The Apologetics of Vinney Lewis

Today, we'll address the question, is the Roman Catholic doctrine of papacy a tradition of God or of men? I believe the clear and obvious verdict of the

New Testament and church history is that papacy is a tradition of men. It is an institution that was unknown to the primitive

Christians. The first hundred years of the Christian faith passed in Rome without even a monarchical or one -man episcopate in that city, and no one seemed concerned by this.

Even after one man became the single bishop of Rome, many centuries passed before any sizable number of people could confess him to be anything other than the bishop of one of the largest churches in the world and the leading church in the

West. The Eastern churches struggled long and hard against those bishops of Rome who attempted to exert their power outside of their ancient boundaries.

Canons were passed at Nicaea and Chalcedon, which specifically limited Roman prerogatives. Great church fathers lived and died, wrote extensively in defense of the faith without ever once mentioning a papacy or believing it to be a divine tradition, let alone foundational to the church itself.

The Roman papacy grew over time, and with the aid of political forces, eventually reached the height of its power under Innocent III more than a millennium after the

Lord Jesus had said to Peter, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. Indeed, it was not until the 19th century that the papacy reached its greatest power in the religious realm with the definition of papal infallibility, a doctrine utterly unknown in the early church.

The claims of the Roman Catholic Church with reference to papacy are wide -ranging and broad. No person concerned about God's truth can afford to remain ignorant of this topic.

If the papacy is a divine institution, we all need to know this. If it is not, there are nearly a billion people laboring under a grave misconception, and they, too, need to hear the message.

If the Roman papacy is true, it can stand up to biblical and historical examination. If it is not, its defenders will be forced to engage in eisegesis of the biblical text, the reading into the text of concepts that were not there originally, and they will likewise face insurmountable difficulties when it comes to the record of the early fathers of the faith.

Our debate today, it is my prayer, will demonstrate that while God gave us the church as the body of Christ, He did not place one single mortal man on earth at the head of that body.

Thank you. Okay. Once again, I agree with my opponent on thanking him for getting together, and I hope this thing works out well.

I will say this. First of all, I'd like to make very clear an assumption upon which I'm working.

It sounds like a very obvious one, but sometimes obvious assumptions are useful to be stated. The papacy is inherently

Catholic. Catholicism is inherently papal. That does become an important point later.

I will present six arguments, or shall I say six facets of the same argument, which will establish to any reasonable person, any person seeking the truth whatsoever, that the papacy is, in fact, a divine institution.

I will simply name those arguments now, so it will make it easier, number one, for purposes of clarification, and secondly, for attempted rebuttal.

One argument shall be from miracles. Another argument shall be from Scripture.

By that, I mean the Bible. A third argument shall be from right reason. A fourth argument shall be from what

I call witnessing. A fifth argument shall be from what I call winning.

And a sixth argument, which has a rather fancy term, but I couldn't think of a simpler way to put it, will be an associative ontological argument.

All of these six, or each of these six, by themselves, in conjunction with one another, or separately, will prove my point beyond any doubt whatsoever that the papacy is, in fact, part of the divine plan for the

Church founded by our Lord, Jesus Christ, which is to be preserved on earth as a partly divine and partly human institution until the second coming.

I would like to make a couple of clarifications at this point before we get into the exposition itself.

Number one, the papacy has at least two general aspects.

One is the administrative aspect, which deals essentially with the day -to -day operations of the

Catholic Church or the Church of Rome. The second is the pronouncing aspect or function, which is the dogmatic sense.

In this, I will make it clear that the administrative functions of the papacy, that is, the administrative decisions, which bishop shall head which diocese, etc.,

are not, I repeat, not covered by any infallible aspect of papal infallibility, nor in any way are we to consider these anything other than individual decisions of an individual pope.

Therefore, the pope, that's what we're dealing with, he who holds the position of the pope, functions in two quite specific and quite distinct fashions.

Number one, as a pen in the hand of God when he makes definitive dogmatic statements.

By that I mean the pen has no more control over the word it writes than the pope has control over what he says.

Sorry to interrupt, Ben, but we're right at three minutes. Okay, give me 30 seconds. The other one is as the chief executive officer of the

Catholic Church. With that, let's go on. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Professor White, if you would go ahead and give your exposition.

Thank you very much. We first must refresh our memories concerning the claims made by Rome. This is very important as our debate focuses on whether the papacy, as defined by Roman Catholicism itself, is a divine or human tradition.

I begin with the words of the First Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, titled Pastri Terrenus, given April 24, 1870.

We therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose that the belief and acceptance of all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal

Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred apostolic primacy, end quote.

We know that this supposedly infallible document asserts that the modern Roman doctrine of the papacy, which included for Vatican I not only the concept of patrine primacy and the primacy of Peter's supposed successors as the bishops of Rome, but the concept of papal infallibility as well, is in fact the ancient and constant faith of the universal

Church. But remember that Vatican I continued and said, quote, at open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the

Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the

Lord and His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction, end quote.

As the New Catechism puts it in section 882, for the Roman pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire

Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

Now, the Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is placed in a position of primacy by the Lord Jesus Himself.

This primacy is one of honor, jurisdiction, and rulership. This primacy given to Peter is presented according to the dogmatic teachings of the

Church of Rome in Matthew 16, verses 18 -19, and John 21, verses 15 -17.

According to Roman teaching, Peter is the rock of Matthew 16, that Christ, in conferring a primacy upon Peter, intends this to be understood to apply to Peter's successors as well, and that hence

Christ is, in this passage, instituting the office of the Pope for the Christian Church. Rome further teaches that when

Christ spoke to Peter and said, Feed my sheep, he was, by so doing, setting Peter apart as the pastor of all

Christians, in a way different from all the other apostles. Peter is said to have been the Bishop of Rome. Because of this, his supposed primacy is passed on to his successors, the

Bishops of Rome. And finally, this viewpoint has supposedly been the ancient and constant faith of the

Christian Church. Supposedly, the Church has always believed this to be true. Anyone who would express a different perspective is holding to perverse opinions and are, in fact, anathema.

In light of this, it is incumbent upon the defender of Roman Catholic teaching to demonstrate the following. First, Jesus is without question speaking to Peter in Matthew 16, and in so doing, identifying him as the rock upon which the

Church is built. Secondly, that the words the Lord Jesus speaks establish Peter as the Prince of the

Apostles, the very first Pope, the head of the Christian Church. Thirdly, these words of Jesus necessarily indicate the creation of an office of Pope, replete with successors and the associated powers.

And finally, that the Christian Church has always held this to be her constant and unchanging faith. We must know that my opponent cannot merely demonstrate that the

Roman position is probably true, or that it is likely to be true, but that it is true beyond question.

Rome claims absolute authority in spiritual matters over all believers in Jesus Christ. She claims infallible teaching authority.

The papacy is not an issue upon which one can be neutral. Pope Boniface made this quite clear in the papal bull

Unum Sanctum promulgated November 18, 1302, where he said, Such is a tremendous claim, and tremendous claims require more than probabilities in their defense.

In light of the very limited time frame which we have to work today, I will restrict myself to summarizing the evidence, and will invite the listeners to delve further into the topic for themselves.

Two recent debates on this topic, one six -hour version against Roman Catholic apologist Jerry Matatix, which took place during the papal visit to Denver in 1993, and one four - and one -half -hour version against Robertson, Jennings, and Scott Butler, recorded at Boston College early last year, are available for those who wish to hear a much more in -depth discussion of the issue.

There are two major areas of evidence that demonstrate the human, rather than the divine, nature of the Roman Catholic papacy.

These two areas are the biblical evidence and the historical evidence. In both arenas, the

Roman Catholic apologist finds himself up against a veritable mountain of material contradicting his position.

Before addressing the few passages deduced by defenders of the papacy, we must step back and ask the first and most necessary question, does the

New Testament as a whole lead us to believe that Peter was considered the head of the Church? Was Peter viewed as the vicar of Christ on Earth?

Did Christians think of him as the Holy Father? Did the other apostles recognize Peter as their head and leader?

Does the New Testament lead us to believe that there was an office of Pope to which all Christians looked for guidance, and upon which the

Church's unity itself was founded? And do we find in the words, actions, and writings of Peter himself, evidence that he interpreted

Jesus' words in Matthew 16, verses 18 -19, in the way modern Roman Catholics do? A brief review of the facts answers these questions in the negative.

Consider, for example, the following items. While Peter is certainly prominent in the Gospel account, his name appearing more often than anyone else's, this is hardly evidence of the

Roman claims, for quite often it's plain Peter would rather his name did not appear. For example, immediately after receiving the revelation from the

Father concerning the identity of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16, Peter demonstrates his great fallibility by staying in the way of God's very plan of salvation, for when the

Lord Jesus begins to speak to his disciples concerning his coming death, Peter takes them aside and begins to rebuke the

Lord. Jesus' response to Peter shows that Peter was not thinking through his statements before making them. The same thing happens on the

Mount of Transfiguration, Luke 9, where Peter opens his mouth, and as Luke puts it, he did not know what he was saying.

Impetuous Peter is often the first one to speak, though this hardly makes him a pope. The Gospels themselves deny that any of the apostles had a position of primacy.

Note, for example, Luke 22 -24 -30, where on the very night of the betrayal of the Lord, the disciples are arguing about who would be the greatest.

Jesus does not say to his disciples, Don't you realize I made Peter the head of you all back in Caesarea Philippi?

He rebukes the entire spirit of anyone seeking primacy and makes no hint as to Peter's supposed headship.

Indeed, there that evening, the Lord Jesus prayed for Peter's faith, for Peter, more than any of the other disciples, would dishonor his

Lord that evening by denying him three times. The rest of the New Testament, likewise, gives us no hints of Peter's supposed supremacy.

Nowhere in the epistles of Paul, John, James, or Jude do we find them referring to Peter as a pope, nor do they give any hint of the institution of the primacy, of the papacy.

Peter himself fails to give us the slightest hint that he views himself as a pope, as the head of the Church on earth.

On the contrary, in his first epistle, he speaks as an elder, not as a pope, to the fellow elders of the congregation.

He does not speak as the chief pastor, but as a fellow pastor. There is no reference to Rome, the papacy, or any other element of Roman Catholic claims in this epistle.

His second epistle, likewise, is silent regarding the papacy and his own alleged supremacy. If there is no evidence for the papacy from Peter himself, we should hardly be surprised that there is none in Paul.

But in fact, we find statements and actions that are contrary to the Roman position, had it existed in the primitive Church.

For example, Paul indicates that he is in no way inferior to the very chiefest apostles in 2 Corinthians 12 -11.

Even if Paul has in mind here someone other than the real apostles of Christ, we can see plainly that he does not have any concept of the papacy and the structure of the

Church. For he writes to the Corinthians that God had placed in the Church, first of all, apostles, second prophets, third teachers, etc.,

1 Corinthians 12 -28. It hardly needs to be said that in all of Paul's letters, in which we find discussions of apostles, bishops, deacons, and all sorts of other positions of ministry in the

Church, never a word is said about the most important office of all, the supposed office of the pope, and the reason is plain.

No such office existed. I briefly mention only in passing the evidence against Roman claims found in Paul's epistle to the

Galatians, specifically the insistence that Peter was entrusted, according to Paul, not with the headship of the

Church, but with the task of preaching the gospel to the Jews. Likewise, we find

Paul's rebuke of Peter's wayward actions before the entire assembly most strange if, in fact, Paul viewed

Peter as the infallible head of the Church. One does not lightly say the head of the Church is not walking in accordance with the truth of the gospel, yet Paul said this about Peter.

This is, however, quite in line with the entire Pauline corpus in which you will find not a shred of evidence to support

Roman claims concerning Peter. Epistle after epistle can pass in review without the slightest evidence of Petrine primacy.

Even the pastoral epistles, with their extensive instruction on ecclesiastical matters, speak not a word about the papacy or Peter or anything even remotely similar to the

Roman claims. And we would be remiss if we did not at least mention the evidence in the Book of Acts wherein we find

Peter functioning as one of the apostles, not as a pope. He is sent to Samaria in Acts 8 -14 by the apostles.

He is called to answer for his actions at Cornelius' house in Acts 11, and in his response there is no hint of papal prerogative.

In Acts 15, James heads up the council considering the Gentile issue, and Peter, though a participant, is not seen functioning as a pope.

His words in Acts 15 -11 are our final glimpse of Peter in the entire Book of Acts. The history goes on without him and without a papacy as well.

When Paul arrives in Rome at the end of Acts, Peter is nowhere to be found. And so we conclude our overview of the

New Testament evidence with the plain fact before us that the concept of a papacy, with Peter as its initial office holder, is nowhere to be found.

Not only does the term itself not appear, but the office cannot be found anywhere, and we instead find contradictory data from the pages of inspired

Scripture showing that the early Christians did not look to Peter or to the Bishop of Rome as the head of the entire

Church. In light of the testimony of the entirety of the New Testament witness, the Roman apologist must be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the few passages to which he appeals prove the establishment of the papacy.

It cannot be a matter of it being likely that the Roman interpretation is the correct one, given the absence of papacy from all the rest of the

New Testament, the few passages adduced by Roman apologists such as Matthew 16 and John 21 must, beyond a shadow of a doubt, plainly and clearly and unequivocally establish patrine primacy and succession in the office of the

Pope. But do these passages do this? The answer is plainly no. Given the brief time allotted,

I will address only John 21 and Matthew 16 as the prime passages used to establish the papacy, and will address

Luke 22 only if necessary. With reference to the incident in John 21 and the thrice -repeated questioning of Peter by the

Lord, Do you love me? I cannot do better than Cyril of Alexandria, who said with reference to this incident, quote,

If anyone asks for what cause, he asks Simon only, though the other disciples were present. And what he means by, feed my lambs, and the like, we answer that St.

Peter, with the other disciples, had been already chosen to the apostleship. But because meanwhile Peter had fallen, for under great fear he had thrice denied the

Lord, he now heals him that was sick, and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter, and compensating the fault with the correction, end quote.

Here we have the gracious Lord restoring the apostle who, in his brash impetuosity, had promised to follow him even to death, and yet had denied him three times.

The threefold question of Peter, followed by the command to feed or shepherd Christ's sheep, is restorative in nature.

Nothing in the passage would even begin to suggest to us that this means that the other apostles were not likewise commissioned to feed and pastor

Christ's flock on an equal basis with Simon Peter. There is no indication that only

Peter is told to shepherd God's flock, nor that all others who shepherd the flock do so derivatively from Peter's supremacy.

But what is the central passage in this dispute, Matthew chapter 16 verses 18 through 19? No one will deny that Matthew 16 is a singularly important passage.

Here the Lord Jesus leads his disciples to a confession of faith in himself. The Father from heaven reveals the true nature of his

Son, Jesus Christ. It is a pivotal passage in Matthew's Gospel. Yet we find this passage being used to support a concept seen nowhere else in Scripture.

We are asked to believe that not only is the impetuous and frail Peter made the very foundation of the Church itself, but this foundational position creates an office of Pope, and that in fact this office involves successors, successors who will sit in the seat of bishop in the far -off city of Rome, 1500 miles distant.

Before we can discuss this passage, it is necessary to address the common claim that we should take Matthew's words and somehow guess how these words would appear in Aramaic, assuming of course they were spoken in Aramaic.

I will simply allow the leading New Testament textual scholar, Kurt Auland, to summarize my position. There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all the parts of the

New Testament were originally written. Speculations regarding some lost and unknown Aramaic original, what it would have said, only show the weakness of the argument being used.

The subject of the passage of Matthew 16 is the identity of Christ found in the confession of Peter.

When the Lord says, I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it, the focus does not change.

Jesus is not here speaking of the identity of Peter. He is still talking about himself and his church. This is plainly seen by continuing on through verse 20 where we read,

Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. The rock of which the

Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are part of the church. Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living

God. This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly, he changes from direct address to the third person, this rock, when speaking of Peter's confession.

He does not say upon you, Peter, I will build my church. Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the

Petrah, and the third person demonstrative pronoun before Petrah, the confession of faith upon which the church is built.

This statement is followed by the promise to, at some time in the future, give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, so that what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosens on earth will be loosed in heaven.

I emphasize that this is a promise, for the verb is future -intense. Yet, when we see this authority given in Matthew 18, 18, it is given not to Peter alone or even primarily, but to all the apostles, and that using the exact same language, word for word, regarding binding and loosing.

If someone wishes to say that Peter received the keys in distinction from the other apostles as their superior, they are also forced to admit that the giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture, a strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the constitution of the church.

Now, Mr. Lewis may disagree with my interpretation. That's fine. The problem is that my interpretation makes perfect sense.

It does not require giant leaps of logic to see how I come to my conclusions, and it is obvious that my position has been held by Christians from the earliest days of the

Christian faith until now. Let's say Mr. Lewis can present an equally likely interpretation. In such a case, the

Roman position fails. Why? Because, as we have seen, Matthew 16 is the last bastion of the

Roman cause. We have found no papacy anywhere else. If it is not here, plainly without question, it is nowhere at all.

Yet, the very existence of a viable, logical, rational, reasonable alternative to the

Roman interpretation makes the Roman interpretation just one of many, and such is not supportive of the structure built upon the passage by Rome.

Mr. Lewis cannot simply provide us with a possible alternative. He must be able to prove, beyond all question, the impossibility of all other interpretations.

Yet, he cannot do this, nor can anyone else, for that matter. Now, it is simply impossible to even begin to catalog the historical data that stands inalterably opposed to Roman claims regarding the papacy in less than four minutes.

Let me simply call as witnesses every early Church father during the first centuries of the Christian faith.

Ignatius of Antioch, for example, when he writes to the Romans, does not even mention their bishop, and no wonder, for as Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars alike admit, there was no one bishop in Rome at the time.

As J. N. D. Kelley notes with reference to Anacletus, an early entry in the list of the bishops of Rome, his actual functions and responsibilities can only be surmised for the monarchial or one -man episcopate had not yet emerged in Rome.

The Roman Christians did not consider it important to have one single bishop as the alleged successor of Peter all the way into the second century.

This should tell us something. This is just the beginning. The Epistle of Clement, for example, gives us no idea that the author, if it was

Clement at all, is even bishop of Rome itself. More likely, Clement was a scribe for the elders of the Church, and one does not find in the

Epistle any papal prerogatives or authority at all. Other early fathers, who not only know nothing of the

Roman claims, but instead provide negative evidence against them, include Cyprian, whose words echo in the

Seventh Council of Carthage, quote, for neither did any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishopss, nor by tyrannical terror did any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another, end quote.

Historians recognize that Cyprian was aiming most of this statement at Stephen, the bishop of Rome, the first man, we are told, who saw in Matthew 16 anything relevant to his own position as bishop in Rome, and this more than two centuries after the resurrection of Christ.

We find more evidence against the papacy and Irenaeus' rebuke of the rations of Victor, the bishop of Rome, and his dealings with the

Eastern churches in the Quarter Decimum Controversy, Intertullian's harsh words and mocking use of the phrase

Pontifex Maximus of the Roman bishop, and the African church's rebuke of Pope Dosimus as well.

All of this does not even begin to touch upon the evidence provided by the ecumenical councils, such as Nicaea and Chalcedon, each of which passed canons utterly opposed to Roman supremacy, specifically

Canon 6 of Nicaea and Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The simple fact is that the early councils had no idea that they had an infallible guide and source of answers from the person of the bishop of Rome.

But as my time has almost expired, I only mention in passing the fact that the early church, likewise, stands against the

Roman interpretation of Matthew 16 -18 as well as John 21 and Luke 22. When Vatican I spoke of these passages in terms of the clear teaching of Scripture, and claimed that it was expressing the ancient and constant faith of the universal church, the council was lying.

Eighty percent of the time, according to Roman Catholic scholars, that the early church addressed Matthew 16 -18, they expressed viewpoints other than that defined in Roman Catholic dogma today.

Likewise, the unique interpretations of John 21 and Luke 22 are unknown amongst the early fathers. Great men like Augustine, Hilary, Gregory, and John Chrysostom wrote volumes of books, preached thousands of sermons, and somehow forgot all the way through about the very foundation of the church in Matthew 16, and the fact that this passage marks off the bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ on earth.

Well, no, they did not forget, of course. They simply were not aware of this human tradition, nor did they believe it.

The facts are plain. The Roman papacy is a human tradition, built up over time, constructed out of the political movements that made

Rome the only apostolic see in the West and the last bastion of the Roman Empire. The attempts to find the

Bible evidence for the doctrines fail, simply because the biblical authors knew nothing of it. History stands inalterably opposed to the claims of Rome, and any person who claims to stand for truth cannot long embrace a tradition so devoid of it.

Thank you. Thank you. I would simply like to make as a formal statement that my first position, my first task is to set forth my argument and not to refute the claims made by my opponent.

I will do that in refutation and course examination. So therefore, my passing over them in silence, of course, does not imply in any way whatsoever my acceptance of his positions.

The first argument for the supernatural nature, that is, the divine nature of the institution of the papacy, is from miracles.

Interestingly enough, or shall we say providentially enough, today at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the reading of the

Gospel was from the earliest part of the Gospel of Saint Mark, in which we have the healing of the paralytic, in that Jesus heals a paralytic, but before he heals him, he tells the paralytic that his sins are forgiven, and the

Pharisees say, well, gee whiz, who is he to say this? And then our Lord says, so that you will know that the

Son of Man has the power to forgive sins, I work this miracle. So therefore we have a clear scriptural principle that miracles, at least sometimes, are there in order to prove dogmas.

I would point, I would mention merely a few miracles. One, which I think has the most relevance in this case, is the miracle at Fatima, which took place in the year 1917, in which 70 ,000 people saw the sun come down from the sky without suffering any eye damage or any heat damage, which, of course, can't happen unless God intervenes in the supernatural of the world, excuse me, in the natural events of the world, by imposing a supernatural system.

And of course, that's what we're dealing with here, divine, supernatural things imposed in the otherwise normal course of events.

This is not, as I would point out, or to use, borrow a phrase from my opponent, this is not a speculation or legend or folklore, it is quote -unquote history.

And anyone who wishes can go to the Encyclopedia Britannica, look up the Knowledge in Brief section, the blue -covered books, look up under Fatima and see that this is recorded with the exact same validity, with the exact same authority as the

Battle of Waterloo, as the inauguration of President Lincoln, and as the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus.

In other words, it's a historical fact. What are the circumstances involved? The Blessed Mother appeared to three children at Fatima.

Most Catholics know this, some of the other people listening to the tapes may not. However, one of the things that was confirmed, affirmed, repeated, and dogmatized during the apparitions of Fatima, was the role of the

Holy Father in Rome. Therefore, what do we have? We have the scriptural principle that miracles are used to confirm a dogma.

We have the presentation of Catholic teaching, and remember, Catholicism is inherently an interchangeable, excuse me, intermixed, inseparably, with the papacy.

So therefore, we have the absolute affirmation by God, through a miracle, affirmed in modern times, completely undeniable, that the

Catholic system, including indulgences, papacy, and honoring the Blessed Mother, was in fact, is in fact, and always will be in fact, correct.

This is a way to prove it. Other miracles? The Eucharistic miracle at Lanziano, which anyone who was in that part of Italy can check out, in which he can see the actual heart flesh of our

Lord. For those who are interested, he had a B positive blood type. The miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the miracles of the

Lord, the liquefaction of the blood of St. Gennarius, which takes place at the Cathedral of Naples, which I have seen with my own eyes.

What is the point? The point is that even if one wanted to argue any kind of lack of historical evidence, certainly, papal infallibility was defined, pronounced, decreed, etc.

after Vatican I, and after Vatican I, the most well -known, well -documented, well -witnessed miracle affirming

Catholic truth took place, that at Fatima. Therefore, we have a clear, absolute, complete, dogmatic fact which absolutely confirms the nature of the papacy, the nature of Catholicism.

Second argument, Scripture. Let me comment on Matthew 16. Let me ignore, simply because it gets rather scholarly, and I think rather petty, the whole issue of rock and Petrus and that type of stuff.

Let me go to the key passage. The key passage is, Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven.

Whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Everyone admits this was given to St. Peter. Truly, it was also given to the

Apostles later. Absolutely. But it was given to St. Peter individually. Now, one can say, in no way separate from the other

Apostles, but it was promised to St. Peter individually, and therefore was given because the Lord always keeps His promises.

If one understands Catholic positions, the Pope will always be in union with the

Bishops when they pronounce unanimously. Always in union. Always agree.

Always identical. So therefore, there's no conflict here. So what we have is a situation, to use a very simple analogy for the family, if the father and mother agree on discipline, then although the father is still ahead of the family, the mother will say the exact same words as the father, with a slightly different and diminished authority.

The authority of the Bishops is not the same as the authority of the Pope. That is especially the 1st Pope, St. Peter.

His statement, his power, was to change, bind, and loose things forever.

Now, let us go a little further in Scripture. What we have later is a rather interesting story of the paying of the temple tax, occurs in Matthew 17.

In this case, St. Peter is asked about whether our Lord pays temple tax. And St. Peter answers, yes.

Then our Lord, in a sense, gently rebukes him, pointing out that, quote, so it seems, his theology was wrong.

And then says, but lest they be scandalized, don't catch a fish and the fish will have a coin in it and pay the temple tax for both of us.

This clearly says the following, when you even appear to make a mistake, I will change the rules as God, lest no one be scandalized to think that you do not have the power to bind and loose and to decide infallibly forever, eternally.

I'll even change it, even if you appear to be wrong in the eyes of men. A very interesting passage, which can be interpreted in no other way.

It was very ironic, or shall I say providential, that my opponent brought up Luke 9. Transfiguration, because I also was going to bring that up.

It's exactly correct. What St. Peter said, and St. Luke makes it very clear, he didn't know what he was saying, was it was good for us to be here.

That is, in the presence of the transfigured Lord, which is, of course, an infallibly correct statement. And here's the point, he didn't know what he was saying, which means that papal infallibility functions separately from the will of the person.

Exactly what I said before, the pen in the hand. Now, let us now go on to the Acts of the Apostles.

Here we have the vision of St. Peter where the uncleaned animals are lowered from the sky, and he's commanded to take and eat, and St.

Peter refuses until he's told that these things are now clean. What do we have? What's the situation here?

We have the Mosaic Law was still in effect, even after the ascension of our Lord into Heaven. And it was changed.

Why? Because one man who happened to be the Pope, got a vision, and because of one man's vision, and one man's decision, and one man's revelation, the entire

Christian world was changed, and the Mosaic Law was ended only after our Lord went back into Heaven and changed.

The binding and loosening occurred through the instrumentality of St. Peter alone. I would also make a point that in the second epistle of St.

Peter, St. Peter makes a declaration, a judgment on passages, he doesn't say which ones, in St.

Paul as being difficult to understand what St. Peter is claiming in that epistle, and of course he's inspired by the

Holy Ghost, so therefore it isn't really a claim, but a fact, is authority over to judge the

Book of God. Anybody who's judging the Book of God has to be, have an authority over it, and to have an authority over the

Book of God, the written Word of God, the Bible itself, you would have to be the head of the Church.

There is no other way one could do that. Let me go to the next one. The next one, which is right reason argument, is that there has to be when there are disagreements between people, a way of resolving this.

Now one way, of course, would be to look to our own conscience and come to an agreement, but if we hold the situation as possible where men of goodwill could disagree or misunderstand, then we need an ultimate authority beyond which there is no appeal.

Certainly it can't be the Bible. Number one, Protestants who claim Bible only don't agree with one another, and nor have the

Jews, and all the time they've existed, seem to have ever come to any conclusions. Even when they were the chosen people of God, they constantly split up into various different groups, always having the same

Bible, endlessly disagreeing. It simply doesn't work. So, what we have in the United States is a

Supreme Court, a decision beyond which there is no appeal. What we have to have, therefore, by the same right reason, is a decision in the

Church beyond which there is no appeal. And it cannot be, as the Supreme Court, because there is no tradition for that, no claim for that, no way to decide those things.

So therefore, it must be, if it does exist, and since there is only one claim, the decision beyond which there is no appeal is made by the one man.

Why? Because it does exist and only one person claims it, only one person identifies it, has to be the

Pope. And, I point out that in Matthew 18, where our Lord talks about fraternal correction, and he says that if you correct someone and he doesn't respond, and he doesn't respond to two or three others, refer him to the

Church. And if he will not listen to the Church, in order to do that, you must have a hierarchical structure, which means that the local

Church down the street cannot make the ultimate decision. Because if it made the ultimate decision, it would be the only

Church. And since no one claims that, it must be that there has to be a hierarchical structure, the head of the pinnacle, the top of the pyramid, beyond which one cannot go on Earth.

Which has to be able to make that decision. Otherwise, our Lord was commanding us to do something impossible, and He doesn't do those things.

Now, another point to advocate the papacy, I call it witnessing. Let us work on two basic presumptions.

Number one, that our Lord meant what He said, at least, part of the times, and we are always to take seriously what our

Lord said. What He said in Matthew 14 was, you cannot be a follower of His unless you renounce all of your possessions, which means a vow of poverty.

When we look through the world in the Christian world, we see only Catholics do this. Not all

Catholics, by any means, but to use two simple examples, Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Saint Francis of Assisi.

Both of these followed the law of absolute poverty. Of course, millions of other Catholics have also.

Now, if that is a characteristic of the perfect follower of Christ, because Christ says to the rich young man, if you would be perfect, sell all your own and come and follow me.

If that is an example of an attempt at perfection, we find people trying that degree of perfection only in one church.

And what do we find in a similar characteristic or a similar sense of loyalty in Mother Teresa and in Saint Francis?

Submission to the Pope. So what we're saying is this, if anybody takes the words of Christ seriously, if anybody really tries to follow them, if anybody really goes in poverty and humility to take those words seriously, that is one sign, and it is, by the way, a distinctive sign of a true

Christian. And what do we find of all of the people who do this? They all give their loyalty to the

Pope. So if we find a distinctive Christian characteristic and then find all the people with this distinctive

Christian characteristic also have a distinctive loyalty, we can only come to a conclusion that therefore this distinctive loyalty must be part of true

Christianity, mainly loyalty to the Pope. Next argument, winning. In other words, our

Lord, being God, has made many promises that He will come to the assistance of those who defend the faith.

Now, we also know that God takes sides in these things. I'm just expanding a little bit from the promises of our

Lord, which means this debate, one of us is completely right, the other is completely wrong. There's no grounds anywhere in the middle.

This is not a bit of compromise. Either the papacy of divine origin, and every true

Christian must acknowledge it, or it is of human or maybe even satanic origin, and every true Christian must reject it as divine.

Therefore, the one of us that wins this debate, the one of us that does not contradict himself, the one of us that stands up forthrightly, the one of us that produces arguments and scriptural passages, and the one of us that is able to sustain his position, is the one that God is sustaining, which means the one that is right.

So in other words, I will win because I'm right, and I am right because I win. It isn't a self -fulfilling prophecy, but in this case, it's a self -fulfilling prophecy based on the prophecies and promises of our

Lord Himself. So therefore, it is not merely a human activity. Now, my last argument is the one

I call the associative ontological argument. This deals with the general Christian principle outlined by our

Lord that you are to judge a tree by its fruit. A good tree produces good fruit, etc.

If we are to argue, and if we are to accept, which all Christians must, that the Bible is a good thing, then one must go to the fact that it was the

Bible, a book containing sub -books put together in one binding with a specific table of contents, and that's what a book is, was produced by the publisher of the book.

That is, the Roman Catholic Church. That the canon, the parts of the book were formally authorized and canonized at the

Councils of Carthage and Hippo at the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 4th, and authorized by the Pope of that time.

What this means is, quite simply, but quite dogmatically, and quite factually, that the

Bible itself is a tree, excuse me, is a fruit of the tree of Catholicism.

Now, what this means is that the Catholic Church cannot then be inherently evil, but must in fact, unless our

Lord is lying to us, be accepted as inherently good. And again, those councils were formally approved of by the

Pope of that time. Therefore, not only is Roman Catholicism formally good, not only is the papacy formally good, but if we reject the

Bible, and that's the only way we can get out of it, we must accept that the word of God giving us the standard by which all men are to make judgments on institutions and products are, the conclusion is, that the

Church of Rome is the one true Church founded by our Lord. Which means what?

As I said with my assumption, and I'll repeat it again, since Catholicism and the papacy are inherently intermixed, completely inseparable, that the papacy must be a divine institution.

Why? Because the Catholic Church claims it is a divine institution. And if the

Catholic Church is the divinely instituted, founded, and sustained religious institution on earth by which men come to a knowledge of truth and save their souls, and it is, then what it claims must be divinely instituted, sustained, and authorized truth.

So therefore, if the Catholic Church is correct, the papacy is divinely instituted because the correct

Catholic Church claims it. If the Catholic Church is not correct, then the tree of Catholicism having produced the fruit of the

Bible must both be evil. But he who says the Bible is evil cannot claim to be a

Catholic in any way whatsoever. Since I haven't heard the bell, I'm going to go back a little bit on the scriptural arguments, which

I think will come up again. We have situations in the

Bible where St. Peter does claim to be Pope. Not directly.

But let me point out in the beginning of the epistles of St. Peter, when he talks about, I as an elder talk to you as a fellow elder, we must understand that, and I think everybody does understand this, though the

Pope has a special position, he still remains always the Bishop of Rome. This is one of his titles.

No one denies this in the Catholic Church. And the current Pope, or many other

Popes, have written encyclicals and comments and letters in the same, shall we say, rhetorical style.

They urge their fellow bishops to do this or do that. They do not always express things in an authoritative, commanding fashion.

Now, if one is to hold that somehow all of the Popes that have written in the same language were somehow denying their own papacy, then an argument could be used that the failure of St.

Peter to do this is in fact evidence. But in fact, Popes who claim full papal authority right in the same style express themselves in the same way, no conclusion can be drawn whatsoever, except that the first time

St. Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, to write it in a certain way, and since then, various Popes have been imitating his style, either because they felt it was pious, or because they felt it was an interesting or effective rhetorical way to approach these things.

And again, since I haven't heard the bell, let me go back and try to develop a little more of the right reason concept with the sense of disagreements.

If men disagree within a church and there is no ultimate authority to appeal to, if one cannot appeal to other than the

Bible, if one cannot appeal to other than what is written or what is preserved, if one does not have a living human being who can make divinely infallible decisions, then what we have is a situation where no amount of arguing, no amount of convincing will ultimately introduce the final authority.

Let us look at every other human institution. Ultimately, we have a principal at a school who sets certain policies beyond which cannot be appealed.

Ultimately, we have a commander of a military unit who sets certain policies and gives certain orders which must be obeyed, except under penalty of court -martial for those who follow.

These are common characteristics of normal human institutions, and since the church is both human and divine, and since we still function on this earth, we have to have an effective way to function as humans.

Yes, thank you very much. I must say that the presentation that was just given is most unique.

Mr. Lewis, your first argument had to do with miracles.

How do you deal with the fact that miracles are found amongst many of the world's religions, including amongst the

Mormons, substantiating their prophet as the head of their church, amongst Buddhists, and especially amongst

Islamic people, establishing the priority of the Koran over the Bible? There are several points.

Number one, to my knowledge, none of those miracles have ever been verified by any objective source whatsoever.

They are mostly, and I'd be very careful about this, because that doesn't mean to say they aren't actual events.

But to my knowledge, none, and I'll repeat that, to my knowledge, none have ever occurred out in the open where non -believers could see it.

They always occur in secret places. There's never any evidence. There's never any medical testimony.

There's never any before and after photographs. That's number one. Number two, I clearly admit that demonic powers can imitate and reproduce supernatural events.

So it is possible to have a so -called quote -unquote demonic miracle. What that means is an evil event, which is done to support an evil person in an evil act.

Those are... Am I clear? I don't wish to avoid the question. I don't wish to fill up on that.

In a sense, if I didn't, please tell me more, because I simply don't want to waste your time.

Are you familiar with the House of Loretto? Yes. Do you believe that's an actual miracle?

I don't know, but I would say... I'll give you a tentative yes, simply because I never bothered to check it out. But I'll give you a tentative yes on that.

The fact that the Pope gave indulgences to those who visited, would that strengthen your belief that it's a true miracle?

No, not necessarily. Indulgences are given for any good act with a good intention. Alright. Now, in regards to the biblical argument you put out, you indicated that the giving of the keys to Peter was individual.

Can you tell us where Peter received these keys? At what point does the Scripture record this? To my knowledge, it does not record it.

Okay, it does not record where he received it. Yes. So he had received it prior to Matthew 18. No, I didn't say that.

I'm simply saying it does not record when he received the individual power. Okay. Maybe it was before the events in Matthew 18.

Maybe it wasn't. I don't know. Well, it would seem it would have to be before Matthew 18 if, according to your exegesis,

Matthew 17, the paying of the temple tax, when you say, lest they be scandalized, am

I understanding you to say that Jesus as God is going to change the rules just so that whatever

Peter says is going to be true? If necessary, yes. And would you say that this is an interpretation of the passage?

You said it can't be interpreted any other way. Can you give me any early Church Father in the first 1 ,500 years of Christian history that interpreted it that way?

No. Okay. You said from Luke 9, in regards to Peter saying,

I don't know what I'm saying, that this indicates the papal infallibility functions separately from the will of the person.

Is that correct? Yeah, I said it can function separately of the will of the person, and I said this may indicate it. Yes. Okay. Can you give me any early

Church Father or any Church Father in the first 1 ,500 years of the Christian Church interpreted it that way? No. Okay. Now, in regard to your claim that Peter's vision in the book of Acts of the animals, that this was the ending of the

Mosaic Law, that the Mosaic Law ended only then. Am I correct in understanding that?

I'll rephrase it. The fullness of the Mosaic Law, the dietary restrictions. The dietary restrictions remained in power from what you think up until that particular point in time.

Yes. And that it was Peter's word that then ended it. Yes. Could you comment possibly, sir, on Mark 7 verse 19, which in the

New American Standard Bible says, Jesus is speaking because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated.

Thus he declared all foods clean. Yes, he did declare all foods clean.

Okay. And he was perfectly right. But the effect of the Mosaic Law was still in effect. In the same sense that our

Lord declared he was the bread of life in John 6, chapter of John, but that actual transubstantiation miracle did not take place until Holy Thursday.

So in other words, what I'm saying is there's a declaration, and then there may be, as there was in this case, a leg before the effect takes place, or before the effect is binding on people.

So it is impossible then, it could not possibly to understand Peter's vision that simply Peter was not yet up to speed in regards to what was going on, and that God had to sort of reveal these things to him.

You could definitely include that also. That is a legitimate way to understand it.

Okay. You then referred to Peter talking of Paul's books and some things difficult in them, and indicated this was one man who please clarify as far as what we were saying this indicates about Peter.

Okay, what I was saying is that St. Peter says something to the effect of this. There are certain passages in the writing of our brother Paul which are difficult to understand.

Right. What I'm saying is this was an infallible judgment by a human on the Bible. And therefore to do so one has to have a superior authority to the

Bible. One has to literally be above it as an individual to be able to make an infallible judgment on it.

And Peter indicates this is an infallible judgment? No, I'm saying it's an infallible judgment because I was taking it as a presumption that we understand that the

Holy Ghost inspired everybody who wrote the words down to write them infallibly correct. Can you name anyone in the history of the

Church who has taken the view of that particular passage? No. Okay. Do you claim any particular divine inspiration in understanding this?

Sure. You do? Absolutely. And you're the first one to understand this. I don't know if I'm the first one.

You asked if I could do something. You didn't ask if it happened. Okay. I do not know whether anybody else has advanced this position or not.

You asked my knowledge. You didn't ask the fact. I gave you my knowledge. My knowledge is I don't know.

Okay. Now, in regard to your claim and the associative -ontological argument that you put forward, you rightly say that a good tree brings forth good fruit.

You said, and I wrote it down as closely as I could, that the Roman Catholic Church is the publisher of the Bible. Is that your position?

That's correct. Could you tell me, Mr. Lewis, how a

Jewish man, 50 years before Jesus Christ came to this earth, how a

Jewish man knew what was not Scripture, or to be more specific, how could a

Jewish man know that the book of Isaiah, for example, was Scripture? He could ask God and receive a private revelation.

So the only way to know up to what point was it that you had to receive a private revelation?

Oh, that wouldn't be the only way. That would be a way. One could also be taught by a person who received a private revelation.

So in other words, you wouldn't have to receive a private revelation. You could receive the truth from someone else or accept it. But up until what point?

Until the point of the Council of Corinth with your hippo and the formal canon was set. I see. People might get the answer.

People might understand correctly up until then, but they would not understand they would not make the proper decision for the proper, authoritative through the

Church type reason. Could they have infallible knowledge of what was and what was not Scripture? Sure. By private revelation only?

Not again. Not necessarily by private revelation only. Again, the point is if someone claimed private revelation as an example, then proved it by a miracle, then proved it by, say, a saintly life, and then left writings, one could put a valid trust in that pronouncement from another person.

Do you know of any bishop of Rome who claimed the same prerogatives that the modern bishop of Rome does in regards to infallibility at the time that the canon, as you would say, was being decided?

If you mean by claim that there's records of it, the answer would be no. Is that what you meant? Yes. Okay, then the answer is no.

Okay. Alrighty. Excuse me. I'm sorry. No, there would be one. It would be Pope St. Callistus, who had a disagreement with Tertullian around 250, and the disagreement was exactly over the

Matthew 16 passage and what it meant, and Tertullian said that you have primacy of jurisdiction in Tertullian's and the

Pope's diplomatic matters. There were other administrative things earlier, but I don't think they were dogmatic in the sense that you're asking the question.

Okay. Your argument in regards to witnessing that only Catholics make vows of poverty, are you discounting the vows of poverty made by Buddhists?

Of course. And some Protestants. I know no Protestant to do it. I've heard of...

Well, let me put it this way. I consider myself the expert on Protestantism in America. I haven't run into Protestants who have claimed this.

In fact, what they say is they renounce it, and what they mean is they're no longer particularly in love with their car, but it's still in their name, they still have a bank account, they still own a house.

What I'm saying is I'm waiting for the first one to be proven wrong on this, and until someone can show me that,

I will make the claim. At that point, I will withdraw the claim and say that I have slandered a large group of people. But until then,

I will say that all of the evidence I have, and obviously I can't ask each Protestant in the country, all of the evidence

I have has shown me that no Protestant ever has ever renounced his property. Have you ever visited a

Episcopalian or Anglican monastery? No. Okay. But I think you have a good point there.

If we include them in Protestantism, I would have to say that it is very possible that certain of those people have done and taken those vows.

Whether they take it seriously or not, I'd have to check it out, but I do have to say then that I stand corrected. I believe you're correct.

Part of your argument was that these individuals have the same loyalty to the

Pope as those individuals would not, and that would undercut your argument. It would undercut it if I left it to poverty alone.

What I also threw in was the concept of humility, and I would never accuse an Episcopalian or Anglican of ever exercising humility.

Now, you talked about the winning argument number five. Would you admit that your particular arguments in defense of the papacy are not exactly the same arguments that are used by Carl Keating, Patrick McDreitt, Scott Hahn, Robert St.

Genes, Jerry Matitick, or other Roman Catholic apologists? Well, as long as you remove the word other

Roman Catholic apologists, I agree, because they do not consider most of the people you named as Roman Catholics at all.

They aren't. I see. They're high Episcopalians who occasionally defend aspects of Catholicism, but I freely admit my arguments are not the same.

Okay. So wouldn't it be possible in regards to that argument that the papacy could be true, but your arguments are all wrong?

No. No. Okay. So, I at one point was informed, and possibly this is what you're claiming here, are you claiming that your arguments are infallible?

Yes. Are you claiming personal infallibility? Yes. Okay. If I understood correctly, and I'll try to go in sequential order here, one of the things you said was something, it was a sort of philosophical position, it said something like this, the

New Testament as a whole leads us to believe that there was no implication of the papacy. Is that a correct paraphrase?

That's a correct paraphrase. Okay, is this a philosophical principle that something needs to be repeated over and over and over in order to be accepted as true?

No, not necessarily. Okay, so therefore if something's in there only once, it's just as true as if it's in there a whole lot, right?

Yes, that would be true. Okay, so therefore whether something is seen throughout the entire Bible or not seen throughout the entire

Bible is completely irrelevant, isn't it? No, I would not say that at all. Why is it not irrelevant if it doesn't change the truth value, and that's what we're interested in?

Well, because obviously when I made the statement in regards to the New Testament, we're referring to the fact that the Roman Catholic claim of the papacy is a very broad and large claim, and hence if it was true, logically, we would not only find it in one passage, we would find it in numerous passages, especially those passages that specifically address the

New Testament. Why would we logically find it in more than one passage if that doesn't make it more true? Because of the nature of the claim, sir.

The nature of the claim in regards to the function of the church. Okay, but excuse me. Okay. Because something's in the

Bible only once makes it absolutely, infallibly, dogmatically true, correct? Mm -hmm. So therefore, if it's repeated 15 times or found only once, it's absolutely true.

However, that's not true. Correct? Yes, certainly. Okay. Next question. You did an interesting point here when you talked about there's no sign of the primacy of St.

Peter, and you talked about the concept of the apostles arguing over them who is the greatest, and you said that the

Lord rebuked them. Excuse me, are you confusing primacy with greatest? Do you think they're synonyms? They are close enough synonyms to be relevant to this issue.

Okay, please define primacy. The primacy that is under argument in regards to the apostles in the

New Testament is the primacy of what apostle, what individual, would have the greatest position of authority among the apostles.

Does it say that? Does it use the word authority? Certainly. It says authority in that passage,

Christopher? It says authority in the New Testament. No, that passage we're talking about where they're arguing over who is the greatest, it uses the word authority.

I don't believe it does in that particular passage, but it is illogical. Right, so that's a conclusion you're drawing, correct?

And you could be wrong on that conclusion, right? Oh, I certainly could. Okay, so therefore that's an opinion. Yes.

Okay, thank you very much. No problem. Just wanted to make sure we're not dealing with facts here. Okay, now...

Excuse me, when St. Peter... When St. Paul says that he is in no way inferior to St. Peter, does that mean he was just as tall as St.

Peter? He didn't say that. And had just as good an eyesight, and his arm was just as strong as a fisherman?

No, he didn't say that. No, but he said he was in no way inferior to any other apostle, correct? He said he was in no way inferior to any of the chiefest apostles.

Okay, and one of the chiefest apostles, we certainly accept as St. Peter, right? If that's who he's referring to, yes.

Well, whoever he was referring to, does that mean he had exactly the same eyesight, strength, and ability to taste wine?

No, in context he's referring to Aristotle. In context, excuse me, so context again, it doesn't... So in other words, this may be a metaphorical thing, but it certainly doesn't mean exactly what it says, does it?

I would not ever say that, sir. Okay, let's try it again. Does it mean he had exactly the same arm strength?

Not at all. Someone who doesn't have the same arm strength as another man is inferior in some way, is he not?

Mm -hmm. So therefore, when St. Paul says, I am not in any way inferior, he doesn't mean in any way, he means in some way which has yet to be determined.

Correct. By the context, yes. Okay, but the context is open to disagreement, correct? Well, as all contexts are.

Very good. I'll take that as a yes. Okay, now, tell me, you said before, we're talking about the rebuking in 2nd

Galatians, you said that one does not... In what, sir? 2nd Galatians, chapter 2 in Galatians. Oh, okay.

And I believe you said something like this, that one does, again a paraphrasing, tell me if this is correct, one does not likely say that the head of the church is not walking in accord with God or something like that.

Is not walking in accordance with the truth of the gospel. Okay. Right. Okay, no problem. Now, tell me, why would one not likely rebuke...

Again, we accept that there have been popes on earth, correct? I mean, I'm not... We're not talking about their authority, but popes have existed, correct?

Of course. Okay, are you aware that I... You're aware, of course, that I consider myself a fanatical Roman Catholic.

Yes, sir, I am very aware. Are you aware that I likely criticize popes all the time? Well, yes, that's true.

Okay, so therefore, maybe, maybe, in your opinion, Catholics shouldn't likely criticize heads of church, but it certainly happens all the time in reality.

I wonder why you... Never mind, we'll just drop that. Could I answer that question? Sure, go make a comment. It was...

My comments were aimed primarily at mainstream individuals, and I don't think you'd call yourself mainstream.

Definitely not. Okay, no problem. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your clarification. I think that was good. You mentioned before, of course, that when

St. Paul lists the offices of the church, he does not list popes. That's right. Okay. Now, tell me, if he listed the pope when he was writing to the church at Corinth, do you not accept the possibility that this could lead to a confusion, thinking that there should be a pope at each church at Corinth and Thessalonia and everywhere else?

I don't think Paul would be so unclear as to do that, no. Okay, but there were all those other offices in each one of those individual churches, were there not?

No. No? Okay. Apostles? There were not apostles in every single church, no. Was not each one of those churches founded by an apostle?

Um... No, that's not true. Colossians was not. Okay. The church of Colossians was not. Fine, fine. We'll drop it.

Okay. I don't know, and I certainly am not going to argue against that. Okay, now, you do say at one point that, correct me if I'm wrong, that the description in the

Acts where it points out that St. Peter was sent by the church, that this implies essentially a position of subordination.

Would that be correct? No, a position of equality. Okay, but certainly not a position of authority.

Right. No, no, no, no. Equality with the other apostles. Okay, but he wasn't superior because he was sent.

Is that the argument? If he was superior, you couldn't send him? My argument is that I'm looking for any positive evidence of superiority.

I understand. I understand, but that's evidence of equality, not superiority. Okay. Are there no circumstances under which you can ask a superior to do something?

Certainly there are. Okay, so therefore the mere fact that he was asked and obeyed to do something does not in any way whatsoever mitigate against his putative position of superiority, does it?

If you assume what has yet to be proven, that's true. No, I didn't assume what was yet to be proven. I asked you a statement, you agree, but I will try it again.

If you send someone somewhere and he obeys, that doesn't mean to say he's your equal or your subordinate.

You can send superiors, can you not? Yes. Okay, so therefore, you're familiar with one of the terms that the

Pope is the servant of the servants of God, aren't you? Yes, I am. And you're aware, of course, that our Lord says he came to serve and not to be served, right?

That's true. Okay, so therefore, again, the mere fact that someone obeys a command from an inferior does not mean that in fact he's equal to the inferior, correct?

That's true. Okay, very good. Now, you also used an expression frequently where you said things like plainly so, the implication was plainly there.

That was a frequent shall we say rhetorical technique that you used, but I'm not criticizing it,

I'm simply asking that you did use this frequently, correct? Yes, I did. Okay. These plainly statements are in fact statements that you're offering on inferences and implications, is it not?

On inferences and implications drawn from the very text of Scripture, yes. I understand. Now, those are again are your positions and you're not claiming any personal infallibility, are you?

No, I do not. Okay, so therefore, we're talking about opinions, aren't we? Yes, my opinion based upon the translation of the original languages and the study of the text.

Very good. Now, but you're not by any means asking or commanding that other people accept your opinions as truth, are you?

No. Okay, so therefore what you're saying is here's some opinions, you can take them or leave them, but there's no consequence for disagreeing with them.

Not at all. That does not logically follow you. I didn't say it was logically followed,

I asked the question. Alright, now, are you saying that your opinions are required belief in order to get into heaven?

No. Okay, so therefore one can reject them because there is no purgatory without any penalty, correct? My personal opinions, yes.

Yes, and that's what you were offering. They weren't impersonal opinions, were they? They are. You're unfortunately operating on a very bad logical error,

Mr. Lewis, and maybe I can try to correct it very quickly. Well, answer the question. And that is, when a person repeats the words of God from the scriptures, those are not his personal opinions.

I didn't ask about you repeating, I asked about inferences and implications when you used the word displeasing. That's what

I was talking about. If those inferences and implications are drawn directly from the scriptures, they have the binding authority of the scriptures.

Very good, and when you draw something directly, you could be wrong, correct? I certainly could. Okay, so therefore, once again, we're in a situation where you're offering an opinion, even if you're functioning in good will, you could be in error, and if you're in error, and there's no way of telling on this earth if you're in error or not, there's no penalty for disagreeing with you.

There are at least three logical errors in that last question. It would be very difficult to... Excuse me, perhaps you're not aware, so I'll correct you.

There could be no logical errors in a question, because a question does not convey information or, for it to do so, it simply requires...

I think we all know that you are making statements in your questions that do require a logical foundation. You may draw that conclusion, and I'm sure others will also, but I'll simply say that I will drop that momentarily.

I think I've made my point. If I have more time, I'll come back and beat you to death with a little more, okay? Now, let me ask you a question back about Matthew 16.

You do agree that our Lord did promise to Saint Peter the power of the keys to bind and loose.

Yes. Excuse me. Yes. And he does keep his promises. Yes. So therefore, he did receive them somewhere along the line.

Matthew 18, 18, yes. Okay, fine. If you believe you know, that's all right. But it did happen. Yes. Okay, fine.

Now, let me ask you a couple other questions. Do you have anything on the historical stuff where you mentioned that there was... Well, let me give you another question, a quick one, which was a very specific one.

You mentioned, I think, Saint Ignatius of Antioch did not mention any bishop of Rome when he wrote his letter to people in Rome?

That's true. Okay. Now, in fact, would you write a letter to a dead man? No. Well, you know, popes do die and then sometimes they're not immediately replaced.

That is correct, right? Yes. So it is possible that there was actually no pope in Rome because someone was dead, correct?

Yes. Okay. So therefore, the mere fact that he doesn't mention him doesn't mean that the office did not exist.

It could mean several other possibilities, correct? Not in light of the historical data, but theoretically, yes.

No, not in light of the historical data. You know for a fact there was a pope alive on the date that that letter, or a guy claiming to be pope alive, or someone claiming not to be pope alive when that letter was written?

The historical data indicates there was no monarchical date. Sorry, I was asking for a yes or no question. You know, in fact, the date that letter was written?

No, no one does. Okay, fine. So therefore, you can't say what the status was of anybody... Yes, I can. You must let me finish a question.

You can't say what the living or dead status of someone that I would attribute to be pope who was around that time, can you?

I can't deal with fantasies, no. No, no, no, no. It's not a fantasy. It's a historical fact. You can't say whether Pope St.

Clement was alive at that time or not, right? I'm sorry, but you're dealing with fantasies here. You're not dealing with that. Very good.

Thank you for not answering the question, Mr. White, but that... Hey, I'd avoid it, too, if I were caught into trap.

Okay. Now, let me ask you... Only in your own mind, Mr. Lewis. Only in your own mind. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that Christians have held your view from the earliest days.

Is that correct? The view specifically? I was talking about their interpretation of... No, no, no, no, sir. The specific context with Matthew chapter 16 and the interpretation of Matthew chapter 16 was about...

Okay. Yes. But... Correct me if I'm wrong, your view also includes that Matthew 16 does not establish a papacy, correct?

That's correct. Okay. So what you're saying is, if you trace it back to the historical record you find, you would find people that have always held your position.

Is that... That claim to be Christian. Is that correct? In regards to Matthew 16? Yes. Okay. Now, simply because people hold your position doesn't mean it's correct, right?

That's true. Okay. So therefore, the mere fact that people held your position, or held my position, means nothing with regards to truth, doesn't it?

Well, if you want to make that argument... No, it's not if I want to make that argument. I'd like an answer. No, I would not agree with that statement.

Okay. So the mere fact that people agree with you makes your position true? The mere fact that my belief existed in history is very relevant to the truth claim of the position.

Why would because something, because of you existed, have anything to do with relevancy? I mean, the point is simply this.

There were people who believed that the world was flat. There were people who believed the earth went around the sun. Now we tend to believe the other way.

You could probably find, trace these arguments all the way back. Does that change the truth in regards to the Roman Catholic claim of the papacy?

Yes. It changes the truth because the Roman Catholic claim of the papacy insists and asserts that the papacy is a historical institution.

We're not talking about that. We have to talk about that. No, no, no. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Mr. White, please answer the question.

I will only answer rational questions. Mr. White, you agreed to answer questions. Rational questions, yes.

And you also agreed I believe not to interrupt me. I would really ask if you let me finish them. Now I know it's difficult, but please let me finish them.

I'm asking you about the views. I'm just simply saying this. The fact that there are historical records that can prove that people believed what you believed does not change the truth on anything, does it?

Along that view. The fact that people believed X. On the issue of the papacy, it does.

The fact that people believed X back at year 30 and 50 and 90 and 180, the fact that they believed

X or the fact that they believed anti -X does not change the truth value of X or anti -X, does it? No, sir.

You're incorrect because the truth value is determined by the dogmatic claim of the Roman Catholic Church, which states, which states specifically, sir, that this has been the ancient and constant faith of the

Universal Church. Right. But the Universal Church is those people who believe correctly, right?

Well, if you want to define it that way, I'm asking you a question. Do you agree with that? No. Okay. So the

Universal Church is that group of people who believe wrongly? Not as Vatican I would say at all. Thank you. Mr. White, I'm asking you.

I'm not asking you to quote Vatican I. If I quoted Vatican I, I could only answer in regard to Vatican I. Mr. White, Mr. White, I have to accuse you of evasion.

Let's go on a little further. One more question. I'm going to take the time because this guy's been dodging it enough times.

When St. Cyprian made those statements, he was not infallible, was he? No. Okay, so therefore he could have been totally wrong, correct?

Yes, that's possible. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Parlier. I will simply try to be very brief, and I hope not to use up all ten minutes, because quite honestly, the debate has not yet been engaged, at least not from any

Orthodox Roman Catholic perspective. I believe that the listeners to the debate will recognize that the arguments that have been put forth are extremely circular and lack any level of intellectual integrity.

The argument from Miracles, Mr. Lewis' assertion that Jesus had AB positive blood type and the rest,

I think just to address Roman Catholics in the audience, why is it that the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the

Church itself, does not use this type of argumentation? Mr. Lewis has admitted he doesn't know anyone else who has come to his particular perspective on a number of these issues.

There may be a reason for this. The reason for this, in my interaction with Roman Catholic apologists all across the

United States, is that Mr. Lewis does not represent an Orthodox Roman Catholic perspective, and hence the arguments that he utilizes are not going to be arguments that are utilized by the

Vatican or by the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church today, and I would ask the Roman Catholic to ask himself the question, why is that?

Why is it that the very leaders that Mr. Lewis is insisting exist today would not utilize his own arguments?

It's difficult to say. Now, I pointed out that miracles have been used by all sorts of religious organizations through the years.

Joseph Smith and the Mormons claim miracles, and they have the exact same type of pedigrees.

Mr. Lewis talked about no photographs. Well, for example, the Islamic miracles were before the core photographs. That hardly is a relevant statement, but the point is, the concept of the miraculous,

Mr. Lewis cannot claim to have infallible knowledge of what is and what is not true miracles, and what are or not satanic miracles.

This is one area where the entire concept itself breaks down and is liable to be used by anyone to prove almost anything.

Mr. Lewis then admitted he can't tell us where the scripture shows us the receipt of the keys by Peter, other than it's probably not

Matthew 18 -18 because there Peter receives the keys in equal level with all the other apostles.

I just want to point out again, the verb in Matthew 16 -19, I will give, is future tense.

It refers to some future time, and unless Matthew 18 -18 fulfills that, I find it extremely strange that the

Bible would not record the giving of these keys if the position taken by the Roman Catholic Church is correct.

Now I would hope that in regards to Peter ending the Mosaic Law and Acts, I think it is self -evident to any person who simply examines the scriptures, reads them for what they say, that this is a gross, gross misinterpretation of the scripture, and I believe it's why

Mr. Lewis can't mention any of the early fathers, or really anyone who's ever come to that conclusion, because it simply doesn't come from the text itself.

Mr. Lewis claims infallibility, and he can say what he wants, but to those listening to this debate and who want to weigh the two sides,

I hope you'll recognize this. Throughout all of this discussion that we're having as well, I hope that it has been very, very plain that as we approach the scriptures, or as we approach any of the historical issues,

Mr. Lewis has consistently assumed what he has yet to prove. The primary overriding assumption in every argument, in every discussion of scripture, in every discussion of the historical situation, is the existence of the

Roman Catholic papacy. But that's what we're supposed to be debating here. I have insisted, and have provided biblical and historical evidence, that the papacy that exists today did not exist at the time of the

New Testament or in the early Church. Now, Mr. Lewis cannot simply assume its existence. For example, when he talks about Ignatius writing to the

Romans, he assumes something that goes against the historical evidence. The historical evidence is that there was no one -man monarchical episcopate in Rome at the time.

He cannot assume that there was just because that's what his system insists that he do, and yet this type of circular argumentation is throughout this entire section.

And so, for example, when he says Cyprian may have been fallible when he said the things he did about the

Pope, well certainly, as Stephen was most definitely liable to be fallible as well. Mr.

Lewis assumes the infallibility of Stephen in this case, when at the very time, and this is the relevance of Cyprian, at the very time when

Stephen's on earth, a martyr bishop, Cyprian, who gave his life in testimony for the

Gospel, he said that Stephen had made errors, he rebuked Stephen, and we're being asked, well, he could have been fallible, right?

Well, yes, but so could Stephen have been fallible. Anachronistic arguments that read modern definitions back into ancient history, those types of arguments carry no weight, and I would ask that the listeners reject any argument that requires you to start off with your assumption before you come to your conclusion.

That is a very, very bad direction to go. We will note that Mr. Lewis has provided us with almost no meaningful rebuttal of the materials that I presented.

All he's been able to come up with is, well, maybe Cyprian was infallible. Maybe Cyprian was fallible, not infallible.

Well, I mentioned Canon 6, the Council of Nicaea. I mentioned Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. Were those councils infallible?

Perhaps Mr. Lewis will spend some time dealing with those issues. But really,

I have a difficult time at this point in really sticking to quote -unquote rebuttal, for the simple reason that there is very little to rebut.

There has been very little logical argumentation presented that I can interact with. The best that I could do for the next four minutes, and I won't, would be to present even more information, more citations, because as I said, on any of these issues, there is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates the error of the

Roman Catholic papacy. We could go into the situation with Honorius, with the situation with Liberius.

We could go into Sixtus' infallible Vulgate. There's a million things we could go into to discuss the various issues of the

Roman Catholic papacy, but since this is supposed to be a rebuttal, I must limit myself specifically to what

Mr. Lewis has said. And I would simply close this particular section by saying that the listeners need to check for circular argumentation.

They need to check for rationality of argument, and they really need to ask themselves the question, if Mr.

Lewis is presenting to us arguments no one else has ever used, might there be a reason for this, that other than some special revelation to Mr.

Lewis, I think there is a reason for it. Thank you, Mr. Parler. Thank you, Professor White.

Van, it's your turn. Once again, Lee, how long do I have? Ten minutes. Okay, thank you very much. Let me point out something which

I don't think I dealt with either in the exposition or rebuttal or course examination, and I'm glad my opponent brought it up.

As far as council decrees, only what is approved of by a pope is valid.

So therefore, if a council were to pass, an ecumenical council were to pass any statement which would to impinge on the authority or status of the pope, no pope would approve it, and that would not count.

So therefore, there are certain sections and certain decrees and canons of certain councils which otherwise canons of the councils are accepted, but those canons are not.

That's simply a point. Let me also deal with the concept in which I answered correctly that I am infallible.

Infallible means nothing more than the following. You're stating the truth, and you can't be wrong. Therefore, when

I say 2 plus 2 equals 4, I am being and I am functioning infallibly because 2 plus 2 does equal 4.

What I simply said in the beginning was, and I'll say it again, that I'm sustained by God, and therefore when

I make the act of will and God uses me like the pen in His hand, yes, I do not make mistakes. But I think

I made a correction and I'll just emphasize it again. When I talk about the concept of poverty and humility in Christian communities,

I am not talking about Episcopalians because, again, I would not accuse them of humility, and I'm glad Mr. White pointed that out because I want to correct it again.

Maybe some of them have taken poverty vows and maybe some of them actually obey them sincerely, but none of them are humble because they're certainly not obeying the authority left by God.

They're still following their own simple inclination. But, in the form of a rebuttal, let me point out that what my opponent has pointed out essentially comes down to a triad.

Number one, history, number two, his own conclusions, and number three, his own claims. He's admitted his conclusions could be wrong.

His claims literally come out of nowhere. So, in a very real sense, I will dismiss them.

Remember, either he said it or didn't say it or reversed himself four or five times in a very short period of time, but the best conclusion

I think we can come to is, Mr. White has said you can disagree with every single thing he said, still be a good Christian and go to Heaven, which means what he brought up either is of no importance whatsoever, in which case it's nothing but bigotry, or it is lies, in which case it's nothing but blasphemy.

The point is this. I make it as clear as possible. Disagree with my conclusions, my dogmatic statements, and you go to Hell.

That's true Christianity. But let me deal with the concept of history for a moment, which I think is very, very important because he pointed out there's no references to this, no references to that, no records to this.

Let's assume he's correct. Let's assume he's actually tried to find historical records. Let's assume there's no records among the early

Church Fathers as Mr. White described. Let's assume that. Let's not start arguing over what exists and what doesn't.

What would that prove? What does the lack of documentation in an historical argument or position prove?

Well, let me use an analogy. In 1920, if you look up the Constitution of the

United States, you'll find out that the 18th Amendment went into effect, which was prohibition, which put severe restrictions on the use of alcoholic beverages.

Obviously, if you apply Mr. White's standards, if you were studying American history, you would conclude that alcohol was introduced into the

United States in the 1920s because there's no reference to it earlier in the Constitution. So therefore, since there was no reference to it earlier, it didn't exist.

And since the 21st Amendment went into effect in 1933 repealing this, you have to conclude that all alcohol vanished from the

United States because the law was no longer relevant. The point is simply this. The lack of documentation proves nothing.

We do not know how George Washington celebrated his 50th birthday. We do not know what

Abraham Lincoln got on his 16th birthday from his parents. That doesn't mean that George Washington didn't last past 50 and doesn't mean

Abraham Lincoln didn't have both of his parents alive at age 16. These are simply things that were not recorded and not put down.

But the fact both of those men celebrated birthdays past the 16th and past their 50th birthday.

Whether they received presents or not, I don't know and I don't care. The point is simply this. The argument is sort of a variation of the argument from silence.

If there were no documentation of no church father advocating what I advocate, it would prove nothing.

And again, since none of these fathers individually were infallible, it would prove nothing even if they supported

Mr. White's own position. The key element here does come down to, as I said before in a sense, claims.

I claim to be infallible because I claim to be speaking the truth and I've demonstrated it during this debate.

I've answered questions yes or no directly. I haven't evaded. And I confronted all

I confronted face -to -face my opponent. My opponent dodged, evaded, stalled, and ran away.

By definition, if he was not afraid of his argument and their conclusions, if he had truth on his side, if he had called on God first, he would have behaved in the way

I would have behaved and we would have had an argument or a disagreement. But remember, one of my proofs was who's going to win the debate.

He who runs away on the battlefield and leaves the battlefield to his opponent, by definition, loses. There's no way

Napoleon can claim that the Battle of Waterloo was a win because he deserted his troops and he fled from the battle.

Mr. White deserted his claims, his conclusions, refused to comment on his history, and left the field to me.

And remember, I said each one of my arguments separately would sustain my position. The fact that I won proves that I was right because remember,

God got involved today. You witnessed a divine intervention in the affairs of man simply because I asked him for his assistance.

So, once again, Mr. White's claims of history, conclusion, and claims all fail.

And that's all he offered. He offered nothing against me. He offered nothing to oppose my arguments on miracle or my arguments on scripture.

He even admitted that the keys were given to St. Peter. So what we have is, number one, when he did not admit was right on my side, he either ignored or attacked fruitlessly.

The victory was mine. The truth is mine. The church is mine. Go ahead,

Lee. Okay, Professor White, it's your turn for a two and a half minute closing. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lewis just said that only conciliar statements approved by the Pope are valid conciliar statements from counsel.

I would like to use this as an example of the irrationality of the argument that Mr. Lewis has been using. First of all, it's an anachronism.

No one believed that at the time of Nicaea. No one believed that at the time of Calstone, and Mr. Lewis can't show us that they did.

Hence, he is arguing from an anachronism. Secondly, it's a circular argument. It assumes what he has yet to prove, and that is the

Pope has been established to do what Mr. Lewis says. And finally, he is incorrect, and that is because Nicaea has been established by every

Pope who has ever lived, and hence the Sixth Canon would establish those things

Mr. Lewis simply can't deal with the conciliar data. Now, he then, when he attempts to talk about the quote -unquote arguments in silence, he says these things are simply things that were not written down.

I'd like people to realize what Mr. Lewis is saying, that in the hundreds of books written by hundreds of church leaders like Cyprian and Athanasius and John Chrysostom, about every aspect of theology, every aspect of ecclesiology, the very foundational element of the

Church, the very definitional element of the Church, goes without mention, left only to Vincent Lewis to discover many, many years later.

My friends, Mr. Lewis says, I left the battlefield. I think any logical or rational person who listens to this debate will have to come to the same conclusions

I have. Mr. Lewis never showed up on the battlefield. I'm over on the battlefield of rationality, of the

Bible, and of history. Mr. Lewis is in his own fantasy world where his word becomes the final word.

I'm not on his battlefield, he's right about that, but I'll be very, very happy to stand right here on the battlefield of what the

Bible teaches, of what history has proclaimed, and say, Mr. Lewis, you may feel that you've won.

In fact, I think you feel you've won every debate you've ever been in. But the simple fact of the matter is, when people listen to these tapes, when they listen to this broadcast,

I will trust them. I will trust the Spirit of God to work in their lives, because I did call upon the

Lord to help me today, Mr. Lewis, and He did. You may not know it, you may not want to believe it, but those are the facts.

Thank you very much. Well, I'll sort of spin off what my opponent said. Remember, if he called on God, which he claims he did, and remember the words of Jesus, yet your less be yes, and your no be no, and anything else is from Satan.

Remember the frequent passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah about confronting your opponents. And then look, if he called upon God, and if God helped him, why did he reject it?

But I think even far more important is the point of this. Mr. White clearly says, you don't have to believe what he says, it really doesn't matter, there's no penalty, because there's no penalty for rejecting human fabrication, theory, and supposition.

I state it again. I presented God's truth. Reject it at your peril, which means your damnation.

Mr. White did not present it that way, does not present it that way. If he called on God to help him, for heaven's sakes, why didn't he present the truth, which is necessary for salvation?

I don't know. Well, of course I do, because he didn't have it, by his own admission. And I would say, that's a good summary statement.

I spoke the truth, I demand you accept it. He spoke supposition, doesn't particularly care whether you accept it or not.

Thank you, Lee, and thank you, Mr. White. The next debate with Mr. Lewis was on the topic of purgatory and indulgences.

As the listener will hear, this debate did not go nearly as smoothly as the first. Due to the egregious breaches of any kind of scholarly decorum by Mr.

Lewis during the cross -examination period, in which he constantly asked absurd questions, made statements under the guise of questions, etc.,

the time limits of the debate were overrun. To fit the debate within the limitations of the second tape requires that we skip over the initial two -minute opening statements, and the closing two -and -a -half -minute statements.

Since no new material or argumentation was presented in either, and since Mr. Lewis went over time in both, no loss of real information is incurred by moving directly to the primary expositions.

Get a deep seat in the saddle, as this one gets pretty wild. Thank you. All right.

What I shall present in this is four arguments. I will name them now, which will make it easier for both my opponent and anybody else listening to follow.

The first argument will be that purgatory and indulgences exist and function because God, by definition, is both just and compassionate.

The second shall be from Bible quotes, the third shall be from the existence of the Dallas Cowboys, and the fourth shall be by cross -examination, in which my opponent will admit that he himself believes in purgatory.

I'll use that for cross -examination. I just wanted to advise that it's coming. So allow me to deal with argument number one, which is the concept of justice and love.

Justice is a divine and human quality, and some aspects of divine justice can be deduced from human justice when properly exercised.

Both human and divine justice have two aspects, which

I shall call the restitution and the revenge. Let me illustrate the two by a simple illustration, namely an act of malpractice by a doctor.

A doctor, a surgeon, operates while drunk and cuts off the leg of a black man for no reason while operating on him because he hates black men.

First, we would have a situation where the insurance company, which insures the doctor, would pay this victim whatever the courts decide is fair compensation, which is the restitution part of justice.

But then we would throw the doctor in jail anyway and punish him in some way, which is the revenge part of punishment.

To use another simple analogy, the child who plays ball in the house and breaks a lamp not only pays for the lamp from his allowance, but also goes without TV.

The easy way to understand these concepts, namely restitution and revenge, is that one makes things right again, the other makes the evildoer better.

The point is this. Sin is human malpractice.

For justice to be completed and perfect, there must be both aspects.

Restitution, which in the divine system is the part made by the mediatorship of our

Lord and achieved by the redemption of the cross, and revenge, which is paid for by the human sinner himself, either in suffering, good work, or some other reparation.

Let me apply this now to purgatory. If man automatically got into heaven, and of course we're talking about men who have qualified for salvation, if a man automatically got into heaven without paying some price for sins which had not yet been paid for, that is, if the cross itself were totally enough, totally sufficient, then the divine justice would be in total conflict with the highest and most noble aspects of human justice and proper child -rearing.

As we are created in the image of likeness of God, this means that this conflict can not exist.

Thus the point is this. Even when restitution is paid for by the cross, the personal obligation to suffer revenge and punishment is necessary to fulfill

God's justice. Or, God is not just. And as God is just, then purgatory must exist to fulfill this function and this goal.

The issue of indulgences is related. Exactly as the sentencing of different people to different punishments for exactly the same crime occurs, so justice requires that other factors be brought into account to determine the proper punishment of any wrongdoer.

Again, I am only presenting, in a very real sense here, a cosmic overall theological argument, and I am not giving any

Bible verses. The Bible verses will be given to support this view. I'm simply trying to make a framework. Thus, we can see why

God's justice requires that man pay something for his own sins even when and if that man is saved.

Now, with the concept of indulgences in mind, let me go to the issue of compassion. Let me deal with this in a negative fashion first.

If God only allowed each man to suffer for himself, that is, pay a price for his sins himself and never for another, then

God would be preventing man from imitating Christ, which is the highest thing we can do. And yet, we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves.

And as it is axiomatic that all of us will do what we could to avoid suffering, it must follow that we must be willing to do what we can to lessen the suffering of another.

We are required to love our neighbor as ourselves. Thus, this abstract principle, if it is real, should have an actualization in life.

And of course, it does. The question becomes this. Can one person voluntarily suffer for another for the benefit of that second person?

And can this be done in a morally acceptable fashion which is approved of by God? If so, then this principle is established as not only approved, not only abstract, but real.

And the principle of indulgences is established, although indulgences are not established. All I'm establishing in this case is that it's in accord with God's will.

The answer is, of course, a resounding yes, that one may suffer for another person, and yes, one may do it in a way which is approved of by God.

To use only one example, and one of which was spoken with interestingly enough with specific approval by our

Lord in the Bible, I mentioned childbirth. As an anesthetic, can sometimes be harmful to the almost -born child?

Many mothers choose today natural childbirth as a way of enduring pain for the benefit of the loved one, that is, the almost -born child.

All of us approve of this, and it establishes that in the natural, that is,

God - ordained order of things, one person may suffer for the benefit of another.

Our Lord tells us that the greatest love is to offer one's life for another, lay down one's life for one's friend.

Thus it follows that if it can be done, to offer one's suffering for another is also beneficial and God -ordained.

For this is simply a lesser version of the same thing. Obviously if we cannot offer our lives but we offer our suffering, it is a good, although a lesser good.

And as I already have proven, that this can be done, and again I have already proven that this can be done in the normal activities of human love, childhood.

Now the only question of indulgence becomes this. Is this particular act of love, one suffering for another, blocked by the grave?

In other words, does death stop love from being effective? The answer must be no.

The reason why is that the love of the God -man Jesus conquered death and destroyed it by love.

What we have done, therefore, in this cosmic theological presentation, this argument, number one, is by simple examination of the essential and undeniable theological principles is to establish that both purgatory and indulgences are real.

And the only way to deny either is to deny that God, the compassionate, just God of the

Christians, does not exist. Now, the second argument is to give various verses from the

Bible, which I shall do now. Let me make a principle clear. In the Bible, when death does not mean physical death, that is, extinction or separation of the body and soul, it means damnation.

So therefore, he who is killed, dies, or destroyed, in this context, is damned.

I shall now give some of the verses which apply to purgatory with the clear understanding that I do not mean this list to be all of the verses which apply to purgatory.

The first one I cite is the story of the merciless official, which appears in the Gospel of St.

Matthew chapter 18, verses 21 to 35. In this, a man is forgiven a debt by a master who is clearly representing

God. Nevertheless, after he forgives a debt, he is still required to pay something.

And, he is thrown into prison, and he is told that his wife and children will be sold to pay part of the debt.

Now, what we have here is, number one, a man is forgiven his sins, but still owes something, temporal punishment due to sin.

Number two, his children and wife can pay part of that debt. The only way this can be possible is if it's purgatory, because if one holds that the man is, in fact, sent to hell, then he is sent to a place of eternal damnation after being forgiven by God.

Utterly impossible. So, therefore, he is punished after he is forgiven, because he still owes something.

Clearly purgatory. No other possible way to understand that. Matthew, Gospel of St. Matthew chapter 5, verses 25 to 26.

Our Lord says, when you're going to offer your gift, first consult with your brother and find out if he has anything against you, lest he turn you over to the judge.

And the judge turn you over to others who will imprison you, and you will stay there until you pay the last penny.

Once again, we have a concept of suffering imprisonment. It can not be hell. Why? Because the judge, who is

God, is telling others to restrain this person. And since the others can only be purgatory or the satanic forces in hell, the satanic forces in hell will not obey

God. That's one of the reasons they're there. And also, the other person turning you over to the judge could never bring about your damnation, because I could never bring about the damnation of another.

The only way to understand this is, again, sin causes temporary punishment in a place other than hell.

Another verse. Matthew 22, verses 1 to 14. This is one of the wedding feast stories.

Interesting love in it. Some of the people who reject the wedding feast are killed, destroyed.

We understand that it's damned. Others are invited. Of those that are invited, one, not being correctly dressed, is addressed by the king, the god, as friend.

He is asked why he's not correctly dressed. No answer is made. He is told, tie him up, throw him outside, whether it be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Notice we have a situation where some are damned, some are given the banquet, and some are punished temporarily by being tied up.

Again, we have a situation that there is something in between. And once a man is addressed by friend, having accepted the invitation to the wedding feast, having literally qualified for entry into heaven, but doesn't have the proper garment, the only way to explain this is that he now has a temporary time of endurance to bring himself up to the state of perfection.

The same thing occurs in the laborers in the vineyard story, Gospel of St. Matthew 20, verses 1 to 13.

What we have in this situation is we have a situation where the laborers are acceptable. They enter into an agreement, and they are accepted.

But they must go through various different lengths of suffering in the hot sun before they ultimately receive their payment, their payment being salvation.

These people are saved at the moment they accept the agreement. They are judged to be appropriate, but they still much suffer before they all receive the same reward, the reward being at the end the actual entry into heaven.

No other way to understand it. Again, another verse, Gospel of St. Luke, chapter 19, chapters 12 to 27.

We have a king, a noble going away to become the king. When he comes back, he finds his servants are misbehaving.

He punishes them with various degrees of penalties, and then mentions that he will execute those who opposed him being king.

So what we have is damnation and punishment. We have complete rejection, extinction, condemnation, and in the exact same verse we have punishment.

This is again after the king has come back, judgment time. No other way to understand it except purgatory.

Now, what we also have is in Matthew 5, 48, the command of our Lord that perfection must be achieved.

And in Philippians 1, 6, we are told that perfection will be brought about even until the day of Jesus Christ, that it will be worked out in us by God, and it will continue even if necessary until the end of time.

What this says is, in essence, we cannot get into heaven until we're perfect, so if we die in a non -perfect condition, some process, some purification process must occur.

We also have clear passages in Scripture that say that suffering leads to salvation and, clearly, that you cannot achieve salvation without suffering.

I'll simply cite the verses. Acts 14, 22, Romans 8, 17, 2 Thessalonians 1, 46.

Now, let me bring up some verses that deal with indulgences, specifically. Those all deal with the concept of purgatory, supporting the cosmic view that I gave in the first argument.

Specifically, Colossians 1, 24, where St. Paul specifically says that there is something lacking in the sacrifice of Christ that St.

Paul makes up in his own sufferings for the benefit of other people. The Epistle of St. James chapter 5, verse 20 says that reforming another person can cancel a multitude of sins.

A similar verse, First Epistle of St. Peter, 4, 8, says that love covers a multitude of sins.

Covering and canceling talks about a debt. If all of our sins were wiped out on the cross, these words would have no meaning whatsoever.

But, in fact, they have a distinct meaning. They're talking about good works, indulgences which can be used to cancel, to cover, to remit a multitude of sins.

2 Corinthians 5, 10 talks that when our Lord comes back, He will judge everybody according to the good or bad they have done in the body, meaning the body of Christ, meaning the

Church. Now, this cannot refer to damnation. It talks about how He will give good or bad, depending on how they behave.

Since we are not saved by works, and since these people are in the body of Christ when they come back, which is one of the qualifications for salvation, this cannot be damnation.

Therefore, it must be a purgatorial experience, because it's giving suffering. And the last verse

I will use is Luke, the Gospel of St. Luke, chapter 16, verses 19 -31, which is the

Dives and Lazarus story, which shows that the rich man, who we Catholics traditionally call

Dives, even in hell, still had love for his fellow man. He still cared about his brothers, because he asked that Abraham send

Lazarus back from the dead to help his brothers save their souls.

And the point is that, therefore, love is not ended, even by hell. Now, those are my first two arguments.

The third, which is a rather quick one, and I think a rather acute one, and maybe even an entertaining one, is what

I call the argument from the Dallas Cowboys. And what I'm arguing here is what I call a natural right reason argument.

What I am saying is, what men universally accept as fair, just, proper, et cetera, is in accord with the rule of God, because we are created in the image of likeness of God, and although we have a fall to nature, we are not so corrupted that we cannot follow the law that is written in our heart.

So what I point out to you is that right now, myself, I was a long -time Dallas Cowboys fan.

Right now, they're very good. Right now, they're the best team in football. But I suffered through their lean years, their terrible years, their one win in 15 lost seasons.

Now, when I listen to the call -in sports show, and people call in and talk about how they're a

Dallas Cowboys football fan, it's interesting that the host will always say since when.

Now, if you say I've been a Dallas Cowboys football fan since the 1970s or the early 1980s, they say, okay, you've now earned the right to enjoy their triumph.

But if people say I've been a Dallas Cowboys football fan for the last five or six years, these people say, you are a bandwagon -type person.

You are a front -runner -type person. You can't enjoy this because you haven't suffered. Now, I examine this in my own mind, and I thought it was very interesting that sports exist for the sole purpose of entertainment and enjoyment and happiness and joy.

And yet, even here, it is an absolute universal premise, an absolute universal conviction, an absolute universal judgment, that you should never root for simply the best team, but that your loyalty should go out through all the years and your ups and downs with them, and that you should never abandon a bad team and root for a good team, even though that would bring you joy.

Why? Because there's something in the human nature, there's something in the human heart, there's something in the human sense of justice, which says that to get something good, there is something that has to be paid for.

Now, what I'm arguing is this. That universal reflection, which is reflect in this bandwagon concept of rooting for the

Dallas Cowboys, is something universal in man, accepted by all of us. Is that the end of me, or a warning?

That's two minutes. Okay. This is a warning, this is a suggestion, an implication, a universal law written on our heart, which says the following.

You must suffer or you should suffer, or it is right to suffer, if necessary, in order to achieve the happiness, the goal.

Sort of like it says in the old marriage vows, for better or worse, for richer or poorer. So, since I'm getting close to the end, allow me to summarize.

And I summarize the following. Again, the nature of justice has, both divine and human, has two aspects.

The revenge and the restitution. In order for both of those to function divinely, they needed the death of our

Lord on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, and then us to be made perfect, to be purified and purged through purgatory.

Otherwise, God's justice does not take place. The compassion of our Lord, allowing us to carry our crosses and to follow

Christ, to imitate Him, and to suffer for others, requires, requires the existence and functioning of indulgences.

The numerous verses, which I pointed out, have frequently a two -tier concept.

We have acceptance and punishment, rejection and extinction. The only way that can be explained, when these are judgment verses leading to salvation, is that the suffering must occur sometime before the entry occurs, and that this is a functioning of God's justice.

Once again, there were numerous verses. I gave a number, a series, and an explanation. There are no rational way to explain these in any way other than bringing them purgatory unless one wishes to violate the most basic premises of any form of Christianity.

Namely, one comes up with either a God who condemns after He assures one of salvation, or a salvation by works.

So therefore, those verses and many others support the concept of purgatory. And again, the last one, the natural law argument is that we all...

Time! Oh, I'm sorry. Was that the end? Yeah. I'm finished. Go ahead, take it. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

The Council of Florence in 1439 said, it has likewise defined that if those truly penitent have departed the love of God before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruit of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishment, and so they may be released from punishment of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety which are constantly performed by the faithful for other faithful, according to the institutions of the

Church. The Council of Trent in 1563 likewise reasserted the teaching of the

Council of Florence, and that same Council also penned these important words, quote, Wherefore, according to the tradition of the

Apostles, it, the mass, is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ, but not yet fully purified.

That final phrase needs to be understood. According to Roman Catholicism, a man or woman can be justified in Christ, in a state of grace, having approached the mass a thousand times in their life, and yet die impure, not yet fully purified.

Since nothing impure can enter into heaven, it is reasoned there must be some way of bringing about that final purification, hence the concept of purgatory.

But note that this entire concept is based upon believing that a person can be justified in Christ, and yet impure, a concept utterly contrary to the teaching of Scripture regarding justification and the atonement.

Added to this idea of purgatory is the utterly unbiblical concept of indulgences. Here we are told that there exists a treasury of merit, made up of the mixed merits of Christ, Mary, and the saints, from which the

Church can draw by the power of the keys. These indulgences are applied to the faithful who do the requisite work to earn them.

These indulgences lessen the temporal punishments that must be expiated by the sufferings of the faithful. As our time is extremely limited,

I cannot go into a full explanation of indulgences. I only encourage the listeners to take the time to read

Indulgentiarum Doctrina, the Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, from January 1, 1967.

No modern Roman Catholic document more clearly and plainly separates itself from the Bible's concept of grace and forgiveness than this document.

I highly recommend it to be read by any person who wishes to compare Roman teachings with those of the Bible. Now, in the attempt to find biblical substantiation for the concept of purgatory, two primary passages have been put forward by classical or mainline

Roman Catholic apologists, Matthew 12, 32 and 1 Corinthians 3, 10 -15. In Matthew, we read the

Lord saying, quote, Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it 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. The Lord Jesus is here speaking of the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the

Holy Spirit. The Roman Catholic interpreter looks at this passage and says, see, it is possible to have sins forgiven in the age to come, just as Jesus said.

This gives some support to the doctrine of purgatory. Aside from the oft -repeated truth that sin is either forgiven in Christ Jesus or it is not forgiven at all, does the

Roman Church have a solid position here? Long ago, the pastor of the church at Geneva replied to the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage in these words, quote,

When the Lord, they say, makes known that the sin against the Holy Spirit is not to be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come, they say he hints at the same time that there is forgiveness of certain sins in the world to come.

When the Lord willed to cut off all hope of pardon for such shameful wickedness, he did not consider it enough to say that it would never be forgiven.

But in order to emphasize it even more, he used a division by which he embraced the judgment that the conscience of every man experienced in this life, and the final judgment that will be given openly at the resurrection.

It is as if he said, Beware of malicious rebellion as of present ruin, for he who would purposely try to extinguish the prophet light of the

Spirit will attain pardon neither in this life, which is given to sinners for their conversion, nor in the last day on which the lambs will be separated from the goats by the angels of God, and the kingdom of heaven will be cleansed of all offenses."

Hence, Christ emphasizes the impossibility of forgiveness for this blasphemy, not the concept that there is forgiveness for sin in the age to come.

The age to come, for the Jewish person, referred to the final age, the day of Yahweh, and to say that there would be no forgiveness for that sin in that age to come is the same as saying it is unforgivable, period.

But more popular are these words of Paul to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians chapter 3, According to the grace of God which is 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 a 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.

The Roman Catholic view sees in these words the reference to purgatory, the concept of judgment, loss, and reward are felt to support the concept of a cleansing after death.

Yet, when we allow the passage to speak for itself, we find almost nothing that supports the concept of purgatory. The mention of fire seems to be about the only common concept between the judgment of believers and the

Roman doctrine of purgatory, even though modern Catholic writers are quick to point out that the Roman Church has never dogmatically affirmed that there is a literal fire in purgatory.

But aside from this, nothing can be found to substantiate a concept of purgatory. What is judged is the sort or kind of work the

Christian has done. Sins and their punishments are not even mentioned. It is works that are judged and put through the fire, yet Rome teaches that it is a person who is caused to suffer so as to be purified from the temporal punishments of sin.

In the passage, if a person's works withstand the judgment, the person receives a reward. If not, the person suffers loss, not punishment, yet is saved, but as through fire.

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

Christian's works are judged for what sort they are, and if a person's works are found to be made of wood, hay, and straw, those works will be burned up and the person will receive no reward.

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

It is no light matter to stand before the judgment bar of Christ, yet we must strongly affirm that this judgment is not a judgment relative to sin, but to works and rewards.

The believer has already been judged with reference to sin in Christ Jesus and has passed out of death into life never to come into judgment for sin again,

John 5, 24. The believer's sins were judged in Christ Jesus. The remaining judgment is not about salvation, but it's about reward.

Therefore, this passage has nothing to do with purgatory or suffering to make atonement for sins or their punishment.

Of course, we do not find anywhere in Scripture, nor in the writings of the early fathers, any mention of a belief in indulgences.

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

Hence, Romans again found teaching a concept that, like the idea of papal infallibility or the bodily assumption of Mary, is a doctrine that has no basis in Scripture and no basis in anything that can even remotely or honestly be called apostolic tradition.

But most importantly, we find that the doctrine of indulgences and its related concepts of merit, expiation, sin, blessed suffering, etc.

stands firmly against the gospel of grace taught in Christ. Paul taught, for example, in Romans 5, 8 -11, quote,

But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, much more than, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God at the death of his Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Not only this, but we also exalt in God to our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Here the Scriptures teach that we are justified by his blood, not by anyone or anything else.

And I note in passing, these passages that I'm presenting to you are specifically about the subject that we're talking about.

We're talking about salvation. These aren't just passages where we take something out of a context completely different and try to apply it to this issue.

We are saved from the wrath of God, through him, not through the mediation or merit of Mary, saint to our own suffering.

We already have been reconciled, we are not in the process of being reconciled. Indulgences have no meaning in a relationship where reconciliation has taken place.

How could they? If I am reconciled with God, how can I need a transfer of merit from a treasury of merit?

What is more, we have received the reconciliation in one, that is, Jesus Christ, and in him alone.

Paul thought elsewhere concerning Christ that it was he quote, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith end quote

Romans 325. Where then do we ever hear of our making expiation for sins or of having propitiatory power?

Propitiation is a stronger term than mere expiation. While expiation speaks of the forgiveness of sins, propitiation speaks of that as well as the turning away of God's wrath.

The believer then who has faith in Christ is reconciled by his death and has received the propitiation for his or her sin.

No punishments remain in such a relationship. The believer has peace, for the relationship is made whole and right.

A relationship in which punishments remain to be exacted is not the relationship that is described in Scripture regarding believers.

Hebrews chapter 2 verse 17 says, Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in all things so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertained to God to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

The question must be asked, did Christ or did he not make propitiation for the sins of the people of God?

And if in fact he did, why do I need to add to that work such concepts as indulgence as merit to the suffering of atonement?

In Hebrews 7 24 -25 we read, But Jesus on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood permanently.

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

If Christ is able to save forever, in some translations render it to the uttermost, those who come unto

God by him, not by any other means, how can it be said that I must make expiation for my own sins, both on earth as well as in purgatory?

The same writer of the Hebrews said later, For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,

Hebrews 10 14. Are believers perfected for all time, yet they still need to expiate sins, endure punishments, and undergo the suffering of atonement, making indulgences helpful and necessary?

Surely not. But someone might say, But doesn't the Bible speak of God chastening his children? Yes, it certainly does.

Again, in the book of Hebrews 12 6 -8, For those whom the Lord loves, he disciplines, and he scourges every son whom he receives.

It is for discipline that you endure. God deals with you as with sons, for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?

But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

Now, does this passage, and others that are like it, teach us that God is punishing our sins, leveling legal punishments against us even after we have been justified by the death of Christ?

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

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

The difference between the Roman Catholic concept and the biblical one is just this. While Rome teaches that God's justice and holiness is bringing judgment to bear upon their sins, the

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

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

Jesus Christ. God chastens us as a father, conforming us to the image of his beloved

Son, not as a judge exacting justice from us. The Gospel of Jesus Christ presents a perfect, all -sufficient

Savior, who endured the wrath of God in the place of His people. To Him is due all glory, honor, and praise, for He alone is

Savior. Indulgences and purgatory detract from the honor and glory of the

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

Lord Jesus Christ. Now, having listened to a number of Mr. Lewis' debates and having debated him previously on the papacy,

I am quite familiar with his position on issues of truth. In fact, I believe I am being quite fair to say that the means by which he defends purgatory and indulgences is the same means by which he defends the papacy, or really, any other

Roman Catholic doctrine. Hence, I wish to point out some of the very obvious logical errors on his part right at the start so that, hopefully, we can focus upon the real issue, that is, the work of Christ, rather than upon the normal means used by Mr.

Lewis to derail his opposition. I refer specifically to the claim on Mr. Lewis' part, which he, in fact, mentioned in his opening statement.

Quote, I am sustained by God, and therefore, when I make the act of will and God uses me like the pen in the hand,

I do not make mistakes, end quote, from our last debate. Mr. Lewis claims infallibility for his arguments, which, of course, means that there is no logical way for him, given his own assumptions, to lose a debate on anything at all, let alone purgatory.

In contrast to his infallible arguments, he places the words of everyone else, myself included. He sets up a false dichotomy, saying that if you do not claim infallibility for your teachings and interpretations, you are merely giving opinions, and he makes it painfully clear that opinions have nothing to do with facts.

Opinions have no weight, no authority, and can be dismissed by anyone who wishes to do so. In fact, everything

I've said about the Bible so far would be listed as a mere opinion. Hence, we are told that with reference to our subject today, purgatory and indulgences, we must either have an infallible teaching that cannot be questioned or examined, or we have mere opinions that are meaningless and without weight.

There is no other possibility in Mr. Lewis' system. I would like to suggest, however, that such dichotomy is irrational, illogical, and simply untrue.

Obviously, I reject Mr. Lewis' claims to infallibility. In fact, the vast majority of Roman Catholics I know who know of Mr.

Lewis likewise reject his claims to infallibility. It seems Mr. Lewis believes that as long as one commits himself to God and asks for the grace to speak the truth, that somehow

God is under an obligation to make that person infallible. I would ask the audience to consider for just a moment what that means.

I know of Mormons who have prayed to God for grace and guidance before engaging me in apologetic combat in public places.

Did God make them infallible? No, he did not, because they are an error to begin with. I know of Jehovah's Witnesses who likewise have prayed that prayer.

Their error is twofold. First, they are deceived and need God's truth, and secondly, there is no promise from God to make anyone infallible simply because they ask to be made so.

God gives guidance to those of his people who seek his faith and seek his glory, but that does not mean that they cease being sinners, that they cease struggling with pride, though they are released from any of those frailties that are common to human nature, which may, at some point, introduce error or misunderstanding into their thoughts, words, or presentations.

For example, Mr. Lewis claims to be the greatest living expert on Protestantism today. He said so in our last debate.

Now, I think that claim is so false as to be humorous, but I want to point out that it obviously introduces the possibility of error on his part when he speaks to such issues, as it is self -evident that he is not such an expert and is, in fact, woefully ill -informed in the vast majority of meaningful issues in that area.

Therefore, what he teaches on those topics is very fallible, no matter how much prayer he offers up to God to make up for his lack of preparation, study, and inquiry.

Roman Catholics and Protestants together do agree that there is a need for scholarship. Both recognize that it is not enough to pray to God, Oh God, make me infallible when

I interpret the Bible. If a person refuses to pay the price to learn the required material, to study biblical backgrounds, learn how to interpret things in context, learn the biblical languages, study grammar, all things that everyone agrees is necessary before one can say that one is giving a meaningful and logical interpretation of the text, that person who neglects these things has no right to believe that God will override their own laziness or conceit so as to make them something they are not, an infallible interpreter of the

Bible. Mr. Lewis likes to say, and has said at least a half dozen times already in this debate, that his understanding of a particular passage is the only possible way of understanding it.

But he says this without even knowing what the other ways might be. He cannot claim to know the original languages, but is dependent solely upon English translations.

He can't tell us what the early fathers said about the passages because that doesn't matter to him either. The person in the audience is faced with a clear issue.

Who is more likely to give you a meaningful and accurate understanding of the text of Scripture, or even of the teaching of the

Church? A person who claims personal infallibility and therefore foregoes all scholarly preparation and study, or a person who dedicates himself to the study of the

Scriptures, learns the biblical languages, masters the background, and can speak from a position of familiarity with the viewpoints of other scholars who have commented upon the text and given their insight as well?

I think the answer is quite clear. One other point should be noted in this regard. How can Mr. Lewis guarantee that his particular understanding of the teachings of the

Roman Catholic Church is infallible and correct? The majority of Roman Catholic apologists with whom I have had interaction believe

Mr. Lewis to hold many views that are not in accord with the official teachings of the Vatican. Is Mr. Lewis then less so in his perception of the teachings of Rome as perfect or without spot?

This is something we have to consider in light of the claims being made. Finally, I address the idea that since I admit my own fallibility and seek to minimize my own human weakness by diligent study and honest examination of the issues at hand, that I can give the audience only opinions that have nothing to do with facts, and that the audience is therefore free to dismiss everything

I say. The error of such thinking is obvious. The authority of a messenger comes not from himself, but from the one who sent him.

The authority is contained in the message he presents. The more faithful the deliverance of that message, the more authority that person's proclamation has.

A person who faithfully delivers the message entrusted to him does so with the full authority of the one who sent the message.

A messenger who is not faithful in delivering that message cannot claim the authority of the message or the one who sent it.

Therefore, when I faithfully present to you, the audience, the word of God, the message of Christ as contained in the

God -breathed scriptures, that presentation carries the very authority of God, and you ignore it at the peril of your soul, not because it is

James White who says these things to you, but because the message is God's message, not my own message.

The irony here is that while Mr. Lewis seeks to deliver a message with infallible authority, he does so at the cost of faithfulness in the message itself.

He refuses to do the requisite work to even make sure that the message he delivers is faithful to the official teaching of the

Roman Catholic Church, let alone does he seek to be prepared to honestly engage with the text of Scripture so as to give a meaningful understanding of that text.

It is a simple fact that a person who does not invest himself in the task of learning God's truth cannot claim to deliver a message that has the authority of God behind it.

What Mr. Lewis gives us is not infallible truth, but his opinion of what infallible truth is. The audience, again, must decide how closely aligned with the truth is the opinion of one who entrusts himself solely to his own infallibility, or of one who recognizes his own fallibility and prayerfully seeks to overcome that problem through the rigorous study and learning of God's truth.

Thank you. Thanks, Professor. Okay, then, it'll be your turn to cross -examine

Professor White. I'm sorry, Lee, what am I doing now? You'll be cross -examining Okay, I got you.

Thank you. For 15 minutes. Gotcha. Are we there? Yeah. Okay. No, not you, Lee, the other fellow.

Okay. Okay. First of all, I'd like to present my fourth argument by asking a couple of quick questions, which

I hope you will answer yes or no. When you die, or anybody who dies, and is a person who will enter

Heaven, that is, will be saved, will you give an account for your life? An account?

Yes, an accounting of your life. Will you be given a judgment in which your life will be presented to you, the good things and the bad things, that you did?

They will be tested, yes. Well, they'll be shown to you, okay? What you described in 1

Corinthians, but what I'm saying is that that's generally called an accounting. Do you have an objection to that term? It's not a biblical term, as far as that usage there, but if you'd like to use it, that's fine.

Okay, no objection. At that time, when you are, you will admit, both, again, hypothetically and you personally, that you have sinned at certain times, and these things will be brought up to you at that time, correct?

No. No. No, I do not. All right. When you are shown your life, you will not be shown anything you did bad?

Like I said, I will be shown my works. And will you not be shown any of your sins? No. Okay.

When our Lord says that you will be judged on every unguarded word you say, and you will be acquitted or condemned by every unguarded word you say, that doesn't apply to you?

According to his words in John 5, 24, no. No, this is in the Gospel of St. Matthew. He said them both, wouldn't you agree?

Right. But when I asked you, please answer the question. I am with his words. Here we go again.

When he said that you will be acquitted or condemned by every unguarded word you say, and you will be judged by every unguarded word you say, at the time of judgment, does that apply to you?

It does not apply to those who are in him, no. Okay, so therefore our Lord was lying when he said that?

Not at all. Okay. I just take everything he says, not just part. Okay, very good. When our Lord says this is what judgment goes, it doesn't apply to you.

No problem. I'll leave that alone for a moment, okay? Just so I get a summary statement on this, when you yourself, this is your personal view, when you yourself are given this judgment or accounting or shown your works after you have died, and when you are judged, you will be shown nothing negative that you did.

Is that correct? I will not come into judgment for my sins. That isn't what I asked. Will you be shown anything at all negative of what you did?

I will not come into judgment for my sins. That isn't what I asked. Please, let your guests be asked. You know we know anything else is from Satan and Protestants.

I'm sorry, I'm just going to repeat Jesus' words. It's a very simple question. Will you be shown anything negative that you did in your life?

I can only answer in Jesus' words. Once again, Mr. White, I accuse you of evasion, cowardice, and dishonesty.

I realize that's all you can do. Mr. White, allow me to continue because you just exposed yourself as a coward because you knew exactly where it was going and you refused to answer yes or no.

You're not keeping to the arrangement. That's all right. No problem. Let me ask you a question. Is purgatory or indulgences by name mentioned in the

Bible? Not at all. So therefore, the Bible does not condemn it by name, correct? Of course not. Okay, so therefore, when you say it's unbiblical, that is your opinion, correct?

Yes. And as you pointed out, you're trying to overcome this problem, quote -unquote, of fallibility, correct?

Yes. That is a problem, isn't it? Probably, yes. Well, can not God overcome all human problems?

Sure. So how come God hasn't overcome this problem in your case? I have not chosen to do so. So therefore, you're still suffering from it, but He can do it, correct?

Oh, if He would desire to do so. So therefore, it is perfectly possible that He has done so with me, is it not?

Highly unlikely, but I think it's possible. Perfectly possible. Okay, very good. Now, when you say, quote, well,

I'll try to go in order on these things here. Uh, excuse me. Let's both agree on something.

Let's see if we can agree on it. You believe that Roman Catholic apologists are wrong, don't you? I'm sorry? You believe that Roman Catholic apologists are wrong, don't you?

About what? About religion. Well, they're right in saying there's one true God. No, but they're wrong about religion, otherwise they wouldn't be

Roman Catholics, correct? Unlike you, Mr. Lewis, I do not think in the total black and white character.

Thank you. Are Roman Catholic apologists true Christians following the true one faith?

No, I would say not. Okay, so they're wrong on religion, correct? On certain elements of it, yes. Right, so therefore, you don't accept their view on religion, then, do you?

On certain elements of it, no. Okay, so therefore, they're not reliable sources on what is right on religion, correct?

On what's right on certain elements of religion, yes. Very good. The point we're making is that when you point out that Roman Catholic apologists criticize me and oppose me, we both agree on that.

We both agree they're wrong. We agree on that, okay? That's not a true statement.

That is a true statement. No, you said we agree that they're wrong. I know you don't recognize a true statement, but never mind,

I'll just point it out. Let me ask you a question. Are all the writings of the early fathers preserved, or are any of them lost? I'm sure some of them are lost.

So therefore, they might very well have been purgatory and indulgences, and nothing but purgatory and indulgences in the lost versions, correct?

There may have also been faith aliens, yes. That isn't what I asked. There may have been purgatorial logical results of what you asked. Thank you very much for interrupting me,

Mr. White. Please try to be courteous. This is cross -examination. I ask you again, since you don't know what was in it, they may very well have written on it, correct?

Anything could have been in there, you bet. Very good. Now let me ask you another question. If you were to become reconciled with someone who did you wrong, are you saying that under no circumstances whatsoever, after their reconciliation, would you require anything else from the person?

Are you speaking of biblical reconciliation? I'm talking about you personally. You're talking about biblical reconciliation? I'm talking about you.

Forget biblical. If you became biblically reconciled with somebody else who had done you a wrong, would you require nothing else from him as an absolute savior?

On what basis is the reconciliation made? Whatever you want to call it. You define the word. If it's biblical reconciliation, which is the death of Jesus Christ, I would have no basis to ask for anything else.

Okay, so if someone stole your car and smashed it up and came back and asked for forgiveness and had the money to pay for the car, and you forgave him from your heart and decided not to call the police, would you still ask him to pay for the damage?

That has nothing to do with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Thank you very much, but you didn't answer my question. Would you ask him to pay for the damage? Well, if you want to change the question, would you ask him to pay for the damage?

Would you ask him to pay for the damage? On a non -biblical basis. We'll take that as a yes, since we're not getting an answer.

We'll go to the next one. Now, you said in Hebrews that, correct me if I'm wrong, do you hold that because of the sacrifice of our

Lord on the cross, all believers are perfected for all time? Yes. Does perfected mean that you avoid sin?

That I avoid sin? Am I right? Anybody. If it's a perfected person avoids sin. No. Well, tell me, if a perfected person doesn't avoid sin, how is he perfected?

Non -imputation of sin, sir. Okay, so in other words, God is not imputing sin. That is my answer. God is not...

I'm trying... I'm asking for clarification. God does not impute the sin to them which they still commit?

Right. Okay, so therefore God lies about it, right? Not at all. He's blind? Not at all. Okay, so he's simply lying about something that they're doing.

No, you have a question. I have a question for you. When you talk about the concept of, again in Hebrews, and you mentioned in the

Old Testament, that God disciplines son and chastens son. If I understood you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you said this is not out of a sense of justice but out of a sense of love.

Is that correct? Fathership and love is what I said. Okay, fine. Now, the point is, he does actually inflict punishment, at times, on his sons out of love and fathership to conform them closer to what they should be.

Is that correct? Yes. Do they need that to be saved? Do they need that to be saved? No. Yeah.

It's a simple question. I said no. No. So therefore, God is doing this even though it doesn't count with him.

He's doing it simply because he's cruel and likes to inflict punishment on people, but they don't need it, do they? That's absurd.

I beg your pardon? Your question is absurd. It didn't answer my question. They don't need it to be saved. That's an unanswerable question, that's why.

There we go. They don't need it to be saved, do they? They do not need it to be saved. So God does it anyway. Yes, he does.

He does inflict pain and suffering on people who don't need it for any reason whatsoever. No, I never said that. What reason do they need it for?

Conforming them to the image of Christ. And do they need that in order to get into heaven? Do they need that to get into heaven?

Yeah. Do they need that to be saved? It is a part of his will for them. I ask again, do they need that in order to be saved?

Conforming to the image of Christ? No, the process by which they are punished and inflicted and suffering into conforming of the image of Christ.

I never talked about suffering. Thank you very much. I'm talking about it. Once again, I ask the question, do they need that to be saved?

Well, since you're repeating what I allegedly said, then you need to repeat what I said. Okay, Mr. White. Excuse me for one moment.

Here. Ben Lewis. Do they need that to be saved, Mr. White? Yes, Mr. White. Yes, Ben Lewis. I'm Mr.

White now. Yes, they do need that to be saved. So therefore, they need suffering in order to be saved. Yes, they do, Ben. So therefore,

I've won the debate, haven't I? Yes, we have, Ben. But of course, I can't answer that question without a moderator. Could you ask

Mr. Lewis to ask both questions? They're logical and rational. Mr. White. Mr.

White. Okay. Mr. White. And to stick with it. Mr. White, I've just made my point that you refuse to answer the question because you obviously understand that God inflicts this punishment on people which causes them to suffer because it is necessary for their salvation, which is exactly what purgatory is.

I just warn. Okay. Okay, Ben. Wait a minute. I'm going to answer that question now because it was asked.

He inflicts punishment upon his children to conform them to the image of Christ. Is that necessary for salvation?

I'm going to finish my answer, sir. Okay. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let's keep this just a question and answer, please.

No statements. Do I get to answer one question and get more than one sentence out of this entire debacle?

I do have to make a point of order, Lee. The point is I've asked a whole bunch of questions that should be answered yes or no. It's obviously a dishonest evasion for him to refuse to do so.

I ask you again, is that necessary for salvation? Mr. Moderator, there are questions that can be asked that do not have yes or no answers.

That's one of ten. To ask people to answer yes or no questions without allowing them to find their positions is cowardly, unfair, and demonstrates that Mr.

Lewis cannot deal with these issues. James White, no one's ever called me cowardly. Say it to my face and I'll smash your nose down.

Okay, wait a minute. Let's just wait. All right. I ask you to make a decision.

I ask if Condition X is necessary for salvation. Is that a fair question to be answered yes or no? I'd be glad to answer the question.

The answer is no. The condition for salvation is the full atonement of Jesus Christ. So therefore,

God inflicts suffering on people for no reason whatsoever. I never said that, sir. That is an unfair response.

I'm asking a question. He inflicts chastening upon his children because he is a good father, and he is working out his will in their lives, sir.

And there is no need for that, correct? There is a need for that, but it does not necessarily mean a need for salvation, sir.

I must object, Lee. I'm asking very simple questions, and I'm being interrupted.

I must object, Lee. Okay, let's just keep it without talking over each other, and let's try to answer as directly as possible.

Let's be strict solely on yes or no, but there have been some legitimate yes or no questions which were not answered.

Yes, but I agree. Agreed. Exactly the point. They were evaded.

I ask you again, this inflicting, this suffering which is put on people in order to conform them to the image of Christ, is that necessary for salvation?

No. So therefore, the suffering is done gratuitously with no goal of salvation at all, correct?

No. You just contradicted yourself a little bit that way. Now, let me ask you a question here on your own advance.

By the way, you did describe my positions correctly about claiming infallibility, and of course, I hold all of what you said to be true, which you said were not true, but it's an interesting point.

You didn't say it was not true. You suggested, that's an exact quote, I suggest that Mr. Lewis is wrong.

Are you saying that infallibly, or is that a mere opinion? It is a very weighty opinion, not a mere opinion.

Okay, a mere weighty opinion. But the point is, you cannot come to a degree of truth determining whether I, in an infallible sense, of whether I am wrong or not.

Is that correct? Oh yes, I can. Are you infallible when you come to that conclusion? No, the word of God is.

Now, very good, but I didn't ask about the word of God. I asked about you, Mr. White, coming to a conclusion. When you come to that conclusion about me, is that an infallible decision on your part?

No. So therefore, you could be wrong, correct? All of us are. No, that, okay.

Mr. White, admit that when he is wrong, he is not advancing it as truth, but as a weighty opinion.

No, I am advancing it as truth. When you advance it as truth, could you be wrong? I could be wrong about anything, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

That isn't what I asked. You could be wrong. You're advancing it as an opinion. All of us are fallible, yes, or I could be wrong about all of us.

Very good, very good. Now, you also said that someone could reject your opinion, or would reject your opinion, at peril of their soul.

Is that correct? Yes. But, you're not saying that they will be damned if they reject your opinion, only that they're in peril, correct?

As I said, when I talk about my opinion, I'm talking about my proclamation of the Word of God, not my opinion.

Let's try it again. You're not saying they will go to hell. No, I'm going to finish my point. I'm not talking about my opinion about who the

Dallas Cowboys are good or are not good, or whatever else it is. As I specifically said, in context, what

I'm talking about is when I proclaim the Gospel, when I proclaim the Word of God. Let's try it again.

You're not saying they will go to hell. You're only saying they're in peril, correct? I'm sorry? You're not saying they will go to hell.

You're only saying they're in peril. I'm saying they're in peril because I don't know the condition of any person's soul.

Do you know the conditions for salvation and damnation? I'm sorry? Do you know the conditions for damnation?

Of course. Are one of those conditions rejecting you? Not at all. Okay, so therefore, rejecting you does not put a person in peril of going to hell.

You never have said it. I'm sorry, I'm rejecting the Gospel. I thought you specifically said, and if anybody listens to the tape, they'll remember it, and if you can't remember it, but you specifically said, correct me if I'm wrong and you may withdraw it, that anybody rejects your opinion and therefore is in terrible peril of damnation.

I'm very thankful it is on tape because everyone who heard me say it will recognize that what I said was, when

I present the Gospel from the God -breathed Scripture and you never can do that. It has the weight of the one who gave the message.

And you never can do that infallibly, can you? Me personally, no. Yeah. So therefore, you never present a truth which can't be wrong.

It's always only a weighty opinion, correct? No, it is a truth. Okay. It is very much a truth. Okay. Can a truth be wrong?

Can a truth be wrong? Can a truth be wrong? Can a truth be wrong? Can a truth be wrong? Can a truth be wrong? Can a truth be wrong?

Yes. The truth is never wrong. That isn't what I asked. Okay. Okay.

That was a legitimate question, Professor. He asked if the truth could be wrong. Yes or no,

Lee. It's not a yes or no question. Professor, He asked if the truth could ever be wrong and that would be legitimately answered yes or no,

Professor. Let me explain something, Mr. Parlier. The truth about what? The truth as a whole?

The truth about the trend? The truth about the hypothetic union? The truth about the gospel? The truth about the celebration? Which truth is it?

What's the use? It can't make a pig fly and you can't make

Mr. James White be manly and tell the truth. Mr. Parlier, which truth do you want me to answer?

Forget it, Lee. He's going to stall and waste your time and mine. Let's go on to the next page.

Mr. Parlier. Okay. You've still got six minutes left.

As I said, it's utterly No, I had to stop him. Excuse me. It is utterly useless.

Mr. White is afraid of answering yes or no. He's ashamed of his dogma. He's ashamed of his doctrine.

He's ashamed, period. Okay, let's just go to Professor White. Okay.

You're exceeding my time. Mr. Lewis, is it possible for you to be deceived? Yes. Is it possible for someone to believe that they are infallible when they are merely deluded?

I believe so. Sure, sure. Certainly conceivable. Since I have prayed today for God's help, does it fall that I am now infallible and my arguments are irrefutable?

I'm sorry. Please repeat what you said. Since I have prayed today for God's help, does it fall that I am now infallible and my arguments irrefutable?

No, it does not fall. Would you agree that it is unfair and improper to ask a question that is based upon facts, not on evidence or assumptions that have not yet been proven?

No, I would not agree. Would you agree that using such questions indicates a bankruptcy of meaningful argumentation on the part of the person asking such questions?

They may, but not necessarily. Mr. Lewis, have you translated from the Greek the passages relevant to the topic of purgatory and indulgences, and if not, why not?

I have not because, number one, I do not have the skill.

Okay. Mr. Lewis, have you examined the history of the doctrine of purgatory so as to ascertain its earliest appearance in the record?

No. Do you know of anything in the earliest writings of the Church that denies the reality of the

Book of Mormon? No. When you say Church, you meant the Catholic Church? I meant the

Christian Church. You meant what I would think of as the Catholic Church. That's fine. Then the answer is no.

Do you know anything in the writings of the early Church Fathers that denies the existence of space aliens?

No, I know of no such thing. Is it possible that there are all sorts of early Church writings that talk about space aliens?

We just don't know it. Oh, sure. Mr. Lewis, do you have children? No. I'm not married.

If you had a child, and this is a fairly lengthy hypothetical, if you had a child who needed brain surgery, which of the two following hypothetical doctors would you take a child to?

The first claims no scholarly training in brain surgery at all. Instead, this person says that while he has never studied the structure of the brain specifically, he has watched every episode of ER and MASH, and he has not talked to any other doctor about your child's situation.

He doesn't feel any of the doctors as good as he is. This person assures you that before cutting into your child's head, he will pray to God for guidance and grace, and God will surely grant this person so it will all be well.

That's the first doctor. The second doctor likewise claims that he will ask God's guidance, but he also shows you medical degrees and expertise in brain surgery and disease.

He has studied the brain in depth and knows exactly where the operation needs to focus and how the problem needs to be addressed. He has performed this procedure a hundred times before with great success.

This doctor has years of experience and has consulted many other doctors about your child's case. Now, which of the two doctors are you going to take your child to, and why?

The second one. And why? Because his credentials are better. Mr. Lewis, Titus 214.

Assuming everybody is telling the truth, I mean, of course, but that's a hypothetical. Okay. Mr. Lewis, Titus 214 says, speaking of our great

God and Savior, Jesus Christ, that he, quote, gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds, end quote.

The passage says that Christ purified for himself a people. Could you please comment on the phrase catharisse healtola on, and how this fits with the idea of satisfaccio and purgatory as defined by Roman Catholic apologists?

Uh, no, because I'm afraid I wasn't able to follow the question, because I think it went into Latin there. If you can break it down,

I'll give it an attempt. But, I'm not sure if I could anyway. So, if you look at uh, so, even though the term to cleanse, uh, is found in Titus 214 and specifically

Christ who cleanses for himself a people, you've never looked at that, have you? I'm sure

I went through it, but if you're asking, did I look up it, did I, have I seen it recently, my answer would be no.

Titus 3, 5 -7 says, quote, he saved us not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration, renewing by the

Holy Spirit, he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior so that being justified by his grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life, end quote.

Could you please comment on how the washing of regeneration could be so limited and so useless as to require our suffering and purgatory to obtain full and complete purification?

Sure, because what you're talking about are two separate things there. You're talking about salvation. Remember, everybody who goes to purgatory has already achieved the standard, the quality, the status of salvation, but he is not yet fit to enter.

So we have the situation as we have in the marriage feast. The invitation has been accepted, the man has been determined to be an acceptable guest, but he still has to do something in a very real sense, change his clothes before he can come in.

So of course we are redeemed by the cross, but of course there is still something required for the rest of us who have not yet been perfected, because as you said, and as I certainly agree, and as the

Bible proclaims, nothing defiled can enter Heaven. So the washing of regeneration doesn't really result in purification.

I will say what I understand by washing of regeneration. Washing of regeneration means the sacrament of baptism, and of course that does purify a person.

And if a person would have died instantaneously after receiving baptism, he would go directly to Heaven because he would have no defect, no vestiges of sin left.

So certainly that passage can be understood in that way, that the washing, the regeneration, that being baptized into Christ does remove all stain of sin, all sin whatsoever, absolutely no two ways about it.

The point is that most of us, unfortunately, live long after baptism and foul ourselves up.

Mr. Lewis, you just mentioned Matthew 22 and the wedding feast. You and your ex -Jesus said that the only way to explain this is to refer to purgatory.

Could you tell us what study you've done into the background of the passage, specifically in regards to Palestinian wedding feasts and the traditions associated therewith?

None that I can remember. You are not familiar with the fact that the person who gave the feast was responsible for providing a wedding garment to everyone?

No, I'm not. I'm not aware. If I were ever aware of that, I've certainly forgotten it, so I'm not aware of it now.

So could you please explain how you can say that the only way to explain this when, in point of fact, any person who is familiar with the background of the passage knows that there is a much more obvious way of explaining the passage than the one you gave?

Because what we have is a situation as follows. We have the reward of certain people who absolutely are given what clearly has to be heaven.

We have the destruction of certain people who are killed, which has to be condemnation and hell.

And we have a person who is put into a situation of a temporary, binding situation, who is called friend, who is considered acceptable, for instance, to the wedding feast, and is rejected temporarily.

You do not bind something unless you're going to loosen it. If this man were going to be condemned, he would be thrown outside and have his head cut off, but instead he's thrown outside with his weeping and gnashing of teeth, which means suffering, while he's bound.

Could you tell us what that phrase outside where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth means in a

Jewish context? No, I don't know what it means. I do not know what it means in a Jewish context. I'm sorry, because I was talking.

If that was what you asked, I'm saying I'm not aware of what that means in a Jewish context. Are you familiar with the context of Matthew chapter 22?

What is the Lord addressing there? Did you say who was he addressing? Who or what, either?

You mean who is he referring to? What is the description? What is Matthew 22 all about?

In other words, who were the heroes who were there at the time? Is that what you're asking? Well, maybe I'm not making myself clear.

No, I'm not sure. But I'm not sure who he was talking to at the time, if that's what you're asking.

Are you familiar with the fact that the vast majority of interpreters, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, believe that this discussion of the wedding feast is about Israel and about their rejection of God's calling?

Oh, okay. No, I am not familiar with that. I'm not familiar with that view. Would you say that all the

Protestant and Roman Catholic interpreters who have studied the backgrounds of wedding feasts and have studied the background of the phrase outside where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth, that they just all missed it and that you're the only one who's gotten it, since you did say this is the only way to explain the fact?

Not necessarily, and I'm glad you gave me a chance to qualify that. What I'm saying is that that clearly does talk about purgatory.

No two ways to deny it. Excuse me. No two ways about it. To deny that is to deny a fact. To say, however, that this has another level, another meaning, which can be complementary to or supplementary to, and as long as it's not contradictory to the purgatory meaning, is a perfectly allowable thing.

As we all know... Can you name anyone in the first... I'm sorry. Can you name anyone in the first thousand years of the Church who took the view that you did of it?

I don't know. You don't know of anyone? I don't know if they ever did. I have no knowledge of anyone doing so.

Okay. Hebrews 10, verses 1 -18 describes the old sacrifices being insufficient to cleanse the consciences of those for whom they are offered.

And contrast these sacrifices with the one finished, completed, and perfected sacrifice of Jesus Christ that is able, according to Hebrews 10 -10, to sanctify once for all those for whom it is made.

Can you comment on how it is that in Roman Catholicism the sacrifice of Christ does not, in fact, perfect or fully sanctify those for whom it is made, resulting in the necessity of the purgatory to finish a job in the light of Hebrews chapter 10, verse 10, and your own insistence that restitution and revenge are two separate things.

Okay, to try to make it brief, because I know I'm in cross -examination, what it comes down to is this. The sacrifice of our

Lord on the cross essentially brings about our salvation. Again, I'll try to make it as clear as possible.

He who enters purgatory has already achieved salvation. All of those references talk about salvation.

The death of our Lord on the cross brings about salvation. The guy in purgatory already has salvation.

He's already saved. However, he still has to do something to be proper to actually enter

Heaven, but he can no longer enter Hell. So therefore, when we're talking about salvation in a very real sense, the one thing you can't talk about is purgatory, because purgatory and salvation are completely separate things.

When you talk about salvation, you should talk about versus damnation, but there is no corresponding counterpoint for purgatory.

Mr. Lewis, could you comment on the term hilasterion? I'm not familiar with it.

Hilasterion is the Greek term that is used in the New Testament to discuss propitiation. Are you saying that you are making very confident assertions about the meaning of the term, but you've never studied it?

No, I'm not making any statement about the term, because I didn't study it, and all I'm saying is

I was ignorant of the term. Well, sir, since hilasterion includes both restitution and punishment, and since this is what

Christ made, and it results in His righteousness being imputed to the believer, wouldn't it behoove you to be able to deal with that term before you say that the only way it can be understood is the way you understand it?

If you're saying, and I think you are, that it might be useful for me to learn Greek to get a further insight on things, that might be possible.

But if you're asking me, and I'm not sure if this is what you're asking me, that I need to know the Greek in order to understand the principles involved, then

I reject that completely. Does that answer your question? This division you make of restitution and revenge, could you base that on the biblical text for me, in any passages specifically discussing the

Atonement of Christ? For example, Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, Romans chapters 3 through 5, etc.

Well, I mentioned the whole bunch, in which I essentially said that there are passages which specifically state, again,

I want to mention Acts 14, that we must suffer in order to reign with Christ.

We must undergo trials and sufferings in order to achieve salvation. Could you comment on whether those actually say, in order to, or whether they are prescriptive or descriptive on the basis of the text itself?

Yeah, what I'm saying is that that's the way they read, and that's exactly what

I'm saying. You mean that's the way they read to you in an English translation? Oh yeah, exactly. There are other ways to understand that.

No, again, to make it as clear as possible, when I read those passages, and I clearly admit

I read them in English, and I clearly admit that those are translations, yes, that's how they read. That it read, talked about something, this was in order, as a prerequisite, in order to take

Math 2, we have to take Math 1. In order to get to Heaven, we have to suffer first. You indicated in Colossians 124 that there's something lacking in the sufferings of Christ that has something to do with purgatory indulgences.

Have you ever done a study of the terms that Paul uses there, and somehow reconcile the fact that the words he uses there are never used of the

Atonement of Christ, and that they are only used of physical things that happen in one's life?

No, I have not done a study on that passage. I've taken it as it is. Have you ever read

Dr. Lightfoot's commentary on Colossians 124? Definitely not. That one

I can remember. I would remember that name. You said that being judged in the body equals being judged in the Church. Upon what basis do you make that assumption that body equals

Church in that context? Because the body is, excuse me, the body, as in this context, is the mystical body of Christ, which is the members of the

Catholic Church. What does the context indicate that is to be taken that way? Because St. Paul is writing to believers, and he has frequently used that term, that metaphor, as the body.

We are all members of one body, etc. He's used it very, very frequently. Has he ever used it as a physical body?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. Has he ever used it as a physical body? I'm sure... Of course, when he says he beat his own body, he meant in terms of physical mortification.

So it's possible that it means a physical body? Not in this case, no. Impossible. It's impossible? Absolutely. And what commentaries have you consulted on this?

I haven't any. It's impossible because you simply say so. No, it's not true because I say so.

I say so because it's true. Finally, Mr. Lewis, if I were to ask you a question where I gave you two possibilities, neither one of which...

Keep going. Does that indicate two minutes, sir? That's two minutes left. Thank you very much. If I were to ask you a question in which

I gave you only two possibilities and specifically excluded a third possibility, which was your own position, and then demanded that you take one of those two positions, am

I being fair or unfair? I would say if I understand you correctly, that in that case,

I think you would be unfair. That the person asking the question would be unfair? Well, I've got to be careful here.

I have a very specific meaning of the word fair. Logical, rational, abiding by any canon.

I've really got a problem here. Again, those words have very, very, very specific meanings to me.

I wouldn't see that as unfair. Fair means to me treating everybody the same way. So that means if someone else asked you that question, or just the umpire who calls all the balls low, strikes.

I'm really sorry about answering this. I'm not trying to avoid it. I'm trying to be very precise.

Mr. Lewis, would you think it would be very unfair for me to accuse you of a cowardice and ducking this question just because you want to clarify your term?

Oh, sure. It would be very wrong for you to do so. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. That's it,

Mr. Perler. Okay, thanks, Professor. Man, it's your turn for a ten -minute rebuttal. Okay. In essence, let me try to go by, if I may, the point that Mr.

White brought up. And let me point out that he started out by mentioning the

Council of Florence and the Council of Trent, and essentially all they really said is that purgatory is a Catholic dogma.

We all know that. Now, then he said several times something to the effect of, it's unbiblical, it's unscriptural, it's wrong.

There's a term in logic and it's called ipse dixit. It's a Latin term, and what it says, he himself says it, it's when a person says a statement and offers no position for it.

So, in other words, as Mr. White clearly admitted, that ipse dixit, the Bible does not comment on purgatory, it does not comment on indulgences, so therefore to call it unbiblical in the sense of anti -biblical, one would have to come up with a condemnation of it or some other evidence.

There has been no evidence. We can certainly find evidence in the Bible which condemns adultery, murder, blasphemy, idolatry, but since it is silent on purgatory and indulgences, then the only thing we have left is the arguments which can be presented.

And once again, Mr. White has fallen unfortunately into the trap that all Protestants fall into of presenting only opinion, and opinion presented as dogma must always be condemned because our

Lord condemns it. Now, two other points which I'd like to get to immediately. Number one, Mr.

White then presented two what are called straw men in logic. These are positions that you accuse the other party of having, which he really doesn't, and then you attack them.

The first was the concept of the unpardonable sin, and the second one was the, which I think was in Matthew chapter 2, although I don't recall exactly, and the other one was the 1

Corinthians chapter 3 verse. Now, he says that, in essence, these are arguments which are presented to justify the existence of purgatory by conventional

Catholic apologists. He may be correct. Perhaps conventional Catholic apologists do that, and he presented this as the conventional

Roman Catholic point of view. He may even be correct on that. I really don't know. But the point is that these are not official positions.

If they were, he would have quoted Council of Florence, Council of Trent, saying Matthew and 1

Corinthians hereby justify the position of purgatory and indulgences, as the

Council of Trent talks about other verses, particularly in the Gospel of St. John and the Gospel of St.

Matthew as justifying, as proving certain Catholic dogmas. So what we have is a rather subtle thing, where what he does is he brings up arguments, which he calls conventional, which he calls common, which he calls the routine, and then attacks them.

And that's a rather weak way to do things, because number one, what he's talking about is opinion versus opinion, and I don't care about that.

And number two, of course, I didn't use either of those verses as any kind of support for my purgatory situation.

And therefore, he is not offering, this is what Catholics officially say.

He's saying, this is what I hold certain Catholic apologists say, and they're wrong. Well, I agree, as I said before, and I'll say it again, other

Catholic apologists are wrong. Now, throughout the cross -examination, there was a rather interesting concept which kept coming up, which was an attack on my credentials, which you can attack easily, because number one,

I never admit what they are, except when on the cross -examination, and number two, I freely admit that I know very little

Greek, very little Aramaic, very little Hebrew, and that my facility in those languages never allows me to do any translating or study in those languages.

I freely admit that. But, let's see the alternative, which I believe, I'm just in saying, is the implication that Mr.

White is trying to argue, that if one studied seriously, deeply, under other men, if one learned these languages from other men, one could be led to God.

Well, the interesting point is that we've sort of reversed here. Mr. White is taking the Catholic position, and I'm, at least as it's parodied by the

Protestants, and I'm taking the Protestant position, even as they say it themselves, namely what?

Mr. White saying let me study what one white man says, what another white man says, what another dead white man says, what another dead white man says, who wrote another book, about another book, about another book, about another book, about a footnote, about a dictionary, who then used another reference and a gloss and a commentary.

The point is, those are all humans, and if I want to get to God, I go to God, I don't go to humans.

So what I'm doing is the classic Protestant approach. I'm letting the Spirit convict me, use me, function within me directly.

I make the claim, I don't back off of it. Once again, did I claim personal infallibility here? Of course

I did. Based on what? Based on the frequent promises of our Lord in the

Gospels that when you are called on to defend the faith, you will. And is he right that I didn't do much research for this?

He's right. I wrote up three pages about two or three hours ago so I could, I hope, present a coherent opening argument.

Beyond that, I didn't really do any research. Why? Because our Lord says don't prepare for what you're going to say.

Rely on me. So what I'm doing is taking the Bible seriously, and I'm offering it, my own self, as an example.

So what we have, and Mr. White has made it rather clear, the scholarly approach, where you study men who can make mistakes, studying other men who can make mistakes, studying other men who can make mistakes, other men who can make mistakes, versus a man who says he's relying on God directly.

And I state it again, I claim if you reject my views you go to hell.

He claims if you reject your view, his view, you don't go to hell. Well, if you take him seriously you have to dismiss him.

If you take me seriously you have to either reject me at all your heart and show me where I'm wrong, which so far no one's able to do, or you have to accept what

I say, because I'm speaking in a prophetic role. Now, what

I would like to point out several times is that I asked during the cross -examination questions which should have been answered yes or no, and did not get answers.

The reason is Mr. White is, in human terms, a rather intelligent fellow. He was able to see exactly where these questions were going, and understood that he would be admitting the necessity, the rightness, the logicalness, the theological justification of both purgatory and indulgences.

And I point out this, that my arguments are literally, in the true sense, irrefutable.

I point out that during the cross -examination the attacks were not made on my scriptural references. Instead they were simply ignored.

What I did in my cross -examination was attempt to attack the scriptural references, and of course it wouldn't answer the question.

What's the point here? The point is I could sustain, I could maintain,

I could support my positions. Mr. White could not. As I said before, one of the ways you'll be able to tell who wins,

I'll say it now if I didn't say it before, one of the ways you'll be able to tell who wins this debate is by following the scriptural command.

Let your yes be yes, your no be no, anything else is for Martin Luther. The point is, you must answer questions yes or no, you must answer them directly, questions are posed fairly, but people can think quicker than they can listen, and quicker than I can talk, and they can see exactly where they're going, so they become frightened, and instead of relying on God to bail them out as I do, they panic.

Let me go back to one key point in Mr. White's presentation, which dooms him, absolutely dooms him.

What we have is a God who chastises, punishes his sons, agreed.

And he does this to conform them with the image of Christ, agreed. But that's not necessary for salvation, according, that is the punishment and the chastisement and the suffering, according to Mr.

White. So what we have is a God who says, I like you just the way you are, you're absolutely perfect, don't worry about it,

I'm not going to look at any sins, but I'm going to beat the stuff out of you. Imagine if you were in a court, and the judge said you are acquitted of all charges, and as you're walking out, he then orders you to be flogged until you die.

This is exactly the God Mr. White has to posit, this is exactly the God Mr. White has to believe.

A God who punishes for no necessary, no just, no good reason. Now, in philosophical terms, the whole concept of suffering with a benevolent

God is a philosophical theological problem, and purgatory is the only answer, not the only answer to it, but it is one of the key answers to it.

We suffer because the sins require that we still do something.

And the suffering which occurs in purgatory, both to ourselves and to our relatives, is something that can be realized and lessened through love.

Love and suffering together are part of the message of the cross. And the point is that, number one, none of my arguments were refuted, number two, none of his arguments really held any force, strength, clarity, or conviction.

And number three, during the cross -examination, he evaded, dodged, refused.

That's an irrefutable rebuttal. Okay, thanks,

Vin. Professor White, it's your turn for your ten -minute rebuttal now. Thank you.

I hope the audience will recognize that Mr. Lewis uses the term irrefutable as basically anything he says.

And therefore, he does view his rebuttal as irrefutable. The problem is, of course, that a logical or rational person will recognize that his rebuttal is very refutable and, in fact, has very little in it.

He mentioned the Latin phrase ipso dixit, and it reminds me very much of exactly how

Mr. Lewis interprets the Bible, exactly how he defines theology. He tells us on the basis of his own authority, constantly, that the only way to understand this passage of Scripture, the only way that one can understand this, is the way that Mr.

Lewis says we should. When he's then asked if he has even bothered to find out if there is any other way. If he is inquired into the many available resources that would indicate that there are dozens of other ways to understand the very same things, he says, no, he has not.

And so we have to, I think, recognize that the person who is engaging in the ipso dixit all the time is

Mr. Lewis. Now, he then points out that I can't prove that purgatory and indulgence are anti -biblical because they don't use the term.

Well, as I point out, the Book of Mormon isn't found either, but I think Mr. Lewis would say the Book of Mormon is anti -biblical.

But these doctrines are anti -biblical because the doctrinal position upon which they are based is contrary to Scripture.

The doctrine of purgatory is contrary to the entire Bible's doctrine of atonement. Now, Mr.

Lewis doesn't know what the Bible's doctrine of atonement is. He has admitted he has never looked at hilasterion, propitiation.

He cannot examine these ideas. And so he has no way of saying otherwise. He has simply been deceived into thinking, deluded into thinking, that his particular perspective is the only one that there is.

And he doesn't know of any of the other perspectives. Yes, purgatory and indulgences are extremely anti -biblical, as I demonstrated, because they are based upon doctrines that are clearly contrary to what the

Scriptures themselves teach on every level. On the original language level, on the translation level, etc.,

etc. We also, I think, need to point out that Mr. Lewis did present to us a number of Bible verses.

Unfortunately, they were all acontextual Bible verses. He wouldn't know that because he doesn't examine the context to find out.

I would simply invite the audience to look at the context of what's being discussed. Go get Roman Catholic commentaries.

Go get the Jerome Bible commentary if you want, and you will discover that Roman Catholic theologians and Roman Catholic scholars recognize that these passages are not referring to the things that Mr.

Lewis would like us to believe. And, in fact, he then took me to task for dealing with the two passages that Roman Catholicism does try to use,

Matthew 12 and 1 Corinthians 3. He said he didn't even know if apologists in Roman Catholicism uses those.

I would simply refer anyone to the brand -new Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1031, footnotes 605 and 606, where, discussing

Purgatory, both passages are the two biblical passages that are cited by this most authoritative and modern exposition of Roman Catholic theology.

Hopefully, that will help Mr. Lewis out as well. Now, Mr. Lewis, during the alleged cross -examination period, demonstrated yet once again how he does debates.

Mr. Lewis cannot debate on a scholarly level. He has violated every single scholarly canon of debate that can possibly be violated.

Instead, as we saw in the one question where we basically ran into an impasse and Mr. Lewis began yelling a great deal, he presents an illogical dichotomy and insists upon a yes -or -no question and a yes -or -no answer based upon an illogical dichotomy.

He said either the chastening, and notice he keeps changing the word chastening to punishment, the chastening of Hebrews chapter 12 is either for salvation, that's fair for salvation, or it is meaningless.

Now that we're not yelling at one another and now that people can think about it, all rational people recognize the fact that there are other possibilities, that it is not an either -or situation, that there is a third possibility, which

I enunciated a number of times, which Mr. Lewis ignored, but then on the basis of ignoring my answer, accused me of dishonesty and cowardice and various and sundry other things.

I am certain that the audience can very easily tell that this is what is known as a cheap debating trick.

Then he asked, can truth be wrong? And Mr. Parlier even said, that can be answered yes or no, well let me point something out.

Roman Catholic apologists are right, they speak the truth when they say there is only one

God. There is an element of Roman Catholicism as a religious system that is true when it says there is only one

God. The system as a whole contains false elements. Mr. Lewis' epistemology fails to take into consideration the fact that you can be right about A, but wrong about B.

And this is something I've heard in a lot of his tapes, listen to him closely, you'll discover it yourself, that Mr.

Lewis believes that if you're wrong about B, then you're wrong about everything else too. You are, as a total equation, wrong, and there is a certain logical level where if you have one element of a set that is wrong, then the whole set is wrong.

That's true at that level. But it does not mean that the individual truth statements of A, B, C, or D are themselves wrong.

And so when someone asks, can truth be wrong, an individual truth statement cannot be wrong, obviously not.

But you can have individual elements of, for example, Roman Catholicism, that are true.

Saying that divorce is wrong, saying that immorality is wrong, saying that abortion is wrong, are all true things.

It does not, however, make the Eucharist the representation of the sacrifice of Christ as a perpetuatory sacrifice.

That, I think anyone can see, on a logical level, is the case. However, I have endured being yelled at by a man who has not even taken the time to learn the first things about these issues, simply because he can't see that that's the case.

And I think that's a shame, and I apologize to the audience for the wasting of their time with that type of behavior.

Then Mr. Lewis equivocates in his final statement there just a moment ago, when he tries to change the entire issue at hand, and says that I am suggesting that we go through men to get to God.

No. What I said is, if you're going to go into a public arena and make statements like the only way to understand this passage is such -and -such,

I think you owe everybody else the debt to at least know what in the world you're talking about. I think you owe everyone else the debt of doing your homework.

I think you owe everyone a simple debt of knowing what the backgrounds, the passages are, knowing something about what you're talking about.

Otherwise, you are simply wasting everyone's time. You are simply making yourself something you are not.

That is why Roman Catholics and Protestants have seminaries. That's why they have schools, and that's why they encourage you to learn from other people, because you might discover that your own particular perspective doesn't have any basis in the text at all.

You see, I'm not saying you go through other people to come to God. I'm not positing the saints and all the rest of the stuff.

What I'm saying is, as the Scriptures say, as Paul said to Timothy, be zealous to present yourself to God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed.

Do your homework. Be a sharp instrument in the hand of God. Equivocate between doing your homework and knowing what you're talking about with coming to God.

I never talked about coming to God to other people. I did say that if you're going to stand up and say that this passage of Scripture means this, that he's going to tell us about Matthew again and the wedding feast, then

I think it must be understood what the wedding feasts were about, what the context was, and what wedding garments were.

Mr. Lewis doesn't know! So how can in the world can he stand in front of an audience or sit in front of this radio audience and say, the only way to understand this is this way.

That isn't the only way, and in fact, most Roman Catholic scholars don't even see it that way. There's a reason.

Why? Because they've done their homework and they know what they're talking about. Mr. Lewis does not. That is what

I was talking about when I brought those things up. But in conclusion, in regards to rebuttal,

I simply point out to everyone that in reality, in the first few moments this debate was decided when

Mr. Lewis presented his position. He said one must differentiate between restitution and revenge.

Well, in his system, yes, you must. But his system isn't biblical. His system isn't from God.

His system is like all the rest of the world's religions, which likewise make that differentiation. The wonderful truth of Christianity that is so plainly taught in Scripture is that Jesus Christ not only bore our sins, he bore our punishments.

That's what the terms mean, and Mr. Lewis cannot even open his mouth to say otherwise because he doesn't know and he's admitted it.

He cannot even begin to address that issue. The terms mean that. And not only has he borne our sins and borne all of our punishments so as to reconcile us to God, and that's reconciliation, but on the positive side, we possess the very righteousness of Christ.

That's why the Protestant position, the biblical position, must stand up and deny in the strongest terms the idea that when

I stand before God someday, I will stand there having undergone satispatio, the suffering of atonement and purgatory, and I will have used indulgences so that part of the merit by which

I stand before God is the mixed merit of Christ, Mary, and the saints. Anyone who believes the