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 heights 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.

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, quote,.

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 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.

His 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 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, Quote,.

Consequently, we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human

creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff, end quote.

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 him 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 allegiances.

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

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

prerogatives.

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 apologists 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 by Roman apologists, such as Matthew 16 and John 21, must

beyond a shadow of a doubt, plainly and clearly and unequivocally establish patron 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, 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.".

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 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 16, verses 18 -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.

Quote,.

There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all the parts of the New Testament were originally written.

End quote.

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, quote,.

Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

End quote.

The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are a 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 Petra, and the third person demonstrative pronoun before Petra,

the confession of faith upon which the church is built.

This statement is followed by the promise, too, 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 loosened in heaven.

I emphasize 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 loosening.

If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other apostles, as they're 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 century 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. Kelly notes with reference to Anacletus, an early entry in the list of the bishops of Rome, quote, his actual

functions and responsibilities can only be surmised for the monarchial or one -man episcopate had not

yet emerged in Rome, end quote.

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 bishops, 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 the 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 Decimant 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, Natsianzus, 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.

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.

I would simply like to make, as a formal statement, that my first position, my first task, is to

set forth my arguments and not to refute the claims made by my opponent.

I will do that in refutation and cross -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 Dogwood's 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

and interchangeably, 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 Lourdes, the liquefaction of the blood of Saint 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 of Fatima.

Therefore, we have a clear, absolute, complete, dogmatic,

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 Saint Peter.

Truly, it was also given to the apostles later.

Absolutely.

But it was given to Saint Peter individually.

Now, one can say in no way separate from the other apostles, but it was promised to Saint Peter individually, and therefore

it was given because the Lord always keeps His promises.

If one understands Catholic positions, always be in union

with the bishops when they pronounce unanimously.

Always in union.

Always agreed.

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, that the father and mother agree on discipline.

And 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 first pope, Saint 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.

It occurs in Matthew 17.

In this case, Saint Peter is asked about whether our Lord pays temple tax, and Saint Peter answers

yes.

Then our Lord, in a sense, gently rebukes him, pointing out that, quote, it's 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 loosen, 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.

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 good will 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 in 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 the 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 I've used two simple examples, Mother Teresa of Calcutta and St. Francis of Assisi.

Both of these, absolute poverty.

Of course, millions of other Catholics have also.

Now, if that is a characteristic of the... 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 St. 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 him, 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.

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, 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.

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, that although 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.

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 write 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 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 the

Islamic people, establishing the priority of the Quran 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 have to 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've 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 with that strength in 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 10.

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 that papal infallibility functions separately from the will of the person.

Is that correct?

Yeah, I said it can't 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 chapter 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.

Parentheses, thus he declared all foods clean, and parentheses close.

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 6 chapters of

John, but that actual transubstantiation miracle did not take place until Holy Thursday.

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.

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.

Do you claim any particular divine inspiration in understanding this?

Sure.

You do?

Absolutely.

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.

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.

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, 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?

It 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 to what point?

Until the point that the Council of Corinth was 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.

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've known 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, uh, Anglican

monastery?

Uh, no.

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, and 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.

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 talk 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 Madrid, Scott Hahn, Robert St. Genes, Jerry Matitick,

or other Roman Catholic apologists?

Uh, 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.

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.

If I understood correctly, and I'll try to go in sequential order here, one of the things you said was something, it was sort

of a 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?

Uh, 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.

Why?

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, because something's in the Bible only once makes it absolutely,

infallibly, dogmatically true, correct?

So therefore, if it's repeated 15 times or found only once, it's absolutely true.

However, that's 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.

Uh, 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?

And had just as good an eyesight and his arm was just as strong as his?

No, he didn't say that.

No, but he says 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.

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.

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, 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, I mean, 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.

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.

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.

Okay, apostles?

There were not apostles in every single church, no.

Was not each one of those churches founded by an apostle?

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 did say at one point, 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, 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?

No, my argument is that I'm looking for any positive evidence of superiority in his position.

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?

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, 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?

No, sir, we're talking about...

Yeah, my opinion, based upon the translation of the original languages and the study of the Torah, yes.

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 did not logically follow you, you just gave it that.

No, I didn't say it was logically followed, I asked the question.

All right, 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 opinion, yes.

And that's what you were offering, they weren't impersonal opinions, were they?

They are, I see 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...

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.

Is there?

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 requests...

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 St. 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, St. Ignatius of Antioch did not mention any bishop of Rome when he wrote his letters to people in Rome.

That's true.

Okay.

Could it...

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.

Second, 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.

Right.

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...

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...

You must let me finish the 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 facts.

Very good.

Thank you for not answering the question, Mr. White.

Hey, I'd avoid it, too, if I were caught into a trap.

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 specific...

I was talking about their interpretation of...

No, no, no, sir.

The specific context of Matthew chapter 16 and the interpretation of Matthew chapter 16 was about... yes.

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

correct?

That's correct.

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 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 regard 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 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 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'd 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 can prove that people believed what you believed does not change the truth on

anything, does it?

Although in that view, on the issue of the papacy, it does, yes.

On the issue of the papacy, it does, yes.

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

that this has been the ancient and cause of the

Universal Church.

Right.

But the Universal Church is those people who believe correctly.

I'm asking you a question.

Do you agree with that?

No.

So the Universal Church is that group of people who believe wrongly?

Not as Vatican I would say.

Mr. White, I'm asking you.

I'm not asking you to quote Vatican I.

Mr. White, Mr. White, I have to accuse you of evasion.

Let's go a little further.

I'm going to take the time because this guy has been dodging it enough times.

When Saint 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.

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 word photograph, so 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 in 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,

simply assumed what he has yet to prove.

The primary overriding assumption in every argument and every discussion of Scripture and 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.

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

relevant to Cyprian, at the very time when Stephen's

life and 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...

Mr. Lewis has provided us with almost no meaningful rebuttals that I

presented.

All he's been able to come up with is, well, maybe Cyprian was infallible.

Infallible, 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.

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, and 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.

So, 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 were 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 penance of certain councils which otherwise

penance of the councils are accepted, but those councils 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 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 a 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 the immunity 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 inclinations.

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 for this.

Let's assume he's correct.

Let's assume he's actually tried to find historical records.

Let's assume there's no record among the early church fathers, as Mr. White describes.

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, by 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,

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, 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, evaded 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.

He 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 councils.

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 Calpheon, 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's 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, is 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 opponent.

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.

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.

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 a 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.

This 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.

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 end, this goal.

The issue of indulgences is related.

Exactly as the sentencing of different people to different punishments for exactly

the same crime, a curse 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 his 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.

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 life, 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.

It appears in the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 18, verses 21 -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 -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 and imprisonment.

It cannot 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 as 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, where there will 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 must 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 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 4 to 6.

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've behaved.

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 to 31, which

is the Dives and Lazarus story, which shows that the rich man, who we 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 rather a cute 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 law right reason argument.

What I am saying is, what men universally accept as fair, just, proper, etc.,

is in accord with the rule of God because we are created in the image of likeness of God, and though we have a fallen 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's 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.

That 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 are 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 fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these

are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments, and so they may be released from punishments 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 Rome's 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 conscious 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, end quote.

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.

The Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians chapter 3, quote, According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a

wise master builder, I laid a foundation and another is building on it.

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

Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident, for

the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.

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

The Roman Catholic view sees in these words the reference to purgatory.

The concepts of judgment, loss, and reward are felt to support the concept of 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 the 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 to 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, loss, 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 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 is about reward.

Therefore this passage has nothing to do with purgatory or of 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 of 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 of sin by suffering, etc.,

stands firmly against the gospel of grace taught in Christ.

Paul taught, for example, in Romans 5

8 -11, 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 the 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, saints, or 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 taught elsewhere concerning Christ that it was He whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in

His blood through faith Romans 3 -25.

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 sins.

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 2 -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 indulgence as 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 In Bel Gentiarum 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.

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 have to be made so.

God gives guidance to those of his people who seek his face and seek his glory, but that does not mean that they cease being sinners.

But 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 on 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 background, 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 it depends 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 study 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 thin -list so that his perception of the teachings of Rome is 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 of 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 in 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