"Our ambition...is to be pleasing to Him" (2 Cor. 5:9)
Office Hours (MT)
Dr. James White, Director
Richard Pierce, President
Sean Hahn, Vice President
Monday - Friday
10:00AM - 5:00PM
(602) 973-4602

 

 

An In Channel Debate on Purgatory
 

 

James White vs. Various RC Participants
 

On Thursday evening, January 3, 2002, James White was to engage in an in-channel debate with a Roman Catholic from Australia who went by the nick of "velleity."  Velleity had challenged James in the chat channel on December 30th.  Here is the log of the challenge:

[19:00] <velleity> het NA27 how about you an me have a debate sometime in the future under strict rules?

[19:00] <NA27away> Sure, vell: Resolved: Not A Single Person at the Council of Nicea Believed as Dogma All Things Rome Demands Faith in Today.  :-)

[19:01] <velleity> when would you like to argue this?

[19:01] <velleity> set a date

[19:01] <NA27away> Well, I head to Long Island January 17th, to it would be best before then....maybe a Thursday evening?

[19:02] <velleity> unless you lookingh for an extemporaneous debate?

[19:03] <velleity> just you and me..no intepolations from the spectators

[19:03] <NA27away> Fine with me.

[19:03] <NA27away> This coming Thursday, then?

[19:03] <velleity> time?

[19:04] <velleity> when you lose..you have to pay a penalty....

[19:04] <NA27away> lol

[19:04] <NA27away> I don't intend to, vell.

[19:04] <velleity> king charles the 1st never intended to lose his head either

[19:05] <NA27away> And who will "judge" the debate?

[19:07] <velleity> don't you have those protocols set up??

[19:07] <NA27away> For discussions in a chat channel?  Uh, no.  :-)

[19:07] <velleity> or do you just declare yourself the winner always??

[19:07] <NA27away> < sigh >

[19:09] <NA27away> Are you interested in discussing that topic this coming Thursday evening or not?

[19:10] <velleity> the topic is rhetorical

[19:10] <velleity> you had better qualify it I think

[19:11] <NA27away> Seems straightforward enough, but if you don't like that one, suggest another.

[19:13] <velleity> how about we reword the topic?

[19:14] * NA27away has no problem with debating any of the Marian dogmas, too. :-)

[19:14] <NA27away> Or purgatory.

[19:14] <NA27away> The Papacy.

[19:14] <NA27away> Justification.

[19:14] <NA27away> Election

[19:14] <NA27away> :_)

[19:15] * velleity chooses purgatory

[19:15] <NA27away> lol

[19:15] <NA27away> Bad move.  But anyway....what was your suggestion for rewording the other, anyway?

[19:15] <velleity> never mind..purgatory it is

[19:16] * velleity snickers (this will be a push over)

[19:16] <NA27away> That's what Fr. Peter Stravinskas thought.  :-)

[19:16] <velleity> I may even remain conscious for the greater part of the debate

[19:17] <NA27away> Your arrogance does not put you in good stead, I assure you.

[19:17] <velleity> nor does your hubris NA27

[19:17] <NA27away> I defeated Stravinskas in May of 2001 on the subject.  To my knowledge, you have never engaged the topic in a meaningful manner.  At least I know what Rome teaches on the subject. 

[19:18] <velleity> well your knowledge is about to be expaned...

[19:18] <NA27away> I have a history to point to.  I don't believe you do.  Hence, to proclaim yourself victor before the debate has begun is foolishness.  Be that as it may, when shall we begin?

[19:18] <NA27away> That would be "expanded."

[19:19] <velleity> just a word of advice though if I may..try not to let your limbic systems take over your proprioceptions..it is not helpful in debates

[19:19] <NA27away> lol

[19:19] <NA27away> What time do you wish to begin?

[19:19] <velleity> your call

[19:20] <NA27away> What time zone are you in?

[19:21] <velleity> nope I wish to totally vanquish him..not just slaughter him :)

[19:21] <NA27away> Suggest a format.  Be glad to work it out.  What time zone do you live in?

[19:22] <velleity> I'm in Sydney Australia

[19:23] <velleity> abut we can set the rules now ok?

[19:23] <NA27away> Gracious.  Well, we can begin anywhere from 6-7:30PM MST as far as I'm concerned.

[19:24] <velleity> or you want only your rules?

[19:24] <NA27away> How about fifteen minutes to present an opening position....you can use prepared statements, but you can't flood (i.e., you need to use a delay in posting).  I would suggest a 4000ms delay so that people can keep up with the scrolling text.

[19:25] <NA27away> Then ten minutes to rebut, no scrolled text.

[19:25] <velleity> done

[19:25] <NA27away> Then fifteen minutes each for cross examination.  No grand standing.

[19:26] <NA27away> Then five minute closing statements, no scrolled text.

[19:26] <NA27away> Then open it to the room for discussion. 

[19:26] <NA27away> Both participants can post unedited versions on their respective websites.

[19:26] * NA27away hopes everyone is logging this. :-)

[19:26] <velleity> define cross examination..I suggest we alternate...viz...proposition /response etc

[19:27] <NA27away> Cross-examination in a debate involves one side asking questions of the other; questions only, no rebuttal or comment, just questions.

[19:27] <NA27away> Right, we will moderate the channel so that it will be just you and me.

[19:27] <velleity> like being tired to a tree..shooting fish in a barrell :)

[19:27] <NA27away> That would be "tied."

[19:28] <velleity> no tired in your case

[19:28] <NA27away> One thing is for certain: you are not my equal in spelling or typing.  :-)

[19:28] <NA27away> OK, so, when do we begin Thursday evening, sir?

[19:28] <NA27away> I assume it is sir?

[19:28] <velleity> or modesty

[19:28] <velleity> set the time

[19:29] <NA27away> OK, as 6:30PM would be 8:30PM EST, and a number of our regulars are in the EST, that would be good.

[19:29] <NA27away> It is currently 7:28PM MST, in case you wish to know.

[19:29] <velleity> 8.30pm est it is

[19:29] <NA27away> Excellent.  See you then.

[19:29] <velleity> can hardly wait :)

[19:30] <velleity> hardly a challenge

[19:31] * NA27away shakes his head and chuckles.

[19:31] <velleity> if it was a tennis match I'd remove the strings from my racket to make it fair

Well, when 6:30PM Thursday came, there was no sign of velleity.  To the date of the posting of this article, I have heard nothing from this challenger.  However, we had more than fifty people in channel, all looking for a debate on purgatory.  A Roman Catholic using the nick Christian said he would take up the challenge, if velleity did not show.  With that background, we present the "debate that almost was," hoping that it will still be useful to those who take the time to read through it.

[18:42] <NA27> Greetings! Thank you for being here in #prosapologian this evening.
[18:42] <NA27> This is truly a momentous topic, as it demonstrates with clarity the vast differences
[18:42] <NA27> between the God-centered gospel of Scripture and the man-centered
[18:42] <NA27> sacramentalism of the Roman system.
[18:43] <NA27> Very few know the history of the development over time of this doctrine of purgatory.
[18:43] <NA27> Let's review, then look at the scant number of Biblical passages Rome has cited in
[18:43] <NA27> defense of this doctrine, and close by noting the vast number of Biblical passages
[18:43] <NA27> that teach contrary to the fundamental elements of the Roman Catholic doctrine of
[18:43] <NA27> purgatory, most specifically, the teaching of Holy Scripture that Christ's death is
[18:43] <NA27> complete, perfect, finished, and fully propitiatory.
[18:43] <NA27> The sole Jewish source cited, even by the 1994 Catholic Catechism, is 2
[18:43] <NA27> Maccabees 12:39-45, wherein we read of a group of Jewish fighters, all of whom
[18:43] <NA27> were idolaters. They carried pagan idols under their clothing, and God struck them
[18:43] <NA27> down as punishment. This uninspired book, rejected as canonical by such notable
[18:43] <NA27> early Fathers as Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and Jerome, as
[18:43] <NA27> well as Pope Gregory the Great and at least fifty other major ecclesiastical writers
[18:43] <NA27> up to the time of the Reformation, including Cardinal Cajetan, the prelate who
[18:43] <NA27> interviewed Luther, says that the Jewish leader offered prayers and sacrifices for
[18:43] <NA27> these dead soldiers. It seems that any connection at all with the dead is sufficient at
[18:43] <NA27> this point, for obviously, since idolatry is a mortal sin, and would not send one to
[18:43] <NA27> purgatory, but to hell itself, this passage is hardly supportive of the doctrine we
[18:43] <NA27> examine tonight. At the very best it would have to be said that the passage
[18:44] <NA27> indicates an error in thinking on the part of the Jews, but given its highly unusual
[18:44] <NA27> nature, and the fact that no canonical Scripture supports it, its very use begins to
[18:44] <NA27> illustrate for us the highly questionable nature of purgatory as a dogma of Christian
[18:44] <NA27> faith.
[18:44] <NA27> When we come to the earliest centuries of the Christian church, we find no doctrine
[18:44] <NA27> of purgatory. What we do find fairly early on are prayers for the dead, often cited as
[18:44] <NA27> evidence of at least an implicit concept of purgatory. Yet, as historians such as Le
[18:44] <NA27> Goff point out, these primitive prayers are actually contradictory to the modern
[18:44] <NA27> concept of purgatory. They pray for their loved ones that they might have
[18:44] <NA27> refrigerium, refreshment, and yet this is couched in terms of the pleasures of
[18:44] <NA27> paradise, a state defined as "peace and light." Mohrmann comments that
[18:44] <NA27> refrigerium referred to "heavenly happiness," and that, "Among later Christian writers
[18:44] <NA27> refrigerium is used in a general way to denote the joys of the world beyond the
[18:44] <NA27> grave, promised by God to the elect." Neale, upon collating and studying ancient
[18:44] <NA27> liturgical sources, concluded, "(1) that prayers for the dead...have been from the
[18:44] <NA27> beginning the practice of the Universal Church. (2) And this without any idea of a
[18:44] <NA27> purgatory of pain, or of any state from which the departed soul has to be delivered
[18:44] <NA27> as from one of misery." The ease with which modern apologists for Roman
[18:44] <NA27> Catholicism point to these prayers without taking serious note of their character, and
[18:45] <NA27> the lack of a meaningful context by which to make them truly supportive of their
[18:45] <NA27> case, should give us reason to examine their claims more carefully. Indeed,
[18:45] <NA27> Tertullian, upon making reference to making oblations on the anniversary of
[18:45] <NA27> someone's death frankly admitted, "If you look in Scripture for a formal law
[18:45] <NA27> governing these and similar practices, you will find none. It is tradition that justifies
[18:45] <NA27> them, custom that confirms them, and faith that observes them." (De corona militis
[18:45] <NA27> 3.2-3). What a strange, strange statement if, in fact, the passages Roman Catholic
[18:45] <NA27> apologists cite are, in fact relevant. Evidently, Tertullian recognized that this was
[18:45] <NA27> merely a practice, not a doctrine, let alone a dogma. How time transformed this
[18:45] <NA27> simple practice into something wholly different!
[18:45] <NA27> The chief architects of the earliest concepts that lead to purgatory only decrease our
[18:45] <NA27> confidence in the doctrine. In the East we have Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
[18:45] <NA27> Both wrote extensively, and much of what they said would not be believed by almost
[18:45] <NA27> anyone here this evening, Catholic or Protestant. Both engaged in allegorical
[18:45] <NA27> interpretation that was devoid of meaningful exegetical content, and while Origen did
[18:45] <NA27> know both Greek and Hebrew, his view of Scripture as having all sorts of levels of
[18:45] <NA27> meaning led him to ignore the literal, historical-grammatical meaning and focus
[18:45] <NA27> upon an allegedly higher, "spiritual" meaning. Both likewise were influenced more
[18:45] <NA27> by Plato than by Paul, leading to a strange, and in fact unorthodox, theology. Both
[18:46] <NA27> men were led into wild speculations, especially in regard to the idea of a corrective,
[18:46] <NA27> punitive, cleansing of the soul. This idea came primarily from Greek philosophy and
[18:46] <NA27> dualism, surely not from Scripture.
[18:46] <NA27> At the same time non-canonical, gnostic-influenced works, such as the Apocalypse
[18:46] <NA27> of Peter or Paul, likewise presented a concept of the afterlife derived not from the
[18:46] <NA27> Bible but from Greek philosophy. These works, despite their non-canonical status,
[18:46] <NA27> deeply influenced the rise of purgatorial thinking in the middle ages.
[18:46] <NA27> In the West we find Augustine strangely giving credence to a concept of purgation
[18:46] <NA27> as well, though, as he likewise believed in predestination and election, and the idea
[18:46] <NA27> that saving faith is a gift of God, he melded these concepts into a strangely
[18:46] <NA27> inconsistent whole that led him to believe that such sufferings would only avail for
[18:46] <NA27> the elect and none others. He was influenced in his thinking by his mother's dying
[18:46] <NA27> request to be remembered in his prayers.
[18:46] <NA27> But most importantly we find, a full half millennia after the founding of the Church,
[18:46] <NA27> Gregory, bishop of Rome, known as Pope Gregory the Great today. This man's
[18:46] <NA27> theology was a mess: he was at best a semi-Pelagian who gave tremendous weight
[18:46] <NA27> to the idea of merit and works; he did not believe man was dead in sin, but only
[18:47] <NA27> wounded or sick; he was ignorant of both Greek and Hebrew and knew absolutely
[18:47] <NA27> nothing of biblical backgrounds as well. He would not have made it out of any
[18:47] <NA27> decent undergraduate Bible program today. Yet, he wrote extensively, putting his
[18:47] <NA27> manifest ignorance on paper. One of his works, completed after he became Pope,
[18:47] <NA27> was a work on Job, filled with the most inane and silly allegorical interpretation.
[18:47] <NA27> Schaff gives us an illustration of Gregory's thinking in this work:
[18:47] <NA27> The names of persons and things, the numbers, and even the syllables [of the book
[18:47] <NA27> of Job], are filled with mystic meaning. Job represents Christ; his wife the carnal
[18:47] <NA27> nature; his seven sons (seven being the number of perfection) represent the
[18:47] <NA27> apostles, and hence the clergy; his three daughters the three classes of the faithful
[18:47] <NA27> laity who are to worship the Trinity; his friends the heretics; the seven thousand
[18:47] <NA27> sheep the perfect Christians; the three thousand camels the heathen and
[18:47] <NA27> Samaritans; the five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred she-asses again the
[18:47] <NA27> heathen.
[18:47] <NA27> Ironically, this same work contains Gregory's rejection of Maccabees as a canonical
[18:47] <NA27> work. But it was another work of Gregory, the Dialogues, that is of importance to us
[18:47] <NA27> tonight. These dialogues between Gregory and the Roman archdeacon Peter
[18:47] <NA27> abound, as Schaff says, "in incredible marvels and visions of the state of departed
[18:48] <NA27> souls." Gregory admits that he is transmitting hearsay only and did not, himself, see
[18:48] <NA27> any of these alleged visions. This is the work, however, that becomes foundational
[18:48] <NA27> to the development in the middle ages of the doctrine that became dogma at the
[18:48] <NA27> Council of Florence yet 900 years in the future.
[18:48] <NA27> And so we have the beginnings of what would, eventually, become the modern
[18:48] <NA27> dogma of purgatory: scattered references from Origen the allegorist who believed
[18:48] <NA27> even Satan himself would be saved and who likewise believed in the pre-existence
[18:48] <NA27> of souls; Tertullian who became a Montanist; Augustine who was deeply influenced
[18:48] <NA27> by his mother's request and whose exegesis of Matthew 12 ignored the simple
[18:48] <NA27> parallel passage in Mark 3 that, as we shall see, renders Matthew 12 irrelevant to its
[18:48] <NA27> use by Rome today, and most importantly Gregory, who could not even read the
[18:48] <NA27> original languages, offered allegorical interpretation in the place of true exegesis,
[18:48] <NA27> and who passed on hearsay stories about visions of the afterlife that became central
[18:48] <NA27> to the development of the concept of purgatory during the Middle Ages. Indeed, did
[18:48] <NA27> not Peter warn us about what happens when untaught and unstable persons distort
[18:48] <NA27> the Scriptures?
[18:48] <NA27> Time precludes delving much into the development of the actual dogma of
[18:48] <NA27> purgatory, primarily in the 12th century, and its elevation to the status of dogma by
[18:49] <NA27> the Council of Florence in the 15th century, a council history shows to have been
[18:49] <NA27> political in nature, one that could hardly be said to have seriously considered
[18:49] <NA27> anything of an exegetical or biblical nature. Indeed, Florence spent more time
[18:49] <NA27> worrying about where to put the chairs for the seating of the Greek delegates than it
[18:49] <NA27> did on the study of the Bible. Yet, the modern Catholic church views Florence as
[18:49] <NA27> the 17th ecumenical council, and the modern catechism relies upon Florence and
[18:49] <NA27> Trent to define purgatory in section 1031.
[18:49] <NA27> I don't know about you, but such a history does not recommend it to my thinking as
[18:49] <NA27> something worthy of my faith and assent. I cannot help but think of the words of
[18:49] <NA27> Scripture, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not in accordance to this
[18:49] <NA27> word, there is no light in them." And so we now turn to the few passages that have
[18:49] <NA27> been pressed into service by Rome to substantiate the dogma that is purgatory.
[18:49] <NA27> We have already addressed 2 Maccabees 12 in our previous comments. That
[18:49] <NA27> leaves, primarily, Matthew 12:31-32 and 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Let's begin with
[18:49] <NA27> Matthew 12...
[18:49] <NA27> (Matthew 12:31-32) "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be
[18:49] <NA27> forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. [32]
[18:50] <NA27> "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but
[18:50] <NA27> whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age
[18:50] <NA27> or in the age to come.
[18:50] <NA27> The context, of course, is that of the unforgivable sin, not purgatory. Roman
[18:50] <NA27> Catholics seem to believe the final phrase, "either in this age, or in the age to come,"
[18:50] <NA27> while not specifically mentioning purgatory, at least opens up the concept of
[18:50] <NA27> forgiveness of sins after death, "in the age to come." But what is missed by Roman
[18:50] <NA27> Catholics at this point is the fact that what Jesus means by this important phrase is
[18:50] <NA27> clearly explained by reference to the parallel passage in one of the other synoptic
[18:50] <NA27> gospels, that being Mark. Note how he records the same discussion:
[18:50] <NA27> (Mark 3:28-29) "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and
[18:50] <NA27> whatever blasphemies they utter; [29] but whoever blasphemes against the Holy
[18:50] <NA27> Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--
[18:50] <NA27> Jesus is not, then, referring to the possibility of cleansing in the future, but is instead
[18:50] <NA27> speaking of an "eternal sin," one that has no forgiveness whatsoever. If the Roman
[18:50] <NA27> interpretation of Matthew 12 is valid, *then Mark's rendition is not.* Obviously, this
[18:50] <NA27> cannot be, hence, it is the Roman interpretation that must be rejected. And so we
[18:51] <NA27> turn to the key passage:
[18:51] <NA27> (1 Corinthians 3:8-15) Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each
[18:51] <NA27> will receive his own reward according to his own labor. [9] For we are God's fellow
[18:51] <NA27> workers; you are God's field, God's building. [10] According to the grace of God
[18:51] <NA27> which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is
[18:51] <NA27> building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. [11] For no man
[18:51] <NA27> can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12]
[18:51] <NA27> Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood,
[18:51] <NA27> hay, straw, [13] each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it
[18:51] <NA27> because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each
[18:51] <NA27> man's work. [14] If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive
[18:51] <NA27> a reward. [15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself
[18:51] <NA27> will be saved, yet so as through fire.
[18:51] <NA27> Time is short, and I'm sure we will spend a good deal of time looking closely at this
[18:51] <NA27> passage during the rest of the debate, but allow me to make a few basic points.
[18:51] <NA27> Verse 8 provides the first reference to "reward," and it is clearly in the context of the
[18:51] <NA27> Christian leaders who labor in the work of ministry. It will be significant to note that
[18:51] <NA27> the phrase "receive a reward" in verse 8 is identical in terminology to the same
[18:52] <NA27> phrase in verse 14. Since in this context we know that the planting and watering
[18:52] <NA27> mentioned goes back to Paul and Apollos, the topic remains consistent throughout
[18:52] <NA27> this passage. Paul then speaks of himself and Apollos as "God's fellow workers,"
[18:52] <NA27> and they labor in this high calling in God's field. He uses two terms, field and
[18:52] <NA27> building, but picks up only on the second, "God's building." A fellow worker of God
[18:52] <NA27> works in building God's building, and that building is the church.
[18:52] <NA27> This then brings us to the main passage. Verses 10-15 give us an illustration
[18:52] <NA27> of how weighty it is to minister in the church, and how God will someday manifest
[18:52] <NA27> the motivations of the hearts of all those who have engaged in that work. Then in
[18:52] <NA27> verses 16-17 Paul adds a further warning, speaking of God's certain judgment upon
[18:52] <NA27> those who do not build, but instead tear down, or destroy. There is an obvious
[18:52] <NA27> movement between 10-15 and 16-17, for in 10-15 the metaphor remains the
[18:52] <NA27> construction of a building upon a foundation; in 16-17 this switches to the metaphor
[18:52] <NA27> of the temple of God, already constructed. Further, in 10-15 the "certain ones" are
[18:52] <NA27> those who are indeed building upon the foundation, even if they have less than
[18:52] <NA27> perfect motivations or understanding; the certain one in verses 16-17 is not building
[18:52] <NA27> anything at all, but is instead tearing down and ruining what has already been built.
[18:52] <NA27> This distinction is important as well, as we shall see.
[18:52] <NA27> Two classes of people are seen in the text: those who have built upon the
[18:52] <NA27> foundation with gold, silver, and precious stones, and those who have used inferior
[18:53] <NA27> things, wood, hay, and stubble. The first class of things is precious and withstands
[18:53] <NA27> fire; the second class are combustible and are not valuable. Obviously, the terms
[18:53] <NA27> are figurative: Paul and Apollos had little real gold, but their works in building the
[18:53] <NA27> church were precious and would withstand the testing of God's omniscience. Unlike
[18:53] <NA27> the one who is destroyed by God in v. 17, these are all Christians, and all enter into
[18:53] <NA27> God's presence. This is a judgment regarding the QUALITY AND NATURE OF
[18:53] <NA27> THEIR WORKS. The fire, we are told, reveals "of what sort" (Gr: hopoion) the work
[18:53] <NA27> is. ALL leaders face this test, from the most godly to the least (if this is purgatory,
[18:53] <NA27> does that mean there are no saints who work in the church?).
[18:53] <NA27> Now, in regards to the Roman misuse of this passage, let us note some important
[18:53] <NA27> things.
[18:53] <NA27> 1) There is nothing in this passage about temporal punishments for sins.
[18:53] <NA27> 2) There is nothing in this passage about purgation or cleansing.
[18:53] <NA27> 3) The passage refers to a testing of WORKS not of souls or persons.
[18:53] <NA27> 4) Verses 14 and 15 are in direct parallel, showing us that the receiving of a reward
[18:53] <NA27> in v. 14 is the direct opposite of "suffer loss" in v. 15. All these Christian workers are
[18:53] <NA27> saved people, members of God's elect: yet some will receive a reward and others
[18:53] <NA27> will suffer loss. In neither case do we see anything even remotely similar to the
[18:53] <NA27> concept of satispassio, the suffering of atonement, so as to be cleansed and enter
[18:53] <NA27> into the presence of God.
[18:54] <NA27> Calvin addressed the use of the passage by Rome in these words:
[18:54] <NA27> It remains, that we give an answer in passing to the Papists, who endeavor from
[18:54] <NA27> this passage to prop up Purgatory. "The sinners whom God forgives, pass through
[18:54] <NA27> the fire, that they may be saved." Hence they in this way suffer punishment in the
[18:54] <NA27> presence of God, so as to afford satisfaction to his justice I pass over their endless
[18:54] <NA27> fictions in reference to the measure of punishment, and the means of redemption
[18:54] <NA27> from them, but I ask, who they are that pass through the fire? Paul assuredly
[18:54] <NA27> speaks of ministers alone. "There is the same reason," they say, "as to all." It is not
[18:54] <NA27> for us but for God to judge as to this matter. But even granting them this, how
[18:54] <NA27> childishly they stumble at the term fire. For to what purpose is this fire, but for
[18:54] <NA27> burning up the hay and straw, and on the other hand, for proving the gold and
[18:54] <NA27> silver. Do they mean to say that doctrines are discerned by the fire of their
[18:54] <NA27> purgatory? Who has ever learned from that, what difference there is between truth
[18:54] <NA27> and falsehood? Farther, when will that day come that will shine forth so as to
[18:54] <NA27> discover every one's work? Did it begin at the beginning of the world, and will it
[18:54] <NA27> continue without interruption to the end? If the terms stubble, hay, gold, and silver
[18:54] <NA27> are figurative, as they must necessarily allow, what correspondence will there be
[18:54] <NA27> between the different clauses, if there is nothing figurative in the term fire? Away,
[18:54] <NA27> then, with such silly trifles, which carry their absurdity in their forehead, for the
[18:55] <NA27> Apostle's true meaning is, I think, sufficiently manifest. Calvin, J. (2000). Calvin's
[18:55] <NA27> Commentaries (electronic ed.). electronic ed. (1 Co 3:10). Garland, TX: Galaxie
[18:55] <NA27> Software.
[18:55] <NA27> Hence, as Roman Catholic McBrien admits, "There is, for all practical purposes, no
[18:55] <NA27> biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory. This is not to say that there is no basis at
[18:55] <NA27> all for the doctrine, but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it." (Webster, 114)
[18:55] <NA27> Thus I end my case, and look forward now to the interaction that can only clarify and
[18:55] <NA27> enlighten the truth. Thank you for reading along.

[18:55] NA27 sets mode: +v Christian
[18:55] <Christian> applause
[18:55] NA27 sets mode: +v Sebond
[18:55] <Christian> wow
[18:56] <NA27> Have you chosen to go it alone, or will others be joining you?
[18:56] <Christian> Methinks it would be nice to have a partner, since I do not have a prepared statment
[18:56] <Christian> It was a lot to respond to
[18:56] <NA27> I have voiced Sebond....do you wish someone else to join you?
[18:56] <Sebond> I prepared nothing. I was expecting vel to show.
[18:56] <Christian> me2
[18:57] <NA27> Se: I understand that.
[18:57] <NA27> So does everyone else.
[18:57] <Christian>

[18:57] <NA27> If you don't wish to engage the topic with me directly, we can simply remove moderation and discuss it with everyone....
[18:57] <Christian> Bigscott
[18:57] NA27 sets mode: +v BigScott
[18:57] <Christian> NA...
[18:57] Stv_inout is now known as StevenD
[18:58] <Christian> Unfortunatly, my statement will mainly be a resoponse
[18:58] <NA27> I really do not want you to feel like you are on the "hot seat" without preparation.
[18:58] <Christian> instead of a statemtn
[18:58] <NA27> OK, feel free to begin. I will shut up.
[18:58] <Christian> is that ok?
[18:58] <NA27> YEs.
[18:58] <BigScott> Well, I came to watch and did not prepare for a "debate" but I can try...
[18:58] <Christian>
[18:58] <Christian> I would like to first comment on a couple of things...
[18:58] <Christian> First of all, I wish you would have started with Mcbriens quote, because it is right on
[18:59] <Christian> There is no clear biblical basis for the doctine
[18:59] <Christian> There need not be
[18:59] <Christian> As far as Macc... you quote people who feel it is not canonical
[18:59] <Christian> I say that the canon is not smoething that is voted upon
[19:00] <Christian> The estblishment of SS is another topic
[19:00] <Christian> Purgatory is...
[19:00] <Christian> The best way to understand the true philosophical understanding of it is this....
[19:00] <Christian> When we die, we are either saved or unsaved...
[19:00] <Christian> The unsaved go to hell
[19:01] <Christian> The saved go to heaven, where they are before the brilliant light of God
[19:01] <Sebond> Excuse me for interrupting, but it should be pointed out that the American hierarchy has said that McBrien's work on Catholic teaching is at best suspect.
[19:01] <Christian> (he got purgatory right )
[19:02] <Christian> If you have ever spent time in a very dark room, and had someone turn on the lights, then you know that your eyes strain, anbd depending on howlong you were there will determine the pain
[19:02] <Christian> and the adjustment period
[19:03] <Christian> Saved people are the same way...
[19:03] <BigScott> James what was the section from Matthew you quoted?
[19:03] <Christian> Sin is darkness... The more we have the more comfortable we are in the darkness...
[19:03] <Christian> If our sin is not enough to condemn us, then we stand before God when we die
[19:03] <Christian> If our darkness has been great, so too will our strain and adjustment
[19:03] <Christian> But we are saved
[19:04] <Christian> That is it... plain and simple
[19:04] <Christian> The thing with truth, is that it cannot be contradicted with other truth
[19:04] <Christian> The Scriptures do not contain all truth
[19:04] <Christian> That was not its purpose
[19:04] <Christian> Definitions of heaven, hell, saints, trinity, etc were not included in it
[19:04] <Christian> because it is a book of salvation
[19:05] <Christian> The truth of purgatory does not contradict scripture...
[19:05] <Christian> Just like the Trinity doesn't, but it is not clearly defined wither....
[19:05] <BigScott> ~nas matt 5:26
[19:05] <Latreuo> 12 Matthew 5:26 "Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent. (NASB)
[19:05] <Christian> Someone else can jump in
[19:06] <NA27> Y'all still have 7:30 left for your opening presentation.
[19:06] <BigScott> Come out of where? What was this parable referring to?
[19:06] <Christian> take it scott
[19:07] <BigScott> OIC, this is not "open" yet, you're letting us present...
[19:07] <Christian> right
[19:07] <NA27> Yessir
[19:07] ENielsen: Can you make a positive presentation for purgatory, Scott? That might be helpful, IMO
[19:07] <Christian> (pretty hard without prep, huh Scott )
[19:07] <BigScott> Well, again, not really "prepared" as White was, but lemme try....
[19:07] <NA27> After that time period, we will do 10 minutes of cross-examination.
[19:08] <Christian> Sebond?
[19:08] <BigScott> First off, we must readily admit that Purgatory is not explicitly taught from Scripture...
[19:09] <BigScott> The implicit verses, some of which White has already presented, plus Matthew 5:26 (and context) is another...
[19:09] <BigScott> combined with Rev. 21:27, we see that nothing impure can enter heaven...
[19:09] <BigScott> ~nas Rev 21:27
[19:09] <Latreuo> 12 Revelation 21:27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. (NASB)
[19:10] <NA27> 3:30 remaining....
[19:10] <Christian> I believe we are probably done...
[19:11] <Christian> Lets start the conv
[19:11] <BigScott> So, with "implicit" scriptural teachings... we are reliant on Authority - which is really where any Catholic/Evangelical (or otherwise) debate must truly begin...
[19:11] <NA27> OK, I erred above: we originally scheduled a time of rebuttal before the cross-examination.
[19:11] <BigScott> np James
[19:11] <Christian> hmmmm
[19:12] <NA27> I had scheduled 10 minutes....how about just 6 so we can get to cross?
[19:12] <Christian> why don't we do a Q&A first
[19:12] <BigScott> If the Church has the Authority to "bind and loose whatsoever..." then when we receive such a teaching FROM the Church, there is no question about it.
[19:12] <NA27> It is customary to have a chance to rebut before cross examination.
[19:12] <Christian> we already kinda did that... but ok
[19:12] <BigScott> I agree, let the rebuttal happen first...
[19:12] <Christian> go ahead... we will rebut your rebuttal
[19:12] <Christian>
[19:12] <NA27> OK, let me start my 6:00....and I will not be using a script. Just typing from now on....
[19:13] <BigScott> thank you!
[19:13] <Christian> good.... its your turn for your fingers to hurt
[19:13] <NA27> A few items, of course. First, Jesus is not talking about purgatory in Matthew 5; the prison was a debtor's prison, which has nothing to do with the concept of temporal punishments for sins.
[19:14] <NA27> Second, I believe the historical information I have presented completely undercuts what Scott was just saying about church authority. Unless one just blindly practices sola ecclesia and says, "Well, whatever Rome says, I'll believe," the issue of whether a dogma or doctrine has *any* claim to historicity and apostolic origination *is* relevant.
[19:14] <NA27> And this dogma, obviously, does not.
[19:14] <NA27> Next, both of the passages I addressed, in Matthew and 1 Corinthians, *have* been used in official RC documents as supportive of purgatory. They must be rehabilitated by the RC side this evening.
[19:15] <NA27> But most importantly, I would like to point out the primary problem with purgatory. You see, the entire idea of satispassio (the suffering of atonement one undergoes in purgatory) is contradicted by every single word of Scripture that speaks of the perfection of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ as the perfect substitute for the people of God.
[19:16] <NA27> There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in all of Scripture to warrant the idea that when I have Christ's righteousness imputed to me, and I have ALL of my sins imputed to Christ, that there is still something left over so that I can die justified, yet impure, needing to go to purgatory before entering into the presence of God.
[19:17] <NA27> While your story about the light is interesting, Christian, it finds no basis in the Bible's teaching about the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, whereby I have been PERFECTED (Hebrews 10:10-14).
[19:17] <NA27> Let's remember:
[19:17] <NA27> ~nas 2Cor 5:20-21
[19:17] <Latreuo> 12 2Corinthians 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (NASB)
[19:17] <Latreuo> 12 2Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (NASB)
[19:17] Hendrik [askme@dial-4.r5.ncsdny.infoave.net] has joined #prosapologian
[19:17] <NA27> The righteousness of GOD, gentlemen....not a righteousness needing satispassio to be perfected.
[19:18] <NA27> Hence, the true refutation of purgatory: it contradicts the plain teaching of what it means to be right with God. Combine this with the fact that the passages cited fail, and the historical issues I have already raised, and you can see why purgatory cannot command the faith of the Christian heart.
[19:18] <NA27> Thank you.
[19:18] <NA27> You now have 6:00.
[19:18] <Christian> Ok...
[19:19] <BigScott> Lee would like to have voice too...
[19:19] <Christian> First of all... lets clear this up... Catholics believe that any talk of time, before, after, here, there in the afterlife is poetic and imperfect
[19:19] NA27 sets mode: +v Lee
[19:19] <Lee> pax
[19:19] <Christian> You do not GO to purgatory and THEN heaven
[19:19] <Christian> (I only have 3 points)
[19:20] <Christian> Secondly, I am saying nothing about Christs sacrifice... Paul said that we are perfected when we accept Christ
[19:20] <Christian> I am perfected, but not perfect
[19:20] <Lee> am i on?
[19:21] <ENielsen> Yes, Lee
[19:21] <Christian> Lastly... Christ's allows us to stand before God in heaven as saints... If the light analogy doesn't work for you then imagine purgatory is when you get to heaven and God runs up to you and hugs the hell out of you
[19:21] <BigScott> Lee, did you have something to add?
[19:21] <Lee> ~nas matthew 5:8
[19:22] <Latreuo> 12 Matthew 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. (NASB)
[19:22] <Christian> hmmm
[19:22] <Christian> scott?
[19:22] <NA27> Anything else?
[19:23] <Christian> I'll go
[19:23] <NA27> You have about 1:30 left....
[19:23] <Christian> Heliocentricity was also not taught by the apostles or scripture, but it is true
[19:23] <BigScott> lost Lee... anyway... what is a debtor's prison? Is this not an analogy to the end, or is this to only be read one way?
[19:23] <Christian> not all truth is in scripture, and there is much more for us to discover
[19:24] <Christian> It does not conflict with scripture... that is the key point
[19:24] <NA27> OK....
[19:24] <NA27> During cross-examination, the person asking questions does just that....only asks questions. No argumentation from the questioner, OK>
[19:24] <Christian> ok
[19:24] <BigScott> I agree, the point the Protestant would have to make is that the Catholic position is contrary
[19:24] <NA27> The ones answering do so as briefly as possible.
[19:25] <NA27> Shall I go first for 10:00 or do you wish to start?
[19:25] ENielsen sets mode: +v Lee
[19:25] <Christian> you may go
[19:25] <NA27> That OK with you, Scott?
[19:25] <BigScott> sure
[19:25] <NA27> OK....Christian, you said, <Christian> The Scriptures do not contain all truth
[19:26] <NA27> correct?
[19:26] <Christian> correct
[19:26] <NA27> Could you explain that in light of the following?
[19:26] <NA27> ~nas John 17:17
[19:26] <Latreuo> 12 John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. (NASB)
[19:26] <Christian> Sure... God's Word is Truth and is found in Scripture and elsewhere
[19:27] <NA27> OK....You also said, <Christian> You do not GO to purgatory and THEN heaven
[19:27] <NA27> Correct?
[19:27] <Christian> correct
[19:27] <Christian> not preciesly
[19:27] <NA27> Could you please explain this in light of the fact that Rome has granted indulgences, measured in days, weeks, etc., and in light of the Sabbatine Privilege?
[19:28] <Christian> Yes... We have been imprecise in our language about an existance that is beyond our understanduing
[19:28] <Christian> The RCC no longer does that
[19:28] <NA27> Are you familiar with the Sabbatine Privilege?
[19:28] <Christian> Hmmm...
[19:28] <NA27> Any of you?
[19:28] <Christian> Would you like to explain it?
[19:29] <Christian> (turn time off)
[19:29] <Sebond> MAY I explain the measurements, please?
[19:29] <NA27> Shall I voice AKAJerry for assistance?
[19:29] <NA27> Scott?
[19:29] <NA27> Yes, Sebond, please.
[19:29] NA27 sets mode: +v AKAJerry
[19:29] <BigScott> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm (Sabbatine privilege)
[19:30] <AKAJerry> Oops. I was elsewhere....
[19:30] <Sebond> Okay, you'll see often an indulgence for three years, five year, two weeks, whatever.
[19:30] <NA27> The Sabbatine privilege, which had the support of many Popes, involves the wearing of the scapular, and the promise of Mary to descend into purgatory and remove anyone who dies wearing the scapular on the Saturday after their death....
[19:30] <AKAJerry> Was the question about Sabbatine privilege?
[19:30] <AKAJerry> I am familiar with it a bit.
[19:30] <Sebond> Okay, this does NOT refer to time in purgatory.
[19:31] <BigScott> the wearing of the scapular, faithfully, carries a promise... the key word there is "faithfully" as opposed to "superstitiously"
[19:31] <Christian> NA was it ever doctrine?
[19:31] <NA27> OK, is it your position Sebond that Rome has never measured indulgences in terms of time?
[19:31] <Sebond> What it does refer to is the time of penance done by the early Christians when penances were severe.
[19:32] <NA27> OK....Lee quoted Matthew 5:8, which says....
[19:32] <NA27> ~nas Matt 5:8
[19:32] <BigScott> NA, indulgences are measured in time, but no one knows the exact time of Purgatory... or IF time is even relative
[19:32] <NA27> Is it Lee's position that we are made pure in heart by suffering in purgatory?
[19:32] <NA27> Thank you, Scott.
[19:32] <NA27> I can't interact with you during cross.
[19:32] <Latreuo> 12 Matthew 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. (NASB)
[19:32] ENielsen sets mode: +v Lee
[19:32] <BigScott>
[19:33] <Lee> the clean of heart see God
[19:33] <Sebond> so, an indulgence of, say, three years is a penance equivalent to a penance done by an early Christian lasting three years.
[19:33] <Christian> ay ay ay
[19:33] <Christian> this is not working...
[19:33] <Christian>
[19:33] <Lee> the clean of heart are those who are sinless
[19:33] <NA27> I have 3:00 left.
[19:33] <Christian> This is not a good format for people who aren't prepared with canned statements
[19:33] <Lee> since sin cannot enter heaven
[19:33] <NA27> Christian: Are you the blessed man of Romans 4:8?
[19:33] <Lee> since sin is disobeying God
[19:33] <NA27> ~nas Rom 4:8
[19:33] <Latreuo> 12 Romans 4:8 "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account." (NASB)
[19:34] <Christian> I hope to be
[19:34] <BigScott> We hope to be
[19:34] <NA27> Sebond?
[19:34] <BigScott>
[19:34] <Christian>
[19:34] <AKAJerry> You can be. And should be.
[19:34] <Lee> i dont see how that says the sin can enter heaven?
[19:34] <BigScott> answer James' question... that's all that is on the table now
[19:34] <NA27> If you are the blessed man, how can you go to purgatory, since the passage refers to imputation of sin? If God does not impute sin to you, how can you have to undergo satispassio in purgatory?
[19:35] <Christian> I will not "go to" purgatory...
[19:35] <Lee> if you commit sin you must then be forgiven right or cleaned of your sin
[19:35] <BigScott> The man who has gone through Purgatory, his sins will not be taken into account.
[19:35] <Christian> As I said, purgatory is an adjustment
[19:35] <NA27> Scott: So it is your position that Romans 4:8 is referring only to people who have died?
[19:35] <Christian> God doesn't see my sin, and reveals himself to me... but that doesn;t mean that my sin wasn't really darkness for me
[19:35] <NA27> IT has not application to the living?
[19:35] Chemnitz is now known as Finagler
[19:36] <BigScott> ALL in Purgatory will not have their sins taken into account.
[19:36] <Lee> so if God either forgives your sin or takes it under no account since God is just there must be a reason for this
[19:36] <BigScott> NA, not necessarily...
[19:36] <NA27> I would like to follow up, but my time is exhausted.
[19:36] <Lee> ~nas romans 4:7-8
[19:36] <NA27> You now have 10:00.....
[19:36] <BigScott> some can "serve" their Purgatory here and now
[19:36] <Christian> go ahead
[19:36] <Latreuo> 12 Romans 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. (NASB)
[19:36] <Latreuo> 12 Romans 4:8 "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account." (NASB)
[19:36] Chemnizt is now known as Chemnitz
[19:36] <Sebond> Dr. White, I am busy preparing a question for you. I am playing meatball apologetics. I hope you understand.
[19:36] <Christian> NA...
[19:36] <BigScott> NA, question for you...
[19:36] <NA27> Yes, Christian?
[19:36] <BigScott> what is your followup?
[19:37] <BigScott>
[19:37] <Christian> go ahead scott
[19:37] <Christian> hmmm
[19:37] <BigScott> NA - what is your followup?
[19:37] <NA27> It's not my time.
[19:37] <Christian> Oh I get it
[19:37] <Christian> lol
[19:37] <Christian> JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!
[19:38] <Christian>
[19:38] <Christian> NA - Was the Trinity taught by the Apostles?
[19:38] <NA27> Christian: Yessir.
[19:38] <Christian> How do you know this?
[19:38] <Lee> since God is Just would we say that one sin is the same as sinning 1000 times? i would say no because for each sin we commit to be forgiven we must make amends, since sin cannot enter heaven
[19:39] <BigScott> OK, so can Matt 5 be interpretted as analogous to Purgatory, or MUST it be just an earthly reference?
[19:39] <NA27> Because the Scriptures teach monotheism, the existence of three divine persons, and the equality of those persons. The NT is incoherent outside of a Trinitarian understanding.
[19:39] <BigScott> Christian, that's a bit off topic...
[19:39] <Christian> (he says that purgatory is not apostolic)
[19:39] <NA27>
[19:40] <NA27> 6:30 to go....
[19:40] <ENielsen> <BigScott> OK, so can Matt 5 be interpretted as analogous to Purgatory, or MUST it be just an earthly reference?
[19:40] AKAJerry will ask a question.
[19:40] <Christian> I'm not sure where to go with this... I don't feel like we have really exchanged any debate tonight
[19:40] <Lee> so how does a man who has sinned 1000 times become justified as a man who has sinned 1 time, God does not have to prove anything to us but God is Love and he wishes to show those in heaven that He is Just and Good, so that each man who sins will be made aware or is aware of their transgressions
[19:40] <NA27> Shall I answer that one?
[19:40] <BigScott> OK, I asked one... but go on
[19:41] <NA27> No, Scott, Matthew 5 cannot be interpreted as analogous to purgatory for numerous reasons; there is nothing in the context that would lead one to that understanding, first of all.

[19:41] <NA27> It is likewise contradictory to the teachings I have already presented regarding the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
[19:41] <NA27> Shall I now answer Lee's question?
[19:41] <Christian> How does it contradict, NA?
[19:41] <AKAJerry> Am I voiced?
[19:42] <Lee> so then the man who has sinned 1000 times must feel the remorse for his sins all 1000 of them, to call them to mind to regret his actions in disobeying God
[19:42] <NA27> AKA: Yes.
[19:42] <ENielsen> Yes, Jerry
[19:42] <BigScott> so, part of that context, vs 22.... is talking about the judgment... are we totally out of context?
[19:42] <AKAJerry> Just checking. Thanks.
[19:42] <Lee> and realize that for his actions Jesus died
[19:42] <NA27> Lee: The answer to your question is found in the simplest assertion of the gospel: that all have sinned, and the only way of salvation is to be clothed in the seemless robe of Christ's perfect righteousness, which is mine only because of the perfection of His death.
[19:42] <Christian> Amen NA
[19:43] <NA27> Christian: It contradicts because it posits that satispassio can cleanse me from the punishments of sins.
[19:43] <Christian> Now how does that contradict Purgatory?
[19:43] <BigScott> And the Catholic has no objection to that line of though NA.
[19:43] <Lee> so is 1 sin equal to 1000 sins?
[19:43] <NA27> Because Rome continues to teach that I can be justified and die impure, Christian. That is Trent, btw.
[19:43] <NA27> Scott: That is a retort, not a question.
[19:43] <BigScott>
[19:43] <Christian>
[19:43] BigScott bites his tongue
[19:44] <AKAJerry> Ok....
[19:44] <AKAJerry> James....
[19:44] <NA27> Lee: No, but all the sins of all the elect were placed upon their perfect substitute, who bore them in our place, so that there is nothing we can do to add to what He did: my satispassio is meaningless.
[19:44] <AKAJerry> Oops. Nevermind. I'll wait.
[19:44] <NA27> Yes, Jerry?
[19:44] <Lee> if you are justified and you lie if you truely understood and loved God why do you continue to lie? does that show that you really recoginze what has jesus done for you?
[19:44] <Christian> LOL
[19:44] <AKAJerry> Finish with Lee.
[19:44] <Christian> this is a mess
[19:44] <Christian> too many people!
[19:44] <Christian>
[19:44] <Lee> if you realized that for your lies Jesus died you would sooner die then sin again
[19:44] <NA27> Lee: Justification is the imputation of Christ's righteousness to me: sanctification is the process whereby I am conformed to the image of Christ. While intimately connected, they are not synonymous.
[19:45] <NA27> Jerry: Let's finish with your question.
[19:45] <Lee> or am i wrong?
[19:45] <AKAJerry> Ok...
[19:45] <BigScott> Jerry's turn...
[19:45] <AKAJerry> James, are you familiar and agree with what I believe Luther said that a believer is both just and sinner?
[19:45] <NA27> Yessir.
[19:45] <NA27> It is actually an Augustinian concept.
[19:45] <AKAJerry> So if you die tonight do you die a sinner?
[19:45] <AKAJerry> Ok...
[19:46] <Lee> argh
[19:46] <NA27> A sinner clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, AKA.
[19:46] Lee [~chatter@ppp-98-115.dialup.umbc.edu] has quit IRC (Window destroyed)
[19:46] <NA27> OK. Time to wrap things up....
[19:46] <Christian> lol
[19:46] <AKAJerry> So if you die a sinner do you go to heaven a sinner.
[19:46] <AKAJerry> ?
[19:46] <AKAJerry> How much time?
[19:46] <NA27> We were going to have some pretty lengthy closing statements, but let's cut it down to say, 3:00 each side, OK?
[19:47] <Christian> lol
[19:47] <Christian> ok...
[19:47] <AKAJerry> Is the 10 up?
[19:47] <NA27> Yessir, it is.
[19:47] <AKAJerry> Ok.
[19:47] <NA27> 3:00 closing statements OK?
[19:47] <NA27> Then we will remove moderation, and everyone can chat.
[19:47] <NA27> Do you wish to go first, since I had the privilege of doing so at the beginning?
[19:47] <StevenD> The deluge

[19:47] ENielsen sets mode: +v Lee
[19:47] <AKAJerry> I'm not closing.
[19:48] <BigScott> Go ahead James....
[19:48] <NA27> Christian? Scott?
[19:48] <BigScott> 3 minutes
[19:48] <NA27> Go first, or just go?
[19:48] <NA27>
[19:48] <NA27> OK....
[19:48] <NA27> I believe any meaningful discussion of purgatory always takes us to the most important point....
[19:48] <NA27> That is, does God save perfectly, or is He dependent upon us and our actions?
[19:48] <Sebond> Hebrews 12:14 speaks of a holiness, without which no one will see the Lord. Now my question to Dr. White is this. Is this holiness merely an imputed righteousness, and if so why does it come in a passage that explicitly talks of discipline and training?
[19:49] <Christian> lol
[19:49] <BigScott> let James close folks
[19:49] <NA27> I hope those who have observed this debate this evening have been able to see the vast gulf that separates the gospel of free grace from the system that includes within it the idea of cooperation with grace.
[19:49] <Sebond> sorry.
[19:50] <NA27> Monergism and synergism are not big fancy words that theologians alone throw about: they speak to whether God is free to save perfectly, or whether He has limited himself to man's actions, man's will, man's response.
[19:50] <NA27> The doctrine of purgatory is unbiblical, as we have seen; it is a-historical, and that was not even challenged; and more importantly it is contradictory to the teaching that the righteousness by which we stand before God is a perfect one, needing no addition, suffering no subtraction.
[19:51] <NA27> I am thankful to Christian, Scott, Lee, Sebond, and AKAJerry for helping out in velleity's absence.
[19:51] <NA27> And I thank all of you (60 right now!) for sticking around.
[19:51] <Lee> i didnt finish i think half my stuff got crashed

[19:51] <NA27> Your turn. 3:00.
[19:51] <Christian> Thank you NA...
[19:51] <Christian> For this debate...
[19:51] <Lee> what was the last thing i said that got through
[19:51] <Christian> First thing... People must undersatnd that purgatory is not about salvation
[19:51] <Sebond> Dr. White, you won the debate hands down. Vell will get a sound thrashing if he ever shows again.
[19:52] <Christian> Christ's work was perfectly accomplished
[19:53] <Christian> I believe Dr. White said it best... we are sinners clothed in Christ
[19:53] <Christian> when we die
[19:53] <Christian> Sinners are used to the darkness...
[19:53] <Christian> Despite our sin, Christ brings us to the father...
[19:53] <Christian> That is His perfect work
[19:53] <Christian> Purgatory is OUR reaction to being before God
[19:53] <Christian> Scott?
[19:54] NA27 sets mode: -m
[19:54] CStar changes topic to "Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria (www.aomin.org/proschat.html)"
[19:54] CStar: -#prosapologian- [NA27] issued [TOPIC]
[19:54] <NA27> Thank you gentlemen.
[19:54] <BigScott> working on something....
[19:54] NA27 sets mode: -v Sebond
[19:54] <buzz> Debate is over.
[19:54] <AKAJerry> thank you NA
[19:54] <Lee> when jesus died where did he go right into heaven?
[19:54] <OrtaDug> GEe
[19:54] NA27 sets mode: -v Lee
[19:54] <tollhouse> May I ask a couple of questions?
[19:54] <cds> You're welcome NA..
[19:54] <cds>

[19:54] ENielsen sets mode: -vvv AKAJerry BigScott Christian
[19:54] <OrtaDug> I am sick to my stomache
[19:54] NA27 sets mode: -v Latreuo
[19:54] <Sebond> The debate is over, Christian, and it was a disaster for us.


Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries