ, where he perfects those for whom his sacrifice is made.

And the viewpoint that's being presented this evening, where you can gain indulgences from the

Church of Rome, made out of the excess merits of Christ, Mary, and the Saints to remove some of these temporal punishments from your soul.

Did you know that back in 2008 if you went to Lourdes for a certain number of days, did a certain number of things, you get a plenary indulgence from the

Pope. That happens all the time. That's the concept we're talking about here. And that's not the concept that any

New Testament writer ever had, because no one in the days of the New Testament had a concept of purgatory or indulgences. This is a much later concept that developed it devolved from the high level of biblical revelation.

Now let's look at some of the things that were said here. Really, obviously, a lot of this is going to turn on 1

Corinthians chapter 3 and what is said in this particular text. But I do want to mention what was just said about Matthew chapter 12.

Folks, it is a fundamental, basic element of biblical interpretation when you're studying the Synoptic Gospels to look at the parallels.

And the parallels of Mark 3 and Matthew 12 tell us exactly what Jesus was intending when he said that the blasphemy against the

Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come. He was not even opening the door a crack to the idea of the forgiveness of sins in the age to come.

He was saying it's an eternal sin. That's all he was saying. Therefore, to look at that and say, oh, well, there's a possibility that there might be atonement for the temporal punishments of sins in the future is to engage in eisegesis, to read into a text a concept that the

Bible clearly indicates is inappropriate. That's how you study the Synoptic Gospels.

Jesus was not saying that there was a possibility of forgiveness in the future. He was saying that the blasphemy against the

Holy Spirit is an eternal sin that has no forgiveness whatsoever. That was the point of pointing out the parallel between Matthew 12 and Mark 3.

Mark wasn't changing something Matthew said. They are both giving us the essence of Jesus' words and Mark's information tells us that the

Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 12 is in error because if it's possible that there is a future forgiveness, then

Mark was wrong. Mark didn't get it right, which is more probable, that Rome missed it 1 ,400 years later or that Mark missed it in the rendering under the direction of the

Holy Spirit. We come to 1 Corinthians chapter 3. Dr. St. Genesis does not seem to understand my point, but I hope

I communicated to you very clearly. I'm not afraid of calling anything sins. My point is that Paul makes it very clear that there is a specific context in mind in 1

Corinthians chapter 3, and it's the fact that we can't always tell why people are doing what they're doing in the church.

We can't always look, we can't ever look into someone's heart and know what their motivations are.

There are some people who build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ with gold, silver, and precious stones, but there are other people who build and they paint their wood in gold.

And you know what? From a distance, you can't tell the difference. And I can't tell the difference either.

In this life we don't know. In this life we just simply have to have faith in God. But there's a day coming, and notice 1

Corinthians chapter 3 is about the judgment, the end. Not an ongoing process right now. Not a cleansing of sadispatio, a suffering of atonement and purgatory now.

It's talking about a day that's coming. And notice, there are three words that are used in verse 13.

Each man's work will become phaneros, eminent, for the day will delosi, show something that we didn't know before, because each man's work will be tested by fire.

Apocalyptic will be revealed by fire. All three words. This is just, this is exegesis of a text.

Letting an author define his own terms. He uses three terms to express to us the fact that a day is coming when there is going to be a revelation that will finally tell us why did certain people do the things they did.

Remember, what's the context of 1 Corinthians? Paul has enemies in Corinth. They call themselves super apostles.

And they are trying to, in essence, undercut his apostolic authority. And Paul is demonstrating the fact there's a day coming when we are going to know exactly who was truly serving

Christ and who was serving their own belly. The day will demonstrate that, but that day is in the future.

And therefore we should be very careful how we engage in ministry in the church. Because there is going to be a revelation of what our real motivations were.

But there is nothing in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 about purgation, cleansing, temporal punishments of sins.

The distinction between guilt and temporal punishments. The distinction between menial and mortal sins.

All of these things are utterly unbiblical. They are the thoughts of a later age that has gone down a slope.

Not up a slope, but down a slope away from the clear biblical revelation. And so to take those things and to read them back into 1

Corinthians chapter 3 is the grossest form of eisegesis. I suggest to you the reason that Dr.

St. Genes believes in purgatory is not because of the eisegesis of 1 Corinthians chapter 3. It is because of the authority of the

Roman Catholic church. Only a matter of weeks ago, we debated, this is our 8th debate, I've only debated one other person in Roman Catholicism more often than Robert St.

Genes and that's Jerry Matadix. And only a few weeks ago we debated the bodily assumption of Mary.

And fundamentally his defense of that was, well, Peter did not have to have either scripture or tradition to define a dogma, so Rome doesn't either.

Well, this is a dogma of Rome, and therefore, even if there was no scripture, even if there was no tradition, and I would argue there is no ancient tradition, we see its development over time, but not from biblical eisegesis, but even if there wasn't scripture or tradition,

Dr. St. Genes would still believe in purgatory because he believes in the bodily assumption of Mary. It's an issue of authority. To be honest with you, looking at these texts is window dressing from the

Roman Catholic perspective. For me, it's the very essence of what I believe. It's the very heart of my faith. But for the

Roman Catholic, Rome has spoken. Dogma has been defined. And therefore, since these are the only texts we can go to, who actually has the greater probability of handling these texts appropriately and rightly?

Myself or Dr. St. Genes. I don't have some dogmatic authority that said you have to believe the concept of purgatory, and here's where it's found in these texts.

I can look at this, and I can look at the standard works of eisegesis, and well, here's how you do this, and here's how you notice the parallels that are found here, you notice the parallels that are found there, you allow these things to speak for themselves.

I can do that, but when you have an external authority in the dogmatic teachings of the

Roman Catholic Church, I suggest to you that determines the eisegesis. Now, ironically, even the

Jerome Bible commentary, even men who are priests and Roman Catholic scholars given positions of Roman Catholic leadership recognize that on the basic level of the text, it's not addressing any of these things.

It's talking about leaders in the church and the demonstration, the final judgment of why they did what they did.

And Dr. St. Genes asked, well, where does he get this distinction between verses 16 -17? The vast majority of commentaries see there's a complete shift there.

Even the translations themselves produce a new paragraph at that point demonstrating there is a context shift.

The audience shifts from building, I've got 19 seconds left, the audience itself notices that the shift that takes place, the pronouns change, this is not anything that is unusual in any way, shape, or form, it is right there in the text itself.

Thank you very much. We're going to move into the cross -examination headed by Dr.

St. Genes. 20 minutes? 20 minutes. Bob, we've got a set of timers here, but I'm not sure about this guy.

Actually, I still have you having 34 seconds. Alright, you guys got 20?

Yep. You got 20 ready for a start? Yep. Alright. Alright.

Dr. White, you made the distinction between fatherly discipline and punishment, saying that these are two entirely different things.

Are you a father? Yes, I am. When you discipline your children, do you not also punish them?

Yes, I do. Okay, so tell me what the distinction is between David receiving the discipline from his

Heavenly Father and the punishment. Sure. The punishment of sin is that which satisfies

God's holiness, and that punishment and that wrath against sin was completely fulfilled in my substitute, who is the

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That is the difference between my relationship with my children and the relationship between God the

Father and His children is that the relationship is established by a

Savior. So the difference between the two is one is a legal punishment that has to be extracted from the holiness of God to be satisfied.

The other is my desire that my children be righteous individuals who live a proper life, and therefore

I actually even I hope just as legal in Oregon, I actually even spank them.

That was in the past tense. Okay, so you're saying there's a distinction between humanly disciplined punishment, human discipline slash punishment, and divine discipline slash punishment.

Is that correct? Well, there have to be category differences because God is absolutely holy and none of us are. A lot of us are always derivative.

I'm going to cut you off if I need to. I'm not asking you whether there has to be this distinction.

I'm asking you if you have a distinction. Is that correct? Of course. Alright. Just tangentially dealing with that issue, can you tell us where the

Bible says that Christ's atonement was a legal punishment?

Well, the fact that it is presented within the context of the courtroom in Romans chapter 8 is just one of many places.

Where do you read courtroom in Romans chapter 8? Well, who shall bring a charge against God's elect,

Romans chapter 8. I didn't ask you that. I said where do you read about courtroom in Romans 8? I'm quoting a text.

You're quoting me about charging. Yes, and the term charge in verse 33, enkalesai is a term of legal context.

Not necessarily. Can you prove that? Certainly. I don't believe that any scholar of the original language would say...

Can you show us one? I'm going to try to get at least two sentences in before you cut me off. Notice that it says...

Well, I do have the right to cut you off. Well, not to the point where I can't answer a question or read a verse. That's a little bit ridiculous.

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies term of law court.

Who is the one who condemns term of law court? Christ Jesus is he who died, just by the way, who also intercedes for us term of law court.

I'm going to cut you off now. None of those words use the word courtroom or anything of that nature.

You are assuming that justification is forensic or courtroom language. It doesn't say that here.

Is that a question or an argument? I'm asking you again, where the Bible teaches that Christ's atonement was legal?

Ask and answer. Next question. I think anyone in the audience can see. Are you saying that purgatory is a legal...

that we hold as a legal punishment? No question about it. Excuse me? No question about it.

No question about it. Can you prove that? Certainly. You yourself read from the

Catholic Catechism the concept of temporal punishments that were not atoned for through penances.

Where do you see the word legal there? Again, I think that's a rather obvious thing. Punishment is a legal thing.

I'm not asking you for what you think is obvious. I'm asking you from the text itself or it uses the word legal.

Again, I will allow the word punishment to speak for itself. Not answer. Answer clearly.

I can tell you this. Purgatory is not a legal punishment.

Is that a question? I'm just making a statement. Why don't you make those statements during your period of time.

Well, it is my time. Not to make statements, to ask questions. Moderator, I think

I can... I don't have to ask questions, correct? I can make a statement during my time? Sure. Thank you. Please don't make any statements.

It's my time. Mark chapter 3, you made this statement that Mark didn't get it right if the

Catholic Church is correct about Matthew 12, 32. No, that's not what

I said. What I said was if Mark's rendering is correct, then the

Roman Catholic interpretation is inherent. I think that's the same thing. I don't forgive anybody if their word is correct.

What I would ask you this, Dr. White, why can't Mark say one thing in one way and Matthew say another and Matthew get an extra piece of information?

Because of the fact that if they are referring to what Jesus actually said, then their meaning is going to be the same.

Mark's statement is very clear. This is an eternal sin. It has no forgiveness.

Therefore, to read Matthew as if he's opening the door to the possibility of future forgiveness of sins is to contradict

Mark's words. It's very straightforward. Okay. Well, let's say Matthew says in one passage,

Jesus is the son of man. In another passage, Mark says Jesus is the son of God.

Are they contradicting each other? No, they're not. Okay. So they have different ways of approaching who

Jesus is. They say different things at different times. Why can't the same thing be true with Mark 3 and Matthew 12?

That's exactly what's going on. The point is that they're saying the same thing and Mark's very clear. This is an eternal sin. It has no forgiveness.

Therefore, to read into the idea of future forgiveness of sins is to try to insert something that is clearly contradicting

Mark. Wouldn't it be superfluous for Jesus to say you can't be forgiven here or there if it was an eternal sin?

Why would he use that language? Not at all. We all use that type of language all the time. I'm not going with you to that restaurant today, tomorrow, or ever.

Does that somehow open the possibility? Well, maybe. No, it doesn't open the possibility that you could go with me in the future unless I say that you can't go with me in the future?

No. It doesn't? No. Not the way I just used it. And since that was my metaphor, I get the point. Alright, let's deal with 1

Corinthians chapter 3. You made the claim that we can't know what people are doing in the church.

No, I did not. I said we can't know the motivations of why people are doing what they're doing in the church. Well, I copied what you said down verbatim.

I know you did also use the word motivations after that, but you just said we can't tell what people are doing in the church.

Some people do this, some people do that. At the end, we're all going to find out what they've been doing for real.

But isn't it true, Dr. White, that Paul has accused various people of doing certain bad things in the

Corinthian church even before the judgment comes? Yes, I don't see the relevance of 1

Corinthians 3. You don't see the relevance of 1 Corinthians 3? I think that's exactly what your problem is, is that you are disjoining these texts, which is what my complaint has been from the beginning.

You'll read a passage where Paul's chastising someone specifically for some sin that he's done, and yet when it comes to 1

Corinthians 3, all of a sudden, you divorce all those contexts that Paul has admonished people for sin, and now you say this text here is a pristine text that has nothing to do with sin.

That is 1 Corinthians 3. Of course, I've never said anything like that. Well, have you admitted yet that the works that are done here are sins?

Sir, I have said very, very plainly, and I will repeat it over and over again, the text defines its own context and its own meaning.

It's talking about building upon that foundation. It's talking about the kinds of works. That's what the text says.

I'm simply allowing the text to speak for itself. And I'm trying to get down underneath what you're saying so that people can understand where you're coming from.

Are the bad works that are done here in interpreting this text, are they bad works in the sense of sins, or are they not?

Can you show me the word bad works so I can look at it? Well, works. I mean, you've already admitted that gold, silver, and precious stones are one kind of work, and wood, hay, and straw are another.

You have a distinction. So, verse 13, then, each man's work will become evidence. Is that what you want to look at? Yeah. Okay, so each man's work.

So, Aragon here, the demonstration of whether these things were gold, silver, precious stone, wood, hay, straw.

That's what you want to focus on. Obviously. Okay, so I would say to you that even the good works, gold, silver, precious stones, were performed by sinners.

This text has nothing to do with punishment, purgation, or cleansing of sin, period.

It is the demonstration of the nature of these men's works.

Yeah, you see, the problem, Dr. White, is you can talk all day long about the church dictating to me what

I'm going to interpret this passage to be, but what's happening with your side of the fence is this.

You have a certain theology that you come to this text with, and so, therefore, you're going to interpret this passage as saying, no, this can't be sins here.

This has to be just a demonstration of what has already been chosen for these people. They've already been elected, so they're going to produce gold, silver, and precious stones, and the ones that produce wood, hay, and straw, well, they haven't been elected, so the only thing they can produce is wood, hay, and straw.

That's how you're coming to this text. You're not interpreting the text for what the text is saying.

You are presupposing a theology upon this text. Is that correct or not? No, it's completely false.

Of course, as everyone in the audience has seen, when I executed the text, I demonstrated in verse 13, for example, that you have a series of terms that are used together that have the same meanings.

Phoneros, Delos, Apocalyptic. Anyone who takes seriously exegesis of those texts sees that those three words have something in common.

They're talking about the revelation of the nature of the works. I am not the one reading into this distinctions of menial and mortal sins, or guilt and temporal punishments, things that have absolutely positively nothing to do with Paul's theology and are read in from an external source.

Well, you don't know that in this passage. You're just assuming that that's the case, because that's what your theology is dictating.

Now, let me move on. In verse 17, where it says, if any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him.

You interpreted that in which way for us? Could you repeat? Well, as the numeric standard, which

I'm looking at here, indicates, there is a paragraph break at between 15 and 17, and then beginning at verse 16, do you not know that you are a temple of God?

Notice the change in person addressing the people of God.

You are the temple of God, and Holy Spirit revolves in you, plural. Who mean? If any man destroys the temple of God, now addressing the entire people of God, God will destroy him.

The temple of God is holy, which is what you are. So, the vast majority of commentaries that I'm aware of,

Protestant and Catholic, recognize the transition of... Do you have any of those commentaries with you,

Dr. White? I have numerous commentaries on my computer. I'm saying, can you name one that does that?

Well, actually, even the drone Bible commentary does. Do all commentaries make a distinction between the people of verse 15 and the people of verse 17?

I have not read all commentaries, so no human being could ever answer that question. So, how are you going to prove for us that there's a distinction between the people of verse 17 and the people of verse 15?

Because the context changes, because the address of person changes, and the topic changes.

The address of persons is not changing. You have you, human, in verse 16. You have tis, in verse 17.

That's any of the above people. You can refer to any of the above people. It doesn't have to be another group of people.

So, how are you going to prove to us that it's another group of people, other than the people of verse 16? Simple exegesis, sir, because at the end of verse 16, you have a plural pronoun.

You do not have a plural pronoun to the preceding section that was discussing about tenos, a certain one or certain ones who do certain works.

Again, this is recognized, again, by the vast majority of scholarship Catholic reports. Dr. White, when you destroy the temple of God, would you say that that is building with a wood hand straw or not?

No. It's not? No, it's not. Complete mixing of metaphors. Okay.

Would you say that jealousy and strife and boasting and all kinds of things like that are destroying the temple of God or not?

That would depend on the context that Paul has not even addressed these issues here. A person might do that.

A person might not. If a person's a Christian leader, engaging in some of those things... No, I didn't ask you that. I didn't ask you that,

Dr. White. I said... You're asking me to answer questions that Paul himself did not even begin to address.

That violates his context. No, Dr. White, I'm just asking from your theological knowledge. Is jealousy and strife and boasting things that destroy the temple of God?

These are not things that are listed by the Apostle Paul here. They could be if they were specifically intended by a person to bring about the destruction of the

Christian fellowship. Okay, so what you're telling us then is that Paul can go through all this description of men of flesh, you have jealousy and strife, you're boasting against one another, but then when he comes to this passage about the building of the temple, all of a sudden it has nothing to do with what he just said about five verses earlier about jealousy and strife.

Is that what you're trying to tell us? What I'm trying to tell you is that there is a distinction in the context that is recognizable to anyone who is willing to see it.

I cannot force you to see it, but I think it's very, very plain to anyone who is willing to see it. Well, Dr. White, I'm not asking you to... Come on. Let's not get down to that level, okay?

Just show me from the text how you can separate... How do I have to answer? How you can separate verses 12 to 17 from verses 1 to 11 when he talks about these sins in the very context that introduces this passage about building.

Okay, let me repeat myself then. In verses 10 to 15, a specific judgment at the end time is in view.

A specific judgment of Christian workers that demonstrates why they did what they did. Verse 16 breaks from that specific discussion and moves on to other topics.

It does so and demonstrates that through the use of the plural... I'm going to cut you off, Dr. White. I'm going to cut you off here.

Show us where verse 16 and 17 is starting another context...

Ask an answer. Okay. In 2 Corinthians 5, verse 10, Paul says that each of us will be judged for our deeds done in the flesh, good or bad.

Is that the same judgment that's occurring here in 1 Corinthians 3? I don't know that it is or isn't.

In 2 Corinthians 5, verse 10, it regards the demeseet of Christ, the demetostupistu, and so this is a judgment only of Christians, so this would not be a judgment...

certainly would not be a judgment relevant in verses 16 to 17, which would involve the condemnation of individuals.

It is possible that the judgment of verse 10 would involve what takes place in 1

Corinthians 3. So you don't know? Are you telling us you don't know the answer to the question? I think

I just very clearly indicated what the answer to that question was, and that is... Is 2 Corinthians 5, 10 the same thing as 1

Corinthians 3, 15 or not? Yes or no? It is possible that it might be. It is possible, so that means you don't know? No, sir.

Unless the English language no longer has room for it's possible rather than yes or no, then it's possible.

There is no biblical testimony to an exact eschatology, the exact order in which

God's going to do everything despite Tim LaHaye thinking that there is. Okay, let me read this paragraph from page 193 of your own book.

For the Christian, the idea of not being able to present to his Lord works that are done for the proper motivation, works that were built with gold, silver, precious stones is a terrifying one indeed.

It is no light matter to stand before the judgment throne of Christ. Now those are your own words. By that, you are connecting 2

Corinthians 5, 10 to 1 Corinthians 3, 15, are you not? It is quite possible that this is the same judgment.

Ah, quite possible, okay, so what you affirm in your book is now a possibility.

No, what I affirm in my book is that obviously as anyone who read it knows, what I'm saying is that the

Christian leader takes very very seriously his responsibility in standing before the people of God.

Is it the judgment seat of Christ or not? It might well be, yes. It might well be, okay. Please note that ambiguity.

In verse 5 of chapter 4 of 1 Corinthians, Paul says therefore God is going to come and judge and bring to light things hidden in darkness and disclose the vibrations of the heart.

What kind of judgment is that? What judgment is that? What was the reference? 1 Corinthians chapter 4 verse 5.

Okay, tell me what judgment that is. Therefore do not go on passing judgment for the time but wait until the

Lord comes and both bring to light the things hidden in darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts and then each man's praise will come to an end.

Sounds like the same one. Same one as what? As mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5.

Okay, so now Paul's mentioning this judgment here right in the same context as 1 Corinthians 3 .15.

So you're saying to me that it's a possibility he has two different judgments in mind? As I've tried to point out, it is quite possible that all this judgment takes place at that same time.

Quite possible, okay. Note the ambiguity. Okay, Romans chapter 2 verses 6 -8 also talks about a judgment being judged for works.

What judgment is that? The reference here? Romans 2 verses 6 -8. Who will render to every man according to his deeds?

That is the final judgment. Final judgment, okay. How about John chapter 5 verse 28 -29?

Well that's would be at the resurrection itself since Jesus Christ evolved.

Is that the final judgment? It certainly leads to the final judgment. Specifically when it says the dead will come forth.

Is the judgment of 1 Corinthians 3 .13 .15 the same time as John 5 .28

or not? It's a different group. Different group? Aren't the levers raised at that time?

1 Corinthians chapter 3 is specifically about Christian leaders who built upon the foundation. That's Paul's own contextual.

Alright, so is this a different judgment then than the one in John 5? As I've said, we're not given a chronological order as to exactly when things take place at the beginning of eternity, the end times.

Dr. White, in your personal theology, is John chapter 5 verse 28 -29 the same as 3 .15 or not?

In my personal theology, sir, there is no list of judgments in a particular order.

Now I see why you're confused. Thank you very much for my time. Dr. White?

I am not going to abuse the audience by skipping cross -examination.

Cross -examination is for asking questions. It isn't abuse of cross -examination to make statements. I'm going to do my best despite the fact that's not what was just done.

And I'm abusing it right now. But I'll explain to you why I'm going to do it. Cross -examination is for clarifying points and asking questions.

It is not for me to make arguments. And so I'm going to do my best to seek to avoid doing that out of honor to the audience.

Dr. Zugenis has the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically defined the answer to any of the questions you just asked me as to the exact order of judgments.

Yes. And where do they do that? They do that in the Catholic catechism. So the

Catholic catechism is infallible? At the Council of Trent. They do it at the Council of Florence. They've done it throughout history.

The last official document that says it is the catechism. And that gives you an exact order of answers.

Does that give you an infallible interpretation of any of the passages that you just cited? Yeah. The Council of Trent does.

The Council of Florence does. How many infallible interpretations of the Bible has Rome provided? Infallible interpretations?

When they're needed in controversies, the church will infallibly define them. Probably a dozen of them have been defined.

Only a dozen? Was each one of the ones you just cited infallibly defined? No. So you only had your own personal opinion on these passages?

No, no, no. There's a difference between the church infallibly defining the rest of Scripture and the church citing a passage of Scripture to support a document that is dogmatized.

Right. And simply citing it doesn't mean that they're infallibly interpreted, right? No. Even the church says that.

And the church doesn't have to infallibly define every verse that it uses for a doctrine that it teaches.

So has the Roman Catholic Church infallibly defined, for example, that Zemiato means suffer, 1 Corinthians chapter 3?

No. And they're still aware of it? No, they haven't. So that's your personal opinion? No, that's a lexicon's opinion.

It's a lexicon's opinion. Okay. In 1 Corinthians chapter 3, let's take a look at this.

On a simple exegetical basis, what does phaneros mean in verse 13?

It means manifest. So each man's work will be made manifest.

What does manifest mean? Shown for what it is. De loci. Did you agree with my statement quoting from Vedag that de loci means to make known something that was not previously known?

No, I don't. I agree partially with that, but it doesn't mean that that's only what it means.

You can declare something that's already been known. All it means is declare. De loci. So you don't you disagree with Vedag, Loanita, and others that there is a...

No, I don't disagree with you. I just said it can also be to declare something that is known, not something that is just unknown.

And apocalyptic apocalyptic in the same text in verse 13.

Yes. What does apocalyptic mean? To reveal. So these three terms together talk about the revelation of works being done by fire.

Is that correct? Yes. How does fire, how does the suffering of purgatory declare what works are?

Don't you have to already be judged by God at your death and sent to purgatory or sentenced to purgatory, whatever terminology you wish to use?

This is a metaphor. He's using the metaphor of a building on fire to declare what works there are.

That's the problem with this passage is it keeps going in and out between metaphor and reality as I said in the beginning.

So to pin this down to purgatory is not listening to the context of the metaphors that Paul is using here.

In verse 13 it says that the fire itself will docamonzo. What does docamonzo mean?

Which verse do you want? Verse 13? It will show it, it will prove it, it will declare it, it will reveal it.

It will declare docamonzo. So how does fire declare something?

In the metaphor that Paul is using, fire strips away the materials that are burned, leaves what's left.

So if this has something to do with purgatory and purgatory is where you undergo sadaspatio, why is it that Paul talks about all this revelation language, four terms in a row, that talk about revealing something when the nature of the works have already been revealed before we go to purgatory.

That's why you go to purgatory is to have the temple punishments removed, isn't it? Well, you have to tie verse 13 in with verse 15.

Verse 13 is talking about God's fire that will determine what the works really are.

Then in verse 15 he says, but what about this person whose some of his works are burned up? Well, he'll be saved, but he has to pass through the fire also, just as God already put the works through the fire in verse 13.

That's what my point was earlier. Could you explain why you disagree with the Jerome Bible Commentary's interpretation of 1st

Minion 3 .13? Well, the same reason Augustine disagreed with the Jerome Biblical Commentary, because Raymond Brown wrote it. Raymond Brown is a liberal

Catholic who says many things that are against the Catholic Church. Raymond Brown went to Union Theological Seminary, a

Protestant seminary, one of the most liberal in the world. So I can see why he would disagree with Augustine and the rest of what the Catholic Church taught on this passage.

Except that Raymond Brown didn't write the commentary on 1st Minion's chapter 3, only Catholic Priest did. Well, he edited it.

Well, okay, but that would be like holding you accountable for every word that was written in it, not by Scripture alone, even when you didn't write the chapter.

The authors that write under Raymond Brown believe the same thing he does. They're all in the same boat. They're all in the same boat.

Has the Pope gotten rid of any of them, or does he continue to appoint them to papal biblical commissions?

Well, Raymond Brown died in 1998. Oh, that's true. But he does occasionally, and I wish he would do it more, chastise wayward theologians like Ponce Combe, for example, who was defrauded.

And there's many more on the list that should have been, but unfortunately they weren't. But the fact remains that there are people who teach with full knowledge of the

Roman Magisterium who agree with my understanding of verse 15 and not yours.

Is that true? Sure. There's a lot of Catholics who believe in heretical ideas. The Church doesn't know about it. So the

Pope doesn't discipline people who believe in heretical ideas and teach them in Catholic schools? Not all the time, and sometimes when it does happen, it happens very late.

I see. Is it not the case that I provide an example of Paul's use of zamiaho that clearly means to suffer loss and not be punished?

Could you repeat that question? I didn't get the first part. I provide a text in Philippians where Paul uses zamiaho to mean suffer loss, not to be punished, right?

Yes. Do you know any place outside of 1 Corinthians chapter 3 where Paul uses zamiaho that it has the specific contextual meaning of be punished?

No. In 1 Corinthians chapter 3 verses 14 and 15, would you agree in a sense, verses 14 and 15 both start with aeternos, that this is meant to be a specific parallel on Paul's part?

Aeternos is a parallel to what? Well, verses 14 and 15 both start with the same two words, right?

Yes. In fact, the first four words are the same, aeternos ta aragon, right?

Yes. So, in verse 14 it says, aeternos ta aragon menai, so if a certain man's work remains, which he has built, misthon lenstata, he will receive a reward.

So, the parallel to misthon lenstata would be zamiahofesatai, correct?

In verse 15? Sure. So, how can the parallel to the reception of a reward be punishment rather than suffering loss?

I didn't say loss. I said the proper translation here, according to the metaphors Paul is using, will be suffer loss.

I said a double meaning to zamiahofesatai is the fact that its root means punishment as well as suffer loss.

So, a double meaning derived from what in the context? Where are you getting this double meaning?

I'm just giving the lexical definition of zamiahofesatai. But it seemed like you were saying that Paul is actually attempting to communicate a double meaning.

What in the context, given that this is a parallel statement, tells us the double meaning is to be punished?

The context doesn't, because the words don't speak. You have to look up what the words mean in a lexicon to find out what the derivation is.

But any word use in a semantic domain is defined by its context. So, in the context, there would have to be something that would tell us that Paul means us to look at the entire semantic domain of zamiahofesatai.

What in the context does that? The context of salvation. The context of salvation.

Yes, we know, because the next word, zothesitai, will be saved. Paul now tells us that this is a salvation context.

And if that's the case, then we have a deeper meaning to zamiahofesatai than just suffering loss in a metaphor about building.

We have now a shift toward what it is to be saved and what it is not to be saved. So, you disagreed with my identification of a shift in verses 16 and 17 that was based upon pronouns and audience.

But here, in the middle of a verse, with the word day being used to connect the rest of the verse together, you're introducing an entire shift of metaphor?

No, Paul is. Paul uses a metaphor, and then he goes back to reality when he says, we'll be saved.

So, the metaphor of a man being saved from a burning building, running from the fire, which even the

Drone Bible Commentary sees goes all the way through the end of verse 15, you think ends after zamiahofesatai and beginning without toss.

We now have no longer the use of that metaphor. I don't see any running through the fire here,

Dr. White. Can you tell me where you see it? I was quoting the Drone Bible Commentary. Well, that's not our authority here. I'm asking a question, sir.

So, you believe that that changes at that point. Okay. That's very interesting.

I want to find out how you understand in light of the concept, do you believe that the temporal punishments on your soul must be atoned for by sadaspatio before you can enter into the presence of God?

Yes, unless those sins and their punishments have been atoned for in some other way.

And hence, your standing before God today is based upon what?

If you were to, well, you and I are both, I'm not sure when you're flying out. I'm flying out tomorrow afternoon.

Weird things happen. Birds fly into plane engines and things happen.

Tails fall off a plane. Who knows, you know? You and I both have to get into a pressurized steel metal tube and ascend to about six and a half miles height riding on top of jet fuel.

I'm sorry, my wife works at the airlines. I shouldn't be saying this, but. And we have to take off and land.

What is the basis of your being able to say you have peace with God and will enter into his presence when you die?

Are you sure you want to go down this lane? I asked the question. I just want to make sure.

I've repented of my sins and been baptized, as Peter said in Acts 2 .38, the forgiveness of my sins.

And yet, you also believe that if you get on that plane and, you know, some guy cut in line in front of you was rude to you, which happens a lot in airports, and you had unkind thoughts, unjustified thoughts of anger toward him, maybe thought that maybe the window next to him would blow out and he'd be sucked out into the atmosphere, and that plane goes down, you will not go directly into the presence of God, right?

If I commit a sin, a venial sin, if that's what you're referring to, and that's what I would characterize as, you know, wishing that he'd be sucked out a window.

He would consider it a moral sin. Good thing he's not my judge.

Yes, I would not be in the presence of God at that point. I would have to be purified from that sin.

And that sin probably is a sign that other things have been occurring in my life that made me wish that he'd be sucked out a window.

That it's not just a spur -of -the -moment sin, it's something that has led to that point where I finally exhibit this problem that I had.

So I deserve to be, that deserves to be dealt with. Okay. May I ask, have you ever taken advantage of an indulgence offered by the

Savior? As much as I can, yes. As often as you can, yes. Could you explain to folks what an indulgence is?

I'd rather have you explain it than me. An indulgence is, like, when I, I guess one of the better ways to explain it is to go back to the example of David that I used, where he was given a specific punishment from God, that God would punish him for three days.

And, you know, God kills 70 ,000 of the Israelites and then starts to relent, and the angel tells

David to offer a sacrifice so that God will completely relent and not go through the three days of punishment.

So David does that. He gives money, pays for the sacrifice, God relents, and there's no more punishment.

That's what an indulgence is. Isn't an indulgence, according to Roman Catholic Church, based upon the existence of what's called a thesaurus meritorium, the treasury of merit, which is made up of the excess merit of Christ, Mary, and the saints, so that since Christ had excess merit, since he shed copious amounts of blood, there's all sorts of excess merit.

Mary, being sinless, had all sorts of excess merit beyond what she needed for salvation. And then each saint who does not have to go through purgatory is judged to have had at least sufficient merit to enter directly into the presence of God.

All that's placed in the treasury of merit, which is under the control of the keys of Peter. Is that not the case?

That's true, yes. And so the indulgence that you would have received is merit, credited to your account, merit from the excess merit of Christ, Mary, and the saints.

Is that true? Sure. So that remains at least the formal teaching of the

Roman Catholic Church. Yes. I'd like to read a quote if I could from John Chrysostom.

I'd like your comment on it. He has set a boundary for the sin between the present life and the age to come.

If a person is righteous but has performed some mean action and is ill in this life and is handed over to punishment, do not be disturbed but consider it with yourself and say that this righteous man has done some small evil deed at some time, as we're seeing is due here, in order that he may not be punished hereafter.

So if someone is righteous and suffers some misfortune and receives a due time here for this purpose, in order that he may put away his sin and depart clean to the other world.

Can you find anywhere where Chrysostom talks as you do of purgatory and indulgences?

Yeah, it's homilies on Philippians. Okay. What does he say about indulgences or purgatory?

You want me to read it? Well, if you can do so briefly. Let me see how much time do you have.

Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability. Let us think of some assistance for them, even small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them.

But how and in what way? By praying for them and by treating others to pray for them. By constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf.

Treasury of Merit. Treasury of Merit was your insertion, was it not? Yes. Okay. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in all some mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed.

Okay. For when the entire people, want me to keep going? Well, could you comment on what I said from the beginning about the fact that the early prayers were for what's called refrigerium, not for deliverance from, or comment on what

Neal said, that while prayers to the dead were universal, they were not associated with the concept of purgatory of pain.

Could you comment on those scholars' comments? Well, you have all kinds of elementary and incomplete ideas among the populace in the early centuries of the church on many issues.

The Trinity itself wasn't finalized until about the 4th century, and the same with the incarnation of Christ.

There were many ideas floating around in the churches of the day of many various doctrines.

So I'm not going to expect these people to have a complete concept of purgatory, as they didn't of the

Mass either until the Council of Lyons and Florence. For prayers to the dead to be relevant to the concept of purgatory, we have to have certain basic elements in place.

You just used the Trinity. The doctrine of Trinity is clearly revealed in Scripture, but we don't have those basic elements such as indulgences, a treasury of merit, a distinction between menial and mortal sins, guilt, and so on and so forth.

How do you see those prayers as being relevant without the historical foundation to make them relevant?

Well, first of all, I disagree with you that there is a distinction between mortal and menial sins in Scripture. As a matter of fact, in this very book that I wrote,

I have a whole footnote on passages that do make that distinction. And all the other things that you said,

I disagree with. So, the final part of your question, now I forget what it was, could you repeat it?

In essence, your reading of these prayers, many scholars read them and see that they are prayers merely for the enjoyment of Heaven.

Why do you see them as having some deeper significance? Well, because the whole basis behind purgatory is that you're going to be in Heaven someday.

Nobody by these prayers is denying that they have to go through some kind of purification in order to get to Heaven.

Even though you can't show us any place that ever mentioned that? Well, up until the 5th century. Well, I've listed all the fathers that talk about purgatory and prayers for the dead as a combined doctrine, from Tertullian, Serial Jerusalem, and all the way through Ephraim, Ambrose, Apostles, Gregory, Nisbett, Ephanius, and Chrysostom, and Augustine.

So, I don't know what more you need to prove the point. Each of them talk about prayers for the dead and purgatory, in the same breath sometimes.

And time. Some good stuff. We've got to take a break so you guys can have 2 minutes and 43 seconds and we'll see you back here.

We're going to start with rebuttal 2, 10 minutes with Dr.

St. Genesis. Let me know when you want to start. We all have 10 minutes. Ready?

Alright. Since we're on 1

Corinthians chapter 3, let me use my microphone. It's time to address that passage.

What I've noticed with Dr. White's presentation and his cross -examination and rebuttal is this.

Dr. White will not admit that there is a difference, that Dr.

White will not admit that there is no difference between sin and bad works. That is the basic premise with which he comes to this passage.

Why is that? Well, as soon as Dr. White admits that the works that are built with wood, hay and straw are sins, then he has to answer the question of how those sins are going to be judged.

And if sins are judged then he has to figure out some way that the man can escape being punished for those sins.

But the text does not I don't want to confuse you here.

Let me just back up again. If he says that the passage that the works that are done with wood, hay and straw are sins, then he has a problem because he's already told us that the

Christian sins are all paid for by Christ. And yet these sins are now coming up to be adjudicated at this day of judgment, you see.

That's why Dr. White does not, in no way shape or form, ever admit that these works are sins.

It's his theology simply dictates against it. Okay? My stipulation was, if that's the case, show us where the

Bible says that bad works are not sins. No passage was presented.

What Dr. White did was say that the Greek word ergon is neutral.

It doesn't refer to bad works. It doesn't refer to good works because the word kakon is not used as an adjective for ergon.

That was his argument. Okay? But it's obvious from the context that Paul is talking about two different kinds of works.

It's the same reason why Dr. White, even though his book as I read from this paragraph of his book, where he associated 2

Corinthians 5 verse 10 with 1 Corinthians 3 .15 with no ambiguity, no equivocation.

He said that the passages are exactly the same in his book. Now he tells us in his debate that, well, it's just a possibility.

Why is he saying that? Well, see, because I call him. I call him because in his book, if he says that 2

Corinthians 5 .10 is the same judgment as 1 Corinthians 3 .15, then he has to admit that there are bad works and good works that are judged.

And why? Because, I'll read that passage to you again. 2 Corinthians 5 verse 10. We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

And that you just agree or call, bad. Okay? So here we have it. And as a matter of fact, in verse 11,

Paul says, therefore knowing the fear of the Lord, this is a fearful judgment.

Okay? And this is the exact words that Dr. White used in his book when he talked about the throne of Christ. It's a fearful thing to stand before the judgment throne of God.

Well, that's the same thing Paul says here in verse 11. Fear of the Lord. Because of this fear of this judgment, we persuade men.

What are they persuading them? Well, to make sure that they're safe. Make sure that they don't have to go to these places of punishment.

That's why in 2 Corinthians 6 he says to the very Corinthians that are Christians, he says, now is the acceptable day of salvation.

Do it now. You see? Because many of you are in sin and you're not going to make it.

Okay? So that's the kind of context we have for these judgments. And I must have asked him at least four times whether 1

Corinthians 3 .15 was the same judgment as 2 Corinthians 5 .10 and he said each time, well, it's a possibility.

Whereas this book says it is definitely the same judgment. Now, let's say 1

Corinthians 3 .15 is a different judgment than 2 Corinthians 5 .10. A different judgment.

Well, what judgment would that be? Could you tell me of any other judgment in Scripture other than the final judgment that takes place for Christians and anybody else in this category of 1

Corinthians 3? I don't know of it. I don't know of any other judgment that Scripture talks about other than the final judgment.

So if Dr. White insists that this is a different judgment, I would implore him to show us from Scripture where that idea is supported.

Where could he show us in Scripture that this is a different judgment if it is answered to me that it's only a possibility that it's the same judgment as 2

Corinthians 5 .10 that he does come on the other side of that and say, well, here's the other evidence that may show it that it's just a possibility.

Here's the other evidence that says there's another kind of judgment other than the final judgment. I would demand that he show us that.

Now, I pointed out 1 Corinthians 4, verse 4 and 5, and in that passage,

Paul himself is referring to his own judgment, and he says, I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted.

You see, in the passage, we've heard the word that Dr. White would like to use, acquitted.

And Paul says, but the one who examines me is the Lord, okay, who will bring to light things hidden in darkness, even of Paul himself.

Now, if Paul's a Christian, why is he being judged? You see,

Dr. White is trying to tell us, well, Christ paid it all, the guilt and the punishment, so there's nothing that Paul really has to be judged for.

And yet Paul himself says that he's going to be judged because he can examine himself to such a point, but he doesn't know himself completely, and he leaves that all to God.

And that's right in the context where Paul's talking about men building with gold, silver, precious stones, or wood, hay, and straw.

So doesn't it make sense that right in the same context, Paul is including himself in a person as he is with Apollos in the first verses of chapter 3, who's a builder, and God's going to judge for how they built the building?

Dr. White even agreed to that. He said that Apollos were the ones who were center stage in this context.

Well, if that's the case, and Paul's saying he's going to be judged for things hidden in the darkness, that sounds quite like what

Paul's talking about in 1 Corinthians chapter 3. In 1 Corinthians chapter 10, I pointed this out earlier,

Paul's talking about the Israelites, who had all the blessings. They even had the spiritual rock to follow them, which was

Christ. Christ was in their midst. Nevertheless, with most of them, not some, most of them,

God was not pleased and they fell into wilderness. And then Paul says, now these things happen as examples for us that we should not pray evil things as they also pray.

Here we have another admonition. Again, why?

Well, because the Israelites sinned. I see sin in the Corinthian church. Let's root it out, because if you don't root it out, you're going to face this judgment.

And if the judgment is severe enough, you're going to end up destroyed because you destroyed the temple of God. You know, and the

Ezekiel told the same thing to the Israelites. He says, you build with untempered mortar. You build the building of God with untempered mortar, and by that the people are exposed to sin.

You sin yourselves and God comes in judgment. Paul's picking up on that very paradigm here in 1 Corinthians 3 about building the building with either good materials or bad materials.

The reason Dr. White doesn't want to admit that this applies to Christians is because he has this theology that dictates that there's this, again, as I said before, there's a certain set that are saved, there's a certain set that are damned, the ones that are damned are going to produce the living and straw, the ones that are saved can't produce anything but gold, silver, precious stones.

That's his philosophy. That's his theology, you see. That's not Paul's theology. Paul's theology is anybody can fall from their salvation, and he says it over and over and over again, even of himself.

He says, I strive to run the race so that I can win the race lest I myself become a reprobate, in 1

Corinthians 9, 27. Now, he's saying that about himself. Here's a man who, you know, who tries to live an impeccable

Christian life, and he did, and yet even he examines himself to such a point where he says, even

I may have sinned, and I don't even know that I've sinned, and I'm exposed to God's judgment, you see. That's the context that Paul is using here.

And that's the context of 1 Corinthians 3 .15. Thank you very much.

My position is just very badly misrepresented by Dr. Suggest. It's amazing that after all this time he did not understand what

I was saying. He just said that, I believe that the elect will produce gold, silver, precious stones, and these other people are not electable.

I've obviously never said that. Everyone who has judged 1 Corinthians 3 as a Christian worker has said, yes, so has my father.

They're all the elect. It's amazing that my position can be so clearly, and yet Dr.

Suggest believes that this is the first time he's done something to mass in the past.

He has insisted that my book supports his position, but I, the author, say, no, you're misunderstanding. Just now he has said that my book definitely says that this is the same judgment.

It never does that. What I did is I used the language, and the language states that Christian leaders will be judged for their service to Christ.

Not in regards to their salvation. Evidently, from Dr. Suggest's perspective, there's only one judgment, the Great White Throne Judgment.

Is that what it is? When Paul was talking about, he's going to be judged by Christ before the Bemah see the Christ, the

Mercy see the Christ, that's the same thing as the Great White Throne Judgment. So Hitler is going to be saying this to Paul, they're both going to be judged as to their service to Christ in the church.

Obviously there's more than one judgment. Everyone recognizes that, that's very clear. And that would have been what

Dr. Suggest would have been taught at Westminster Theological Seminary. At least it would be important to read that into what's being said by the other side.

Dr. Suggest has failed to allow Paul to define his own meaning. Given his view,

Paul could never address the revelation of the motivations of Christian leaders without at the same time moving directly to the general judgment.

He has said, oh, in 1 Corinthians chapter 3, he just won't allow this to be sinned. It's not a judgment about sin.

The judgment that these men are already saved has already been made. The text is very clear.

There has been no rebuttal of this. Every single verb, every single context, we got into it, is had to have been.

What's going on? It's a revelation about motivations. What kind of work?

Never anything about purification. Never anything about purging. Nothing about purgatory.

Why are we still on this? Because it's all Roman Catholics. The early church and the apostles had no concept of this belief.

You have to believe in it because you're Roman Catholic because of what was done at a council 1 ,400 years later.

That's what forces the reading of these texts in such an unnatural way where you ignore the context's own indications of what the issues are.

In fact, let me give you an idea. Dr. St. John has talked about Eden. He uses indulgences every time he can. That means he wants to have this transfer of merit from the treasury of merit.

Have you heard anything about the treasury of merit in Scripture? I know we haven't read into this as a quote, but we certainly haven't found anything about it in Scripture.

His transfers of merit so that if he ends up in purgatory, that will lessen the amount of time he has to be there undergoing sanaspatio.

If anyone wants to know about purgatory, here's a Roman Catholic book I suggest you take a look at. It's called Purgatory by F.

X. Schubert. Published by TAM. If you want another book on the history of the birth of purgatory by Goff, check these books out.

You'll have to listen to what I have to say. Check them out for yourself. Millions of Roman Catholics have lived and died on the basis of what's called the

Sabatine Privilege. I think I'll ask Dr. Sugenis if he believes the Sabatine Privilege.

Let me just read you my list. Two wonderful promises of Our Lady are available to those who have been enrolled in the Brown Scapular. Enrollment is a simple process.

The great promise of the Blessed Virgin Mary given to St. Simon Stock in July 16, 1221 is as follows, quote, whoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.

Our Lady's second scapular promise known as the Sabatine Privilege was given by the Blessed Virgin Mary to Pope John the 22nd in the year 1322.

It is as follows, quote, I, the mother of grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death, and whomsoever

I shall find in purgatory, I shall free, end quote. Now, there are three conditions for obtaining this privilege.

The wearing of the scapulars. You have to wear an article of clothing. The practice of chastity according to one's state of life.

The daily recitation of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So if you'll do those three things on the

Saturday after your death, now I know, and I don't know, I'm going to have to ask Dr. Supernazis, but modern

Roman Catholic apologists say well there's no time in purgatory, we don't know, but clearly for hundreds of years

Roman Catholic Church taught that there was time in purgatory, without question. The whole idea of selling indulgences made no sense if you couldn't get a certain amount of trial off your suffering in purgatory.

And I don't know about you, but if Mary is going to descend on the Saturday after I've died in purgatory to get me out,

I hope she knows what time it is. Because if there's no time in purgatory, then there's no coming

Saturday. Millions of people have worn these little pieces of cloth, and have said these prayers, believing these promises, and whether you sit back and say well

Rome never officially defined, if Rome knows it, and the Popes support it, don't tell me that's not

Rome's teaching. What does any of that have to do with the

Gospel of Jesus Christ? Absolutely, positively, because as we said, in Hebrews chapter 10

Jesus is described as the one who by one sacrifice, he does something, remember

I didn't have much time unfortunately to really emphasize this, but I want you to hear it again

Hebrews chapter 10 verse 14 for by one offering he has what?

Perfected. So perfected. When we stand before that thrice holy

God I do not want to stand before him in a robe of righteousness cobbled together of my righteousnesses, the excess righteousness of Mary and the

Saints, and the excess righteousness of Christ.

Only a perfect robe of righteousness will do, and that is the robe of righteousness that is mine by faith in Jesus Christ, he who knew no sins made sin on my behalf so that I might become, what?

The righteousness of God not the righteousness of Mary, not the righteousness of the Saints, the righteousness of God in him, and that is the only way you will ever stand before the thrice holy

God is perfected not by what you have done, but perfected by what

Christ has, 2 Corinthians chapter 5 does talk about a judgment and that judgment has been brought up a number of times in this particular discussion, but it's not a judgment in regards to salvation, that judgment even from the

Roman Catholic perspective has to take place at the time of death. Think about it from the Roman Catholic perspective, who is in purgatory right now?

Those who have had what? Temporal punishments on their souls. Who determined that? So in other words they had to be judged already, right?

Dr. St. James just sat over there saying there's only one judgment, but everybody in purgatory already had to be judged to be sent there to suffer from the temporal punishments of their sins.

Right? So I guess there's more than one because they wouldn't be there unless they had been judged to be lacking in the requisite perfection to enter into the presence of Christ.

But you see, any believer in Jesus Christ is the blessed man of Romans chapter 4 to whom the

Lord will not impute sin. Now the only reason

Dr. St. Janice has to fear so as to gain indulgences has to be concerned about purgatory is because in his system his sins are imputed to him, both mortal and menial sins are imputed to him, and he's accountable for it.

Believer in Christ my sins have been imputed to my sin bearer, and his righteousness has been imputed to me.

Which is why in Romans 5 .1 we have peace with God, present tense.

We have peace with God, having been justified. That's why.

Now will God continue to discipline me? Yes, I'm his son. Why? Because I need some type of cleansing so that I can be perfectly in the presence of God?

No, that's been taken care of by Jesus Christ. The reason is laid out for us in this. God's purpose is to conform us to the image of Christ.

To make us like Christ. You see, that third point in my opening statement was all about what?

The effect of believing in purgatory on the gospel. Purgatory is only necessary if your gospel can really save you.

That's the point, that's the issue that must be understood. If you have a gospel and a savior who perfects those for whom he makes a sacrifice, you don't need purgatory.

Alright, we're going to move to the finals. Can someone turn off the projectors? The projectors are still on and my screen saver goes up and starts putting my travel pictures on the screen for you.

It must be really nice, but I don't think you really need that, so I just thought I would ask you. I guess

I could just unplug it, but that's why I didn't want that to happen.

Okay, I'm sorry. I was just sort of, yeah, I needed that. No, I appreciate it. Let's move into the final cross -examination led by Dr.

St. Janice. Fifteen minutes. Sure. I know when you're going to start.

Ready? Yep. Alright. Dr. White, you made reference to the penance and I assume you're referring to 2

Peter 15 as not being the final judgment. 2

Corinthians chapter 5 verse 10. Thank you. You referred to this beam of seed as a mercy seed.

Can you tell me where that is taught in Scripture? That the beam of seed is a mercy seed and that it's not about the final judgment.

Well, because the seed of Christ that is being discussed here specifically in regards to for we must all and that is specifically addressed to the people of God at Corinth.

So a differentiation is made, especially due to the fact that the only place we have the final judgment being made is the

White Throne Judgment. And that judgment is made out of books. Those whose names are not written in the

Lamb's Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire. That's not what's going on here. Where does 1

Corinthians 5 10 say that? 2 Corinthians. 2 Corinthians 5 10 say that it's only for Christians.

I don't believe that you can find that in verse 9. It very clearly says for we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.

I don't think the reprobate have as their ambition to be pleasing to Christ. So my question to you was where is the beam of seed in Scripture taught as a mercy seed?

Again, I use that in regards to the fact that the judgment of Christ is one that will be marked by mercy.

I didn't say the term benoitos meant that. Well, that doesn't prove anything, Dr. White. I'm asking you where you can prove that the beam of seed is a mercy seed.

If you don't want to use the term mercy, since I didn't say benoitos meant that, there's a common term to describe the fact that Christ's judgment of His people is one that is based upon His mercy that has brought them to that position.

Okay. Show us then where the beam of seed beta, eta, mu, alpha as used in the

New Testament is a judgment seed only for Christians and only one that gives mercy to Christians.

Can you prove that for us? I did not make the statement that your question is asserting.

I simply said it's like in chapter 5. It's a judgment of believers. It's not a judgment of non -believers.

Show us where, I ask you again Dr. White, show us where the Greek word bema is used as a differentiation that is another judgment other than the final judgment.

Can you prove that for us? I already did. I'll repeat it for you. Verse 9 specifically says, therefore we also have as our admission, when we're absent...

I'm going to cut you off Dr. White because you're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself. Okay. I'm asking you in the rest of scripture,

I'm not talking about the context because the context only begs the question as to where our scripture teaches that the bema seed is a mercy seed for Christians.

Can you show us other places that bema is used where it refers to Christians being judged and given mercy and That's why

I never made the claim. I will not bother to answer the question. I've not made the claim. You're asserting things you've never said.

So then you have no way to prove to us that 2 Corinthians 5 10 is talking about a different judgment than the final judgment.

No, it's of course untrue since I just pointed out to you that the final judgment is about life and death and this is a judgment where the we is

Christians. Have you proven to us that non -Christians are not of this judgment?

There is absolutely no reason in this text to see that non -Christian.

I'm not asking that. I'm asking have you proven to us that non -Christians are not of this judgment? That is like trying to prove the universal negative.

You would have to demonstrate that non -Christians are in the context. Could you repeat that last statement?

Yes, you have to demonstrate from this context that non -Christians are appearing at this judgment for that statement to be relevant.

I'm sorry, I missed it again. You are asking me to prove non -Christians are there. You're making the statement.

Therefore the verdict proof lies upon you, not upon me. I have said this text is talking about believers and I have demonstrated why

I believe that. Alright, so let's go to John 5 28 and 29 again. There it says that the dead will be raised and the dead good and the dead bad will be raised and they will be judged.

Now, what is that judgment? When is the judgment the resurrection of judgment?

Yeah, when is John 5 28 and 29 taking place? At the last step. At the last step.

Okay, so here you have Christians being raised from the graves. You have the wicked being raised from the graves.

They're being judged at the same time. So now we have, what judgment is that for Christians then?

Well, it says it's called those who did good deeds for resurrection of life, those who did evil deeds for resurrection of death. Okay, so here you have in 2

Corinthians 5 10 that these same Christians are being judged for their good deeds and their bad deeds and yet you're telling me that John 5 28 and 29 is distinct from 1

Corinthians 5 10 or are they the same? Yes, they're distinct. They're distinct. Okay, so now you have two judgment days for Christians.

You have one in 2 Corinthians 5 10 which is this means that you haven't proven to us yet that refers to mercy and now you have another one,

John 5 28 and 29. When does that take place? Sometime after 2 Corinthians 5 10? Again, as I have said,

I simply allow the fact that there is a judgment in regards to eternal life and eternal damnation and likewise there is a judgment of believers in regards to their works.

Dr. White, answer my question please. I don't mind you answering my question, Dr. White. No, I'm asking you when

John 5 28 and 29 takes place. Does it take place after? I've answered that three times. Well, answer it again for me please.

This is at the end of time, sir. This is the final judgment. Okay, John 5 28 and 29 is the end of time.

So you have another judgment that Christians have to go through at the end of time. Is that correct? Well, so they have more judgments than the wicked do.

The wicked only have one to go through. The Christians have two to go through. They have 2 Corinthians 5 10 to go through and they have

John 5 28 and 29 to go through. Actually, in regards to that allegedly being a question, the fact of the matter is this entire text has said we've already passed out of death into life.

We've already been judged on that matter and therefore the judgment that we face before the

Bema Toss to Pistou is a judgment in regards to what we have done with the gifts that God has given us.

Alright, so then why do we want to have another judgment of Christians in John 5 29? I'm sorry? If you say that John 5 24 is true to what you're saying, they don't pass through judgment, then why are they passing through another judgment which you just told us occurs after 2

Corinthians 5 10? If you look at the actual text, you'll notice that it is Anastasin Zoes and Anastasin Chrysostomos.

There are two different kinds of judgment. One is a resurrection of life. One is a resurrection of judgment.

Those who have not been raised with Christ will be raised to be judged for their sins. We are not raised to be judged for our sins.

The only judgment we have is that before the Bema Toss to Pistou Dr. White, the text says that the

Christians will be judged for their good deeds. Those who have done good, they will be judged. What text is it?

John 5 28 29 Actually, it's describing those who receive resurrection of life.

It's not about them being judged. Where is the word judgment? Judgment is at the end of Chrysostomos, at the end of Anastasin.

Anastasin Chrysostomos. Okay, here we have do not marvel at this, an hour is coming when all the new tomb shall hear his voice and shall come forth.

Those who have done good deeds. Okay, so how were these good deeds determined? It doesn't address that.

This is description. That's the difference between you and I. You're making this the means by which they attain the resurrection of life.

I'm saying those who receive the resurrection of life are those who did good deeds, those who did evil deeds when they received the

Anastasin Chrysostomos. Judgment is only used in one group. It is not used in the first group. Is it?

I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. I'll ask him. It says he gave him authority to execute judgment because he's the son of man.

So the son of man is going to execute judgment, determine who has good deeds and who has bad deeds. Is that not correct?

Isn't that what he's doing? Actually, he's going to determine who has resurrection of life and who has resurrection of evil. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Follow the sequence here.

Those who have good deeds, how was it determined that they have good deeds? God knows all things. So then why do you have to have a judgment of 2

Corinthians 5 .10 to determine the good and bad deeds? I don't see any reason to read 2 Corinthians 5 .10 in John chapter 5. I'm not doing that.

I'm just asking you a question. Why do you have to have a judgment of good and bad deeds for Christians in 2

Corinthians 5 .10 if God already knows what they've done? Because that involves revelation of that to us.

We don't know that. We don't necessarily know those things, do we? Dr. White, I could differ.

You're not making sense to me. So I'm going to have to ask you again. 2 Corinthians 5 .10

Paul says we have to stand before this judgment seat of Christ, this behemoth seat, to be judged for our good and bad deeds.

So is it not true that some people will have good deeds there and some people will have bad deeds? Yes, sir.

Christians are not perfect. So when John 5 .29 says that those who have good deeds...

Different context. Different context? Yes, completely different context. Aha. Because we have a different judgment.

Is that what you're saying? Well, it's very clear that John chapter 5 is addressing Jesus as the

Son of Man and His ability to raise men and His ability to give life in 2 Corinthians chapter 5 is specifically limited to the judgment of believers.

So yeah, they're a different context. I see. Okay, Dr. White. Tell us then, what are the bad deeds of 2

Corinthians 5 .10? Are they sins or not? Anything that is not perfect will have sin attached to it.

Ah, okay. So here we have Christians being judged for sins. Is that correct? No, sir, because we already cloned the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the judgment in 2 Corinthians chapter 5 specifically says nothing about any of these people being condemned for these bad deeds.

I don't know how you could do a bad deed and not be condemned, but there'd have to be condemnation here for this to be the same thing as John chapter 5.

No, Dr. White. I didn't ask you that. I asked you were the bad deeds of 2

Corinthians 5 .10 sins or not? You said yes, and then you took it back by saying, well, they're covered by the righteousness of Christ.

I did not take anything back. Okay, so are they sins or not? I'm going to finish this, and if you want to keep beating on it,

I'll let you sit here and beat on it for as long as you want, but there is a difference between a judgment in regards to whether a person is going to be saved based upon whether they have sins that have not been forgiven, and whether a

Christian will be judged in regards to works that they have done in their service to Christ. There is a difference between the two.

You may not like it, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the dogma of purgatory.

Dr. White, are bad works of 2 Corinthians 5 .10 sins or not? Ask me that, sir.

Are they sins or not? Ask and answer, and I'm going to sit here and say it until 3 minutes and 5 seconds are done, because beating it is worse.

I'm still confused as to what your answer is, because you keep going round about it. I just want to know, are they sins, yes or no?

The sins that are being judged, the individuals are being recompensed for his deeds in the body according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

I just asked you yes or no, Dr. White. I'm not giving you yes or no questions. So the bad works are not sins, is that correct?

Moderator, I have finished answering your questions. At this point, if you'd like to ask other questions. Moderator, I can ask him any questions

I want. I can ask him any questions I want. Sure. You've got 2 minutes and 28 seconds.

The bad deeds here are not sins, is that correct? Ask and answer, sir.

Is jealousy, strife, divisions, boasting, are they sins, Dr. White? Ask and answer, sir.

Let's not play that game. We're all trying to learn here,

Dr. White. I want you to clarify. Dr.

White, is jealousy, strife, divisions, boasting, are they sins or not?

Ask and answer. Okay, Dr. White, I'm trying to clarify this for the audience because I'm confused of your position, to be quite frank.

I don't think anybody else is, sir. The rest of my presentation, why don't you go ahead.

Well, if I'm confused, I'm sure a lot of other people are confused. I don't know what you're proposing here.

Jealousy, strife, divisions, boasting, in the context of 1 Corinthians 3 .15, it's imperative that we know...

There is nothing about any of those words in 1 Corinthians 3 .15, sir. Where's jealousy in 1 Corinthians 3 .15?

Can you show it to me? You just said verse 3. You didn't say verse 15. Weren't you the one talking about context when

I was dealing with Matthew 12, verses 1 -32? Weren't you the one talking about context and many other places?

Can you demonstrate the context that that has, that these are the same people? You have not done so the entire...

Oh, yeah, I have because what I've done is I connected verse 21 that says, so then let no one boast in men with the beginning of 1

Corinthians chapter 1 verses 11 and 12 where they were doing the same boasting.

So we have one whole context here. We have one whole context of people boasting and causing jealousy and strife in the church from chapters 1 -4, and yet you're telling us this little curriculum about ability has nothing to do with any of these sins that Paul mentions from chapters 1 -4 in 1

Corinthians. What I'm telling you is that Paul himself identifies the context, and you have ignored the context as being built on the foundation.

Yes, it's been very, very clear. I haven't ignored the context, Dr. White. What I've done is I've shown how the context is dealing with sin from start to finish, and that's what you're denying because your theology demands it.

My time is up. That is not true. Alright, Dr.

White. Final cross -examination. You have 15 minutes. So if I were to say to people, on Saturday, we're going to get together for another debate in this room, that would mean that Mary's going to answer prayers?

That would be the natural meaning of those words? When that promise was given to Pope John XXII that said on the

Saturday after a person's death, Mary will descend into purgatory and freedom, that's what they would have understood that from?

I don't know what they would have understood, and I wasn't there. You have indicated as I recall in Hebrews chapter 7, when it says that Jesus is able to save the uttermost, is it your position that purgatory is a mechanism that he uses to save?

And if we could ask the folks in the church, the air conditioning turned off, probably on a timer, it would be really nice if you would go back on.

Amen. I don't see anybody moving.

Hopefully somebody didn't get that. Hebrews chapter 7, Dr. St.

Janice, Jesus is able to save to the uttermost. Would you say that he uses purgatory as a means to that end?

I'll answer that in two ways, Dr. White. The person who goes to purgatory is already saved.

What has to happen for him is that, as I pointed out with David as my example of being punished, no one gets away with anything in God's economy.

So, if he's committed sins worthy of punishment, he will be punished, either this life or the next.

The guilt of the sin has already been atoned for, therefore he will not have to suffer eternal judgment, therefore he won't lose his salvation.

So, in that sense, I'll answer your question. Dr. St. Janice, are you the blessed man of Romans 4a?

Yes, and so are you, and so is David. So, what does it mean that the

Lord will not impute your sins to him? He doesn't use the word impute there.

He uses the word dokimanzo, which doesn't mean impute. So, when logintimai is used in verse 7 as Paul's actual interpretation, and then verse 8 uses logintetai, you're saying it doesn't use logintetai?

No. I'm saying it does use logintimai. What I'm saying is logintimai does not mean impute it.

I see. And what does it mean? Logintimai actually means, in your view, logintimai is something that occurs, is a something that somebody sees, but doesn't actually exist in reality.

But we have shown, as I show you in my book here, logintimai actually means something that is true in reality of what you actually see.

Therefore, the righteousness that is given to us is something that actually exists.

It's not a fiction. It's not there as sin and that we just recognize it as something good because Christ covers it over.

That's not what logintimai means. The preponderant meaning of logintimai, of all the references, and there's about 14 of them in the

New Testament, means we see what actually is existing. So in verse 8 of chapter 4,

Blessed is the man who sinned, the Lord will not logintimai. What does logintimai mean? If you commit a mortal sin tonight, will it be imputed to you?

Will you be held accountable for it? Well, you're asking me two questions. Which one do you want me to answer? Either one.

Repeat the first one. How then do you translate Romans 4 8? How do you translate logintimai in Romans 4 8?

Now to the one working. 4 8. 4 8. Okay. Blessed is the man who by no means has his sin accounted to him.

Accounted to him. Yeah. Okay. If you commit a mortal sin this evening, will it be accounted to you?

I already told you. The guilt will be forgiven. So it's not accounted to me. So what about temple punishment?

Temple punishment. I've already told you that. David suffered temple punishment and he's the one being talked about here.

He's the blessed man. He's forgiven of the guilt of the sin. So sin in verse 8 actually doesn't mean sin.

It only means guilt. I'm not putting that in there. You're putting that in there.

He just says sin. Okay. You asked me about what happened to David. I told you David was saved from his sin.

Obviously he has to be saved from the guilt of his sin. Otherwise he would be in eternal damnation. But you asked me also about the temple punishment.

I told you that the temple punishment stays and that's why David was still punished. So when David heard repentance of his sin when

Nathan came to him, it's your belief that David understood the difference between guilt, eternal punishment, temple punishment, menial sins, and mortals.

I don't know what David understood about the theology of it. Dr. Wade, all I know is that he knows that God still saved him.

He was forgiven of his sin and yet he still had to be punished. So David knew he had to be punished.

He did not think there was any possibility that that child could live. I don't know what David thought. God told him what was going to happen.

He said you're going to be punished for your sin and he was punished. I see. So David's prayers and things like that, if he had understood your position he wouldn't have bothered because he would have known that punishment would have had to take place.

I don't know what David thought, Dr. Wade. You're done?

Yes sir. Alright. I will move on to closing statements.

10 minutes starting with Dr. St. James. Let me know when you're ready.

Alright. Ready to start?

Yep. Alright. Final statements. Alright.

Now I hate to repeat myself but it demands it in this case because I am thoroughly confused by Dr.

White's position and I respect Dr. White. When we spar up here back and forth this is what we do for a living.

This is our profession. We don't hate each other. We love each other. I love him.

I hope he loves me. I believe Dr. White's going to go to heaven. I hope he believes

I'm going to go to heaven. But this is about truth. We want to get to what scriptures teach because if one of us is teaching the wrong thing we want to know about it and we want to correct it.

So that's why we're here. So when we get going on this, we've debated eight times.

Some are pleasant, some are not so pleasant, some are in between. Right, James? We are both men who want to know the truth.

That's one thing I appreciate about Dr. White. He wants to know the truth. I believe that. I definitely can tell you

I want to know the truth. And I get very excited and sometimes hot in love about people that don't preach the truth.

I don't care how sincere they are. To me it just matters what the truth is.

And sometimes that can lead to some kind of animosity or not being as personal as you want to be.

But the fact is, this is the gospel and if what the gospel is teaching here is correct, boy, hell is real.

Despite the debate we're going to have tomorrow. Dr. White.

And I do believe there is a hell. And God is very serious about sin. This world is on a one -way ticket to hell.

I believe most of the world is. And I think you people are very unique to have you here, even listening to a debate like this.

Because we all basically believe in heaven, hell, death, and judgment.

Those are the bottom lines for us. The details are things like this. I consider this a detail.

There are other details we disagree upon, but I just want to let you know that if we spar back and forth, don't be offended by it.

Don't be upset by it. This is just the way we get to the truth. Having said that, I will reiterate a few points because I think they're important.

1 Corinthians chapter 3 is one of the main passages that we use for this teaching of purgatory.

So I'm going to reiterate those points just in case you didn't catch them the first time. Those points are this.

In the context of 1 Corinthians chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4, Paul basically is telling the

Corinthians that they're not living up to the standards that he has taught them. And because they aren't living up to these standards, they are in sin.

And if they don't clear up this sin, then they will be judged. I had read from his second letter, the end of his second letter, in chapter 13 where he does say the word sin, believe it or not.

He says this. I have previously said when present the second time and though now absent

I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well that if I come again

I will not spare anyone. Those are pretty ominous words. Now he's referring to all the warnings that he gave back in 1

Corinthians. And he's saying that these people have sinned. And most of them he says,

I forget where that is but then in chapter, in verse 5 of that same chapter he says this test yourselves to see if you are in the faith.

Examine yourselves. Because you've sinned, you may not even be in the faith.

So here's another warning that Paul is giving. I take these very seriously. I take them face value.

I take them literally. If he's giving a warning there must be a reason for that. And so when

I say that the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 3 is talking about this building with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and stone and I see a whole context surrounding that of people falling into sin.

Paul warning them against this sin. Well then I take that as the context to be used to interpret what this building with gold, silver, precious stones and wood, hay and stone means.

I don't think that's far fetched. Okay? If that's the case then these works of 1

Corinthians chapter 3 are going to have to somehow deal with this subject of sin.

Are they sins or not? Okay? Now if the whole context surrounding them is screaming sin at us then why are we going to say that these works of wood, hay and stone are not sins?

When almost every other passage that was pointed out is dealing with sins.

Okay? That's why I went to 2 Corinthians 5 .10 and I talked about the bad works.

And again, Dr. White would not admit that these bad works are sins. Because his theology just won't accept that.

Because Christians can't be judged for sins. Because they've all been covered by Christ's righteousness so he sucks. Okay? Every time this issue comes up about the works,

Dr. White's going to have to deny that it's sins. Because his theology won't accept that. Okay?

It's the same reason that Dr. White wants to make a distinction between the people of verse 17 in 1

Corinthians chapter 3. If you remember that passage it says, if any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him.

That's one of the most ominous passages I've ever read in the New Testament. It's very close to Hebrews chapter 10 verse 31.

It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. That's pretty ominous too.

And that's talking to Christians. In that passage there he's talking about Christians falling away from the faith.

Hebrews chapter 10. If you haven't read that recently, let me read it for you.

Because these things need to be said over and over again. Hebrews 10 26 says, for if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.

But a certain terrifying expectation of judgment. He's talking to Christians here.

Hebrew Christians. Okay? So I can see why Paul would use in verse 17 of chapter 3 of 1

Corinthians, if any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him. It's the same kind of admonition we see all over Scripture.

So for Dr. White to divorce that passage of destroying the temple of God will destroy you, from the rest of the context,

I just think it's deplorable. Absolutely deplorable. Okay?

And Dr. White also had a problem with whether, you know, 1 Corinthians 5 .10 is the same judgment as 1

Corinthians 3 .15. He's already got Christians attuned to different judgments.

We got the final judgment. We got the Bemissi judgment. And now he's telling us it's a possibility that 1

Corinthians 3 .15 is a whole other judgment for Christians. So now we've got three judgments that are possible in his theology.

And you see, this is what happens when you don't have the truth, you start making distinctions to cover your tracks.

And you start making distinctions of passages that don't sort of fit together. So you put them in another category over here and you have your main category over here and you put these over here because you can't deal with them because they don't fit into this other category, you see.

You start making distinctions. Well, the Catholic Church doesn't do that. 1 Corinthians 3 .15,

2 Corinthians 5 .10, Apocalypse chapter 20, verses 11 -15, John 5 .20

-29, Matthew 12, 36 -39, all those judgments are the same judgment. All the same, the final judgment.

That's the only thing the New Testament knows is the final judgment. This is the same reason that Dr. White couldn't tell us where the themes in 2

Corinthians 5 .10 was defined by scripture as giving mercy to people.

It's not. That word is used 12 times in the New Testament. In not one passage does it ever talk about giving mercy.

It is a passage in those 12 instances that is talking about a judge judging someone and either he is innocent or he is guilty.

Innocent or guilty. In every passage that theme is used in the New Testament. And that's exactly what

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5 .10 will be judged as innocent or guilty based on their good and bad words.

So we have no problem with this in the Catholic Church. It's all one big judgment that drives them to do it all at one time, last day, very last day.

I can't talk anymore. Thank you. Dr. White.

We were just told the Catholic Church doesn't make distinctions. The Catholic Church has popes and cardinals and bishops and archdeacons and all sorts of offices we've never heard of in the

New Testament that distinguishes between mortal and menial sins, temporal and eternal punishments. It has all the

Marian dogmas but the Catholic Church makes no distinctions. I think the Catholic Church has made so many distinctions that it's actually impossible to even catalog all of them any longer.

That's interesting. Dr. St. Jenna started off by saying, talking about how these people become very spirited.

They say, please I'm going to heaven. I'm surprised. Because Rome has made it very, very clear that those who die outside of her fold do not go to heaven.

And those who oppose her and reject her teachings do not go to heaven. So maybe he's hoping that he's going to convince me before the end of time that Rome is a true church.

That hasn't happened yet and I can guarantee it's not going to happen in the future. But I don't believe the gospel that Robert St.

Jenna believes is the same as the gospel. That's why I'm here tonight. I wouldn't come here to discuss a point with somebody.

I'm not going to fly all the way to Oregon to just discuss a point. This is about the gospel.

And I don't believe a gospel that says that you have to undergo postulant purgatory or that you can stand before God clothed in the righteousness of Christ, Mary, and the saints as well as your own is a gospel that saves.

I believe that gospel is under the condemnation of Galatians chapter 1. I made three points in my opening statement.

I believe all three have been very firmly established, especially in the cross -examination period. I talked about the history.

We didn't have any rebuttal to that. The development over time. The fact that those who were responsible for the development of this belief, such as Gregory the

Great, there is no reason for you to trust what they had to say. They weren't dealing with meaningful exegesis.

They didn't know the scriptures. These were individuals who were extremely ignorant and it was a slow developing thing that took place over time.

Secondly, we looked at exegesis. I believe that if anyone will simply take the time to look at the text we look at,

I think Matthew 12 was completely dealt with. The Mark 3 passage is very, very clear. Any confusion that has been introduced in 1

Corinthians chapter 3 is a confusion that simply does not allow you for Paul to define his own terms.

Notice that in verse 13 once again, a big emphasis on exegesis. This is a judgment of sin.

These are sinful acts. 3 .13. Each man's work will become evident. Who's the workers?

Those who are built upon the foundation. Do all human beings build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ? Of course not.

This can't be the judgment of all human beings, can it? Of course not. And no one who reads this passage without external authority is whatever thing that it is.

For the day will show it, the day of judgment, because it is to be revealed with fire and the fire itself will test what?

Whether something is or is not a sin? The fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

Now what kind of work are we talking about? We're talking about Christian leaders in the church, what they've done and built upon the foundation.

And the only point that Robert St. John has had this entire evening is Paul can't do that. He's been talking about sin elsewhere.

So he can't stop and talk about Christian leaders. No, no, no. It all has to be a general judgment.

And once you recognize the fallaciousness of that assertion, then Paul's words are clear, easy to understand.

And the whole point is, we haven't been given the slightest exegetical grammar from Holy Scripture for anyone to believe.

That's your death. You have to go to some place or enter into some state. A lot of Roman Catholic apologists, they don't.

Most of them would have shied away from half of what Robert said. They don't believe purgatory is a place anymore.

I bet you I know, I was going to ask him this. I bet you I know why Robert doesn't get all upset about that, because he's a fan of, am

I correct in saying Carly Bellamy? Very important to you, Robert. Bellamy is important. Bellamy himself said that the theologians are unanimous that purgatory is in the bowels of the earth, near hell itself.

And so you see, he knows what Roman Catholics believed about this. It was a place of exquisite torment.

Read this book again. This one right here. Check it out. How many saints in the Catholic Church have talked about the exquisite torment.

You have to go there to have the temporal punishments of your sins purged from your soul before you can enter into the presence of Christ.

I was listening to this book just recently, and one of the saints talked about how she recoiled from the presence of Christ.

I don't want to be in the presence of Christ, because I'm not pure enough. That's where the issue comes into the

Gospel. Because if you're suffering, you're penances, you're our fathers, you're crawling upstairs on your knees till they're bloody and wrong, can in any way prepare you to be in the presence of Christ, I say to you, you don't understand

His holiness. You don't understand His purity. There is nothing.

The only reason I do what I do is out of love, not out of trying to in some way, shape, or form.

Even by taking advantage of some allegedly gracious merits and sacramentalism, do penances so as to purify myself.

You see the fundamental difference here. We heard the warning passages. The warning passages in the book of Hebrews are written to the

Christian congregation. They were people who claimed to be Christians. That doesn't mean they weren't. Anyone who could go back and offer sacrifice was someone who had never been united with Christ in the first place.

They went out from us, as might be demonstrated, they were not truly of us. If they had truly been of us, they would have remained with us, 1

John 2. That's the biblical statement. The warning passages are there and they're used by the

Spirit of God in the hearts of His elect to impress upon us the gravity of what it means to deal with the living

God and to recognize what He has done for us. But what we see here this evening and what the discussion of purgatory always raises is the difference between a man -centered gospel and a

God -centered gospel. When you hear those passages, those that are man -centered gospel, those are prescriptions whereby you get yourself to heaven.

He who endures the end shall be saved, therefore your endurance is what saves you. No. That's a description.

Why do I endure the end? Because God by His Holy Spirit has given me saving faith and causes me to endure.

We have heard much this evening. We're told that it's deplorable to see that there is a complete context shift in use of pronouns and audience in verses 16 -17 in 1

Corinthians chapter 3. I say to you it is absolutely deplorable that you can listen to the description of Jesus in Hebrews chapter 7.

He is able to save the uttermost those who draw nigh unto God by Him.

Have you ever listened to me in a session? You want to know what's deplorable? Well, I won't deny this.

In a debate we had before, we went to that text. He said, Ah, but we have to keep drawing nigh.

I say to you that's deplorable. It's deplorable to take a text that is specifically about the abilities of Christ and to deny

His abilities by inserting the almighty will of man. And it is deplorable to say that Jesus Christ wants to perfect those for whom

He makes a sacrifice, but we have to do X, Y, and Z. That, my friends, is deplorable.

The word of God is so clear. Were it not for counsels of men that took place 1400 years after they were written that did not add any clarity to the scriptures, but add all sorts of levels of complication and lack of clarity, we wouldn't be having this discussion this evening.

The gospel is that Jesus Christ is a perfect Savior. And yes, that those who have received

His righteousness He who knew no sin has made sin on our behalf. For what reason? That we might be made the righteous of God in Him.

Not through satisfaccio and purgatory. The reason I have peace with God tonight is not because I look to myself.

Therefore I haven't been justified by faith. We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. True shalom.

True peace. Not a peace that can be interrupted by warfare at any moment, but a true peace because my relationship with God is not based upon what

I've accomplished. It's not based upon, as a little bit of God put it in the fundamentalism of Catholic dogma, my obtaining justification by what

I've done. No. The gospel of Jesus Christ is that we are saved perfectly by His work.

Nothing can be added to that. That's why the angel said His name should be called

Jesus. Why? Because He will save His people from their sins.

He is able to save folks. That's the Savior that I serve. Thank you. Thank you