White Mans Burden 2.2

This response was started literally YEARS ago (well over a decade), I lost track of it and found it in my "drafts" for this blog so I have reviewed it again, and though sadly the links that James Swan asked me to review no longer exist. That said there is enough here and some primary source links where we can see where White truly did lose the debate and the "bait and switch" or "shell game" he attempts is exposed and clearly shows how and why he lost and loses this debate - hands down.

Back in 2010, I told James Swan I'd be looking deeper into the White/Madrid debate, and to be honest - I lost track of that and am getting back to that now.  In the earlier post, Swan left links for me to look at, but those are no longer valid so I have found these in which to continue:

Transcript of the debate:  http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html (this link no longer exists)
Audio of debate (on YouTube):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IJYWqFjKb0 (this link is also no longer valid).
I found the vlog from Sept. 2, 2008 here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx-FsKV-GEU  (this link still works as of the date of this posting).

November 1, 1995, James wrote: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/catholic-answers-myth-or-reality-a-refutation-of-patrick-madrids-article-the-white-mans-burden-and-a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

The actual debate can be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7_Cge-p6o

White's 2012 - well, 1995 - summary response:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/11/15/catholic-answers-myth-or-reality-a-refutation-of-patrick-madrids-article-the-white-mans-burden-and-a-defense-of-sola-scriptura-vintage/ This link now takes you to White's 1995 article (cited above).

I started this article using the 2008 response, I will leave what I've entered previously, but keep in mind, that was in response to the video blog (vlog).  

September 2, 2008 - White defends himself first by attacking the response of Patrick Madrid to the 1993 debate between Patrick Madrid and James White on "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?".  White points out that Madrid uses the terminology of "anti-Catholic" twice in three sentences.  Well, I'm not sure what White's objection is here, he IS an anti-Catholic!  He opposes Catholicism!  I would not say White is anti-Catholic-persons, as he and I have long been on friendly, though sometimes on tenuous, terms.  I think he appreciates the person of Patrick Madrid but still, White is anti-Catholic!  If you're counting, I used the term 3 times in 6 sentences.

Next, White pretends he has the insight into some secret meeting at Catholic Answers headquarters where allegedly it was decided that they (the Catholic apologists) in a debate would wait until there was no time left in the debate for their non-Catholic challengers to respond and then slip in the matter of the Canon (of Sacred Scripture).  Then, with no real time to respond, keep hammering home the fact that the non-Catholic apologist cannot and/or has not responded.  He claims this is exactly what Madrid did in the debate, he waited until the second rebuttal period to introduce this topic - and since White went first, he had no chance to respond. Whether or not this "secret meeting" ever took place is immaterial. That said, White 

In actuality, it is White who brings up the Canon of Sacred Scripture first, and he does so in his Opening Statement!  White, who brought up Cardinal Newman builds a strawman and then knocks it down stating, 

"Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon but the nature of Scripture itself as originating in God."  

I'm surprised that Madrid did not pounce upon this sooner!  Yes, Madrid does not come back to this topic until just before the Cross-Examination Round, but I don't know how much more White could have said.  In White's 2012 response (to this same debate) he said "That is what I was inviting Mr. Madrid to do: show us another “infallible rule of faith.” He came up with exactly one example in response: the canon of the NT. We will discuss later why this effort failed."  There were no time constraints upon him in this 2012 response, and yet even though he stated he would "get back to this later," the only mentioning of the canon after that point was this:  "It would be profitable to examine Madrid’s statements on the canon of Scripture, and note how he had to move away from the Old Testament and use only the New (since the historical reality of the formation of the OT canon refutes his position). But such will have to be left for another time."  So, even when he has all the time in the world to respond - White has not "lifted the burden."

White then proceeds to tout that in the last 15 years (he recorded this vlog in 2008) that he has learned so much about sola scriptura, he's written books on the subject, defended the subject in debates, etc.  In short, he's setting himself up as the final word on sola scriptura - or at least A final word.

White brings out the allegation that Patrick Madrid claims he will resist from bringing out the 52 pages of Early Church Fathers so that he does not bury White in the quotes.  White scoffs and anachronistically mentions that he has the third volume of the King/Webster series on sola scriptura with over 300 pages of quotes allegedly supporting sola scriptura.   Even if the King/Webster volume was as authoritative as White insinuates it is, and he doesn't cite from it, is he not guilty of the same "bluster" he accuses Catholic Answers of?

After all the "bluster" he claims that Madrid touts that we know who wrote the book of Matthew, and the only way we know this is through our tradition.  Then White brings up unnamed modern Catholic theologians who claim "we don't know who wrote Matthew."  Without facts here to look up, I will not speculate upon who these Catholic scholars are - but I have a pretty good idea to whom White refers.  Modernist revisionism aside, we do know who wrote Matthew - and it was St. Matthew the Apostle.

The next part of this vlog is White's 20 minute opening statement from 1993.  He begins by accusing that there are always some who refuse to give Scripture its proper position.  He quotes St. Basil stating that in matters of dispute we should allow Scripture to decide between us and on which ever side we find doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the favor of truth.  Then White asks the question, "Is the Bible the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, or must we have other revelations from God?  Do we need the Book of Mormon the writings of the Watchtower... or the so-called unwritten apostolic traditions of Rome?"  Now that is NOT what the subject of this debate was!  THE subject of the debate was "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"  Next White cleverly manipulates the title of the debate, stating, "Does the Bible teach its own sufficiency to act as the sole rule of faith for the Church?"  Let us note, loud and clear, this is NOT a debate about "sufficiency" but rather "sola."  The bait and switch is in place.

Following the bait and switch above, White begins his actual debate by defining what sola scriptura is NOT.

"First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.  The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail... but the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to act as the sole rule of faith for the Church."
"Secondly it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth."
"Thirdly, it is not a denial that at times God's Word is spoken. Apostolic teaching was authoritative in and of itself.  Yet the Apostles (anecdotally) prove their teaching through God's Word."
"And finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church." 

After this he goes on to define:

"What then is sola scriptura?"  The doctrine of sola scriptura simply stated is that the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith of the Church.  All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source.  That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

Note again, the change in topic!  White continues to try to make sufficiency the matter of the debate, and not "sola."  He continues bringing up concepts of sufficiency and has abandoned sola, and then states, "The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating."  Well, so he claims, but he doesn't state where Scripture itself, or shall we say Scripture alone, teaches these doctrines.  So, since these are "not found in Scripture" - then they are "not binding upon the Christian conscience."  White defeats himself in his opening argument! If the subject of this debate were "satis scriptura"- well, let us not fall for the bait and switch!

White interrupts the opening statement here to interject more on what he means by "self-authenticating" - and again it is noted, this is NOT the subject of the debate!  White clarifies that the matter of self-authenticating is not about "canon" (as in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, noting again, it is White who brought up the Canon of Sacred Scripture).  He's essentially conceding that one cannot find the Canon of Sacred Scripture by means of sola scriptura.  He projects that later Madrid will be accusing him of claiming that just "feeling" a book is scriptural and just "feel" that it is inspired.  The fact of the matter is, nowhere within the Canon of Sacred Scripture is the Canon of Sacred Scripture defined! In fact, books were added and subtracted from the Canon for the first four hundred years of the Catholic Church and the Canon would be finalized by St. Jerome - and Jerome's Canon was dogmatically declared at the ecumenical Council of Trent in the sixteenth century!

 

Why did the Catholic Church wait over 1500 years to dogmatically define the canon? Well, as stated already, the canon was "set" in the fourth century via St. Jerome's translation of Sacred Scripture from the original tongues into the Latin Vulgate. It would not be until the sixteenth century with the dawning of Protestantism that St. Jerome's canon was contested - specifically the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals, which he did not "add" to the canon - they were already there in the Septuagint, or Greek canon, which many, if not most, Christian scholars agree - is what Jesus, as well as the Apostles and Evangelical writers of the books of Sacred Scripture, referred to and cited from - but I digress...

Back to the debate...

White continues...

Now, given this, I would like to explain how I plan on winning my debate this evening with Mr. Madrid.  Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.  Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church.  Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.  Hence, logically, I must do the following things:

• First, I must demonstrate that the Bible teaches that it is A rule of faith for the Church.
• Secondly, I must demonstrate that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church, that is, I must demonstrate its sufficiency, or in the language used in the New Testament itself, that the Bible is artios.
• And, thirdly, I must demonstrate that the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith does not refer us to any other rule of faith.

Well, again, the topic of the debate is NOT to show the Bible is sufficient, period.  All discussion of sufficiency is nothing more than a red herring argument intended to draw the audience off the scent of the REAL subject - which, again, is "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"  Whether or not Scripture refers to "another rule of faith" is irrelevant!  If the Bible does not teach "sola" then the teaching falls under its own weight.  

The above being said the Bible DOES teach that there is another infallible authority!  Sadly, White knows this, all too well, but stands in denial of the plain words of Scripture.  1) In Matthew 16:18 and 2) 18:18 we find Jesus Himself, as recorded IN SCRIPTURE stating that 1) a man and 2) a group of men can bind or loose whatsoever they choose - there is NO LIMITATION here!  Further, what they bind or loose on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven!  Now, unless White believes God would allow for error to be bound or loosed in Heaven - then these MEN have been given infallible authority - AND that authority is explicitly taught IN Scripture!  White has already lost this debate!  I realize that White will deny the passages in Matthew mean what I said here - but his denial cannot change reality.  Facts are these men were given authority to bind or loose on Earth and what they bound on Earth was bound in Heaven and this authority was not limited in scope for "whatsoever" they should bind, or loose, was bound or loosed in Heaven.  Since I believe that both White and I would agree that no error could be bound in Heaven, then this authority is infallible authority.

That being said, White continues in stating many who oppose sola scriptura use "cheap debating tricks" of trying to get the proponents of sola scriptura to prove a universal negative.  That is, to prove the non-existence of another rule of faith.  Well no, and if some non-sola scriptura debaters use such a "trick," well, they are just missing the obvious - and that is the challenge of THIS debate!  The Catholic position of Madrid is simple - NOWHERE does the Bible teach SOLA scriptura!  That which White is REALLY representing is not sola scriptura, but satis scriptura - or the sufficiency of Scripture.  If THAT were the real topic of this debate, then Madrid (myself and others who have engaged White on the topic of sola scriptura) would have an entirely different approach and argument.  We would have to discuss the difference of materially sufficient v. formally sufficient to begin with; the former can have a valid (Catholic) understanding while the latter would be a false teaching.  However, I digress, THIS debate is about whether or not Scripture teaches sola scriptura and on THAT point, White clearly loses the debate when he does the "cheap debating trick" of the "bait and switch."  By changing the subject he has essentially conceded the entire debate.

Next, White goes with his infamous pen analogy - which is, in reality, just another attempt to shift the burden of proof from himself to his opponent.  He prefaces (and I paraphrase a bit here),

IF this debate were about me having to prove there is no other authority that would be like me holding up my pen, yes, my pen, and declaring there is no other pen like this in the universe.  How would I go about proving it?  To prove there is no other pen like this in the universe I would have to go through all your purses, all your shirt pockets, all the stores in the world which carry pens, go through all the houses on the earth, go to the moon, all the planets in the solar system and the entire universe, looking for another pen like this.  Well, of course, I could not do that.  But you see it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win this debate.  All he would have to do is go out and get a Cross Medalist pen, walk up here, hold it next to mine and say, "See, another pen just like yours."  And he has won the debate.  In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than relying upon an illogical demand, or he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen."

Actually, White has merely set the terms of this debate in black and white terms (another common fallacy in debate) and has insisted upon either the absurd or that Madrid present something which is not the topic of the debate!  Remember, the topic of the debate is "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"  In short, White is attempting to set an impossible premise for Madrid to fulfill.  That being said, as we have already seen, that "other pen" DOES exist IN SCRIPTURE, (Matthew 16:18 and 18:18), so White - even in his own fallacious terms - has clearly lost the debate.

I will stop here for now. The links which James Swan challenged me to review are no longer valid, if he has another source for those links - I would be more than happy to pick up where I am leaving off here.

 

In JMJ, 

Scott<<<

The Catholic Debate Forum

The Catholic Debate Forum, CDF, is coming back! After a long hiatus when Yahoo shut down all yahoogroups (and Scott was too busy with school!) it is coming back! We're trying Free Forums, so come on over - give it a shot!

https://catholicdebateforum.freeforums.net/ 

Help bring back our old membership and invite new friends and challengers!

AMDG,

Scott<<<

aka: CathApol

A Response to the Indulgences Debate Discussion

This posting is actually in response to one who goes by the nickname of "Peace By Jesus" which I have shortened to "PBJ."  PBJ is responding to a thread on the BeggarsAllReformation Blog (BARB) which also discusses the Indulgences Debate, to which I have provided a fairly thorough response to here on Qui Locutus. PBJ is not responding to my commentary of the debate, but to a discussion on BARB. I have linked that discussion above for those who would like to see the context. I post here because this response became a bit too long and involved for a combox response. Without further ado...

> PBJ:  I do not check this email often, so i missed this reply.

SW: No worries - it has taken me a while to complete my response to you.

>> SW:   While I get the rationalizations you put forth,
>
> PBJ:  No, what you do not get then is that Scripture
> clearly speak of the next conscious reality for
> believers then it is with the Lord,

SW: Let's look at those verses, instead of just throwing out of context references, shall we? While the readers here will have the benefit of the verses actually being quoted - on BARB we were not afforded that luxury.

Lk. 23:43 "And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."

SW: Purgatory IS part of Paradise. Only the SAVED can be in Purgatory.

2Cor. 12:4 "That he was caught up into paradise, and heard secret words, which it is not granted to man to utter."

SW: Context, my friend, context. This passage speaks of a man St. Paul knew and did not know whether or not that experience was in the body or out of the body. This speaks NOTHING about after this life, in fact St. Paul speaks of him in present tense that he KNOWS him (See verse 2). [Added: Perhaps this man to whom St. Paul speaks of never died? Scripture alone doesn't tell us.]

Rv. 2:7 "He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God."

SW: All this says is that the one who overcomes will eat of the tree of life. You cannot use this as a statement against Purgatory - if anything, one could use it in support of Purgatory! He that overcometh (the trials of Purgatory) shall eat of the tree of life...

Phil 1:23 "But I am straitened between two: having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, a thing by far the better. 24 But to abide still in the flesh, is needful for you."

SW: So here, St. Paul desires to be with Christ, but he is still needed to abide with the Church on Earth. Again, there is no negation of Purgatory here.

2Cor. 5:8 [“we”] "But we are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

SW: Again, there is no denial of Purgatory here! The desire to be in Heaven does not mean there is no Purgatory.

1Cor. 15:51ff'- "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

SW: That we will be changed does not preclude going to Purgatory.

1Thess. 4:17 - "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

SW: Keep in mind, those in Purgatory WILL be with Him forever too.  Still no preclusion of Purgatory here.

> PBJ: And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection.

1Jn. 3:2 "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is."

SW: And again, what we shall be does not mean we will not be purified before we get there.

Rm. 8:23: "And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body."

SW: Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? Again, waiting for the adoption, etc. does not equate to no Purgatory.

1Co 15:53,54 "53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory."

SW: Yes, when we go to Purgatory our corruption puts on incorruption.

2 Cor. 2-4 "For out of much affliction and anguish of heart, I wrote to you with many tears: not that you should be made sorrowful: but that you might know the charity I have more abundantly towards you."

SW: I do not see any relationship at all here - assuming your meant 2 Cor. 2:4.

> PBJ: At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the
> only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death,
> but awaits the Lord's return,

1 Corinthians 4:5 "Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God."

SW: This one actually supports Purgatory! "Who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness..." but every man shall still have praise from God? Even though the things of darkness are exposed - "every man" who is in this purification IS saved and shall have praise from God!

2 Timothy 4:1,8 "I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom." And: "As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming. Make haste to come to me quickly."

SW: I would be relatively certain that St. Paul suffered his Purgatory while still on Earth, and he is speaking of himself in these verses. Between those two verses he speaks of those who will fall away due to following teachers with itching ears, etc., so the same context is talking about losing souls (so much for the once-saved-always-saved mentality). Anyway, nothing here speaks against Purgatory.

Revelation 11:18 "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest render reward to thy servants the prophets and the saints, and to them that fear thy name, little and great, and shouldest destroy them who have corrupted the earth."

SW: Again, while it speaks of judgment here - and those who were "prophets and saints, and to them that fear Thy Name, little and great..." shall be rewarded and those who corrupted the Earth will be destroyed, nothing is denying a time of purification of those souls who WILL BE rewarded.

Matthew 25:31-46 "31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me. 41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. 46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting."

SW: And again, you argue from silence. EVERY MAN who goes to Purgatory SHALL GO INTO LIFE EVERLASTING too! Just because THIS verse or THAT verse doesn't mention the purification phase does not negate those other verses which DO mention the purification and those being purged will "suffer loss" though they will still be "saved" in the end.

(A verse from me) 1 Cor. 3:15 "If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

SW: You can cite dozens of verses which don't mention the purification period (Purgatory) but if there is even ONE verse (and there are others) which CLEARLY represents where "ANY" man's work (not just preachers, as some will try to diminish the REAL meaning of this text, which you have before you in black and white) will be jugded and IF it is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself is still saved! That is PRECISELY what Purgatory is all about! Only the SAVED will be there, the chaff is already cast into Hell.

1 Peter 1:7 "That the trial of your faith (much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ" and 5:4 "And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory."

SW: Here again you mention a verse which overtly speaks of the "trial by the fire" - which IS Purgatory!

> PBJ: and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the
> Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built
> the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such,
> not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

SW: And this is part of the context of the verse I quoted, 1 Cor. 3:15. Yes, the man spoken of here IS saved already, and though some of his works may cause him to suffer loss - he is still (already) saved. Yes, this IS Purgatory!

> PBJ: Since all you see are rationalizations I repeated what
> Scripture says, which all your strained or wrested appeals
> to texts which do not teach Purgatory cannot refute.

SW: Well first off, be accurate and truthful - you didn't "repeat what Scripture says," you presented a list of unquoted Bible verses.  *I* have provided the actual text(s) of what your list refers to and NOT ONE of those verses refutes Purgatory!  NOT EVEN ONE of them does! Arguments from silence are not valid and are therefore to be outright rejected from evidence. NONE of those verses mention that Jesus wore sandals either, but just because they don't say He did doesn't mean He didn't.

>> SW: I can provide prooftexts which allow us to rationalize that
>> there is indeed a Purgatory -
>
> PBJ: And which attempts have been refuted here in a succession of
> posts,

SW: Nope.  Didn't happen. Just because YOU believe there has been a refutation from your arguments from silence does not mean there as been even a SINGLE refutation.

> PBJ continues: and shown that belief in Purgatory is not
> what is manifest in the the only wholly inspired authoritative
> record of what the NT church believed (including how they
> understood the OT and gospels). But there is always another
> RC devotee who seems compelled to defend whatever Rome imagines,
> regard(les)s of how cultic it makes them look.

SW: First off, a "cult" is not necessarily a bad thing. Too many people out there confuse "a cult" with "occult" and the two are NOT the same and should NOT be equivocated so!  Whereas the "occult" involves things like magic and the paranormal - the word "cult" simply means a group or following.

>> SW: and- if it exists, then the Church, through her authority
>> to bind or loose whatsoever she chooses, could indeed loose
>> in a a plenary or partial fashion the time spent in Purgatory.
>
> PBJ: Please. Parroting prevaricating propaganda may be
> comforting to the Catholic choir but it simply will not stand
> the test of examination of what the NT church believed in the
> most ancient substantive record. But I do understand that Rome
> has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be
> perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with
> her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which
> renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible,
> as well as all else she accordingly declares.

SW: THE POINT of THAT statement is that this really boils down to AUTHORITY. You adhere to the un- and anti-scriptural notion of sola scriptura (Scripture, nowhere, proclaims itself to be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church); and I adhere to what Scripture clearly points to as infallible authority in one man (the pope) in Matthew 16:18-19 and the council of bishops in Matthew 18:18.

> PBJ: Maybe you want to try the "The Church ® gave you the
> Scriptures, thus it is the supreme infallible authority on
> what it means" argument.

SW: Well, did you listen to the whole debate? While Peter D. Williams DID make an argument regarding the Canon of Sacred Scripture... which IS a valid argument for Church Authority - I did not see that as a valid argument in the Indulgences Debate between him and White. MY point in bringing up Church Authority is that this is truly the root of our separated beliefs. IF there is merit to the Church having said authority THEN the matter of Purgatory is not really up for debate anymore. IF the Church does not have this authority - then Scripture lies to us in telling us she can bind or loose whatsoever she chooses and that binding and/or loosing is also in effect in Heaven. Or, perhaps you believe that error can be bound in Heaven?

>> SW: that indulgences are ONLY for those who are saved already.
>
> PBJ: I think I expressed that,

SW: GOOD! Then you concur that White lost the debate because IF indulgences are ONLY for those who are already saved THEN they cannot be a denial of the Gospel - which IS the question of THAT debate.  Thank you!

> PBJ: except that "saved" in Scripture means the next conscious
> reality for believers after this life it is with the Lord. Who
> is not in RC Purgatory.

SW: Well, 1) The Lord IS in Purgatory!  It is His LOVE and PRESENCE which burns at the souls of those who have ANY stain of impurity remaining when they stand before Him. 2) There is NO Catholic teaching on just how long Purgatory lasts. It could last just an instant - that instant we stand before Him - and it may SEEM like days, weeks, years, etc. Or it could last days, weeks, years. What relevance is "time" really in the realm of eternity? 3) I repeat, NONE of the verses you cited (and didn't quote) denied the reality of Purgatory anymore than they denied Jesus wore sandals.

> PBJ: May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the
> acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)

SW: Thank you, and likewise - it is with modesty that I admonish you in your resistance to the Truth (same verse).

SW: I do wish you peace and openness to God's guidance to the fullness of truth and faith.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Indulgences Debate Summary

OK, for my summary of this debate:

All other side-topics aside (and there were a few on both sides in this debate)...

1) Williams - He does a very good job of representing what indulgences ARE and does drive home the fundamental FACT that indulgences are not contrary to the Gospel, they are an INSTRUMENT of the Gospel. Peter not only points out the organic development of the doctrine in Sacred Tradition (as opposed to a mutatative development) but also points out scriptural references to support the belief and teaching.

2) White - While in his Opening Statement DOES say indulgences are only for those who are already saved - he apparently ignores that FACT - and continually equivocates indulgences to salvation, which, as Peter and myself state repeatedly, are not salvific. Indulgences, as James correctly posits (and ignores) can ONLY be applied to those who are ALREADY SAVED and/or are IN THE STATE OF GRACE. James repeatedly tried to say indulgences somehow earn salvation, but again - that position is absolutely DENIED by true Catholic teaching and confession. 

White's myopic focus on that which indulgences are NOT is why he loses this debate.  Even if he concedes what indulgences ARE, he loses - because then he would also have to admit that indulgences do NOT deny the Gospel - which IS the question of this debate.

Back to Indulgences Debate Index

Indulgences Debate

This article serves as the Index Page for my commentary on a debate on Indulgences between James R. White and Peter D. Williams. The debate took place in Belfast, Northern Ireland in an Anglican church on June 4, 2018. The title/question for this debate was "Does the Doctrine of Indulgences Deny the Gospel?"

James White, asserting the positive (that indulgences DO deny the Gospel message) goes first...

Part One - James White's Opening Statement

Part Two - Peter Williams Opening Statement

Part Three - James White Ten Minute Rebuttal

Part Four - Peter Williams Ten Minute Rebuttal

Debate Summary Statement by Scott Windsor

Indulgences Debate Commentary Part 1

Do Indulgences Deny The Gospel?

So goes the title of a debate between James White (Reformed Baptist) and Peter D. Williams (Catholic). Below are my notes and quotes from the debate and my comments will be inserted in this font/color.

One point I would like to open with, and White even mentions this fact and that is, indulgences are applied against "time" in Purgatory. Indulgences have absolutely nothing to do with salvation - as those who might receive an indulgence are ALREADY SAVED. It is this latter point which White erroneous equates indulgences with salvation and hence he confuses indulgences with the Gospel. One thing I would like to say up-front - in the terms of THIS debate, White is put at a disadvantage in going first. Williams should have gone first to spell out the terms and definitions as used by Catholics. As you will see below, White (repeatedly) uses wrong terminology and/or applies the terminology wrongly.

Indulgentiarum Doctrina [White cites this numerous times, here's the source:] - https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_01011967_indulgentiarum-doctrina.html 

Section 7

Temporal punishments due to sins (which have been forgiven) are able to remitted through indulgences.

The treasure made up of merit gained by Jesus Christ and the Saints, excess merit which can be doled out to those on earth,

Norm #1 - White quotes stating the sins are "already forgiven." This is the key point which White quotes, but seems to ignore. You will see below, while he opens with a proper definition (so maybe Williams going first would not have changed things) he continually goes into terminology of justification and salvation - which has nothing to do with indulgences for those who have been justified - those who ARE saved.

You cannot gain indulgences by purchasing them, but they are still available. You can get one simply by attending an upcoming conference in Dublin, Ireland - and not just a partial indulgence, but a plenary - or totally remits all temporal punishment.

This is the concept of indulgences is wholly unbiblical and never taught by any of the Apostles and thus is a later invention of the Catholic Church - "it was a long process to get there," White states.  White believes it is built upon a "fundamental misunderstanding of God's Grace and especially the nature of the Gospel" and based "on a long line of unbiblical concepts, including but not limited to:

• The unbiblical distinction between mortal and venial sins.

• The concept of sacramental penances.

• The entire concept of the Roman priesthood and its alleged powers and authorities to levy temporal punishments upon the souls of those already justified in the Righteousness of Christ and who, in their ordination, call themselves an alter christus (another Christ).

• Likewise, the concept of excess merit which can somehow be stored, controlled, counted, put into a treasury and then transmitted to other people through the power of the keys given only to Peter.

• Then the utterly non-apostolic concept of the treasury of merit combined with the errant belief that the Bishop of Rome possesses the keys of Peter that could control such a treasure when in fact that authority to bind and loose was given to all of the Apostles and not to Peter alone. 

After bringing up all these topics, he dismisses them stating we could go into half a dozen different topics from the papacy and priesthood which he's already debated and refers us to his earlier debates. So why throw these out there in the first place? It would appear he just wanted to make these statements, all of which do relate to the subject of indulgences - but doesn't want Peter (or us) to respond to them. In essence, exposing the jury to details, but then withdrawing the statement so while there is to be no discussion, the jury has already heard him. Since he brought them up, let's deal with them instead of just letting it pass...

• The distinction between mortal and venial sins is most definitely biblically based! 1 John 5:16-17: If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death (venial), he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death (mortal); I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death (venial)[NASB, parenthetical insertions mine]. White is simply wrong here to state this is an unbiblical distinction. Now, he might want to interpret this differently (I don't really see how) but he cannot say mortal v. venial sins is unbiblical when it clearly is biblical. That being said, the distinction between mortal and venial sins is not the topic of this debate - a misdirection by White.
• Sacramental Penances - No such thing. There is the Sacrament of Penance, which is Confession and typically a penance is given but White is mixing terminology here. Confession is based in John 20:22-23 - (Jesus) said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (NASB) This authority is given to the Apostles, and in the previous verse Jesus tells them that as the Father sent Him, He sends them (v. 21). Clearly succession is here and since He gave them this authority to forgive or retain sins, they were to pass this authority on to others.
• "The entire concept of the Roman (Catholic) priesthood" - OK, that's huge, but really - it is based in John 20:21-22 (as above).
• "...and authorities to levy temporal punishments upon the souls of those already justified in the Righteousness of Christ." Priests do not "levy temporal punishments." White is just wrong here (again).
• "...and who, in their ordination, call themselves an alter christus (another Christ)." Well, specifically this refers to when the priest consecrates the Eucharist and he does speak in persona christi - in the person of Christ. When the priest says, "This is My body" he refers to the body of Christ, not his own. This is not a topic for this debate.
• The concept of excess merit... I believe this is a development, but it does not oppose the Gospel.
• "...the power of the keys, given only to Peter." The only time "the keys" are mentioned is in giving those keys to Peter (Matthew 16:18-19). This is not a topic for this debate.
• "the authority to bind and loose was given to all the Apostles and not to Peter alone." We agree! The authority to bind and loose is not the same as the authority of the keys. Yes, all the Apostles together are given the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18. Peter is given that authority alone in Matthew 16:18-19. So, that which Peter can do on his own, the rest of the Apostles (bishops) can do as a group, such as in an ecumenical council. This is not a topic for this debate.

Back to the debate...

Now, number one:
Indulgences are based upon the Thesaurus Meritorum, from the Treasury of Merit. There is no basis for believing the amount of blood shed is relevant to some concept of merit. The reality is in the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, it was the Perfect Life given that saves, not the amount of blood shed. The amount of blood shed does not create some sort of excess merit. God's purpose was specifically to redeem a specific people He does so perfectly, there's nothing left over or accidental and it is in union with Christ that we then receive that benefit, it is not about the amount of blood that is shed. The elect are saved by union with Christ in His death, the idea that a single drop of blood could redeem the world misses the reality of God's purpose of the union of the elect with the God-Man.

There is nothing in any doctrine of indulgences which mentions "the amount of blood shed," so I do not know where this is coming from. Another misdirection from White.

Further, the mixture of Mary and the Saints with that of Christ is a blasphemous error. His saving power is utterly unique as the God-Man.  Mary was not the god-woman, the Saints are not god-people. The merit He has as the God-Man absolutely unique to Himself and the only reason that Mary and the Saints are in Heaven is due to His merit in the first place. So, how could they have merit which would add to His merit when they are dependent upon Him to get there in the first place? Mixing merit shows a fundamental heresy regarding the ground of our forgiveness with God. The idea of the Church on Earth, in any fashion, controls this mythical treasury or can dispense its fictional benefits is utterly unknown to any apostolic witness of Scripture. Where does an Apostle teach anything like this?

 And yet another misdirection from White. Again, merits applied from indulgences do NOT "save" anyone, as White has already admitted, they are only applied to those who are already saved.

Indulgences fundamentally deny the purpose of God in conforming believers to the image of Christ in sanctification, (walking through doors, or climbing up stairs on your knees, or attending conferences, in no way mortifies remaining sin or brings one closer to Christ. 

Indulgences, again, are only applied to those who are in the state of Sanctifying Grace, they are "saved," and are being tested, as by fire. (1 Cor. 3:12-15).

We do not grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ by attaining mythical merit via indulgences.

There can be definite growth in grace (God's life in us) and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially if the indulgenced act is something like the pious exercise of the Way of the Cross or reading Scripture with devotion due to God's Word for at least a half an hour. Certainly these are means of increasing "God's life in us" and can be bringing us closer to Christ. So again, White is simply wrong on this.

White accepts and acknowledges apostolic succession and then redefines what it means, He does NOT accept the concept of the succession being the OFFICE of the bishop, which IS the apostolic office each of the Apostles held and passed on to successors.  White states it is "a succession of truth, that is, you stand in the succession of the Apostles when you teach what the Apostles taught." Yes, that IS a "succession of truth," but it is NOT the historical. It is common for the Protestant to deny REAL apostolic succession in the OFFICE of the bishop - because to acknowledge that not only gives tacit consent to valid succession all the way back to the Apostles, but also would mean this OFFICE would also carry with it apostolic authority. 

White jumps from indulgences to justification (yet another misdirection) and brings up Romans and that we have peace in His Grace.  None of these things add to our justification, they do not add to our peace with God, but they do conform us to the image of Christ...  Christ alone died for us... anything which detracts from Christ, anything which puts the focus on us or anyone else misses the New Testament and apostolic teaching. Much more than being justified... by how?  By His blood. He repeats, "By His blood; that is the giving of His life, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."  

And I repeat - indulgences is not about being "saved." Those in Purgatory have already escaped God's wrath! This time of purification (since nothing impure can enter into Heaven [Rev. 21:27]). At this point I am not convinced that White is deliberately misdirecting (maybe he is?) but rather he truly does not understand the concepts of purification in Purgatory or the distinction between forgiveness and the removal of temporal punishments.  Being saved from God's wrath (Hell) and being set free from Purgatory are NOT the same thing - yet White continually confuses the two, as we see next:

White asks, "What are temporal punishments?"  White adds, "I have been justified by His blood and I will be saved from the wrath of God, not just in eternity, but against the wrath of God against sins through Him."  "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son. Are we truly reconciled, or is there a necessity of some sort of further reconciliation? We shall be saved by His life, (no one else's) and not only this but we also exalt in God through Jesus Christ through whom we have now received the reconciliation. We do not need to be seeking some sort of reconciliation through indulgences for the forgiveness of temporal punishments of our sins.

I hope you can see what I am talking about here! White is confusing justification and salvation with indulgences and the removal of temporal punishments due to sin. I feel I need to keep repeating myself - the removal of temporal punishments is NOT justification! The removal of temporal punishments is NOT salvation! Those for whom indulgences might be applied ARE ALREADY JUSTIFIED! Those for whom indulgences might be applied ARE ALREADY SAVED! So again, this is either deliberate misdirection OR White truly does NOT understand the concepts we are discussing here.

You might say, "But does not God discipline us?"  Yes He does, but there is a vast difference between the wrath of God in punishment, temporal punishments for sins and the fatherly chastening of His people. In Hebrews chapter 12, which White then quotes:

"it is for discipline that you endure - not for cleansing so that you can enter into the presence of God. It is for discipline that you endure, God deals with you as with sons, for which son is there which God does not discipline? But if you are without discipline of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers which discipline us and we respected them, shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of Spirits and live? For if they disciplined us for a short time as seen best to them, but He disciplines us for our good so that we might share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterward yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness." 

God chastens us, He chastens us, His people; that is not the same thing as temporal punishments assigned to you by a priest that you must have cleansed from your soul either through your own suffering in Purgatory, your acts of penance on Earth or by the deposit to your account of the foreign mixed merits of Jesus, Mary and the Saints.

And again with the erroneous statement that priests assign temporal punishments. That concept is wholly foreign to the Catholic teaching on indulgences. I would also say that the topic of disciplining us is yet another misdirection. Time spent in Purgatory is not for disciplining so that one might learn a lesson and grow in awe and respect - it is simply a time of purification for those who have already been saved, already been forgiven. 

 

White used to use an example (for another reason) of his Cross Medalist pen, let me use that image for a moment. Let's say I stole White's Cross Medalist pen. Later, I'm feeling a bit guilty and/or sorry for doing this so I go to him and say, "James, I'm sorry I stole your pen." White could then say, "Thank you for coming to me and admitting this, I do forgive you... now one more thing... you need to return the pen to me or reimburse me for the cost of the pen." While White may have forgiven me the offense of stealing his pen, I will not really be welcome in his presence if I have not returned the pen and/or paid him for the cost of that pen. "Truly, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny." [Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59].

How is the justice of God satisfied in me?  Well, what did Paul say in Romans 8:1?  "Therefore there is now no condemnation (for whom?) for those who are in Christ Jesus.  It is union with Christ.  It is His death in my place. It is Him bearing my sins. My receiving His righteousness by God's grace, through faith. That is what satisfies the justice of God.  

And again, White confuses the terms of "condemnation" and "Purgatory." He does not use the word "Purgatory" here, but it is from there that a person is released once they have no more temporal punishment remaining.

God's justice is not satisfied by someone thinking that they are going to be able to be made right before God, that they are going to have the justice of God satisfied in them by attending a conference in Dublin in a few weeks. That does not satisfy the justice of God... and to say that it does, fundamentally, denies what Lord Jesus Christ went through on the Cross of Calvary.  

And again, White confuses the satisfaction of God's justice with Purgatory. Those in Purgatory have ALREADY satisfied His justice and ARE saved.

You want to see what satisfies the justice of God, then see what the Son suffers on Calvary itself. (Quoting the Catechism of Pope Pius X...) "And obtain possession of Heaven sooner and more easily."  I can't obtain the possession of Heaven.  You see the only way that I can believe that I will be in the presence of God is if I am in the ONE who perfectly fulfilled all of God's Law.  The ONE in whom is eternal life. The ONE in whom the wrath of God finds no place. The perfect God-Man, Jesus Christ.  If I am in Him, I have His life and the wrath of God finds no place in me, only - only because I am in Him and He has born that wrath already in His body upon the tree. So I cannot possess Heaven by anything I do in this life.  The Christian message is I flee from all the manmade works and I trust solely in Jesus Christ. That is the only way to possess Heaven.

White repeats this error so many times, I have to repeat my answer! Those in Purgatory ARE saved, but until there is no remnant of impurity (temporal punishments due to sin) they cannot enter Heaven [Rev. 21:27]. Purgatory is NOT "God's wrath!" Purgatory is God's love! THAT is the "possession" which Pope Pius X's catechism refers to.

When we're talking about grace. When we're talking about forgiveness... we're talking about salvation. There is a God-centered way... and then there's a way which says, oh, absolutely necessary, gotta have Him... but... but... there's all this other material that you can claim comes from the Apostles - but I'm going to say, "please show us in meaning means of exegesis of Scripture where the Apostles ever taught any of this."  Since this has to do with the Gospel, we cannot abandon that, we dare not abandon that. Thank you very much for your attention. (James leaves the podium...)

Since we are talking about temporal punishment and indulgences we are NOT talking about forgiveness... we are NOT talking about salvation! White demonstrates here that he either does not know what he's talking about - or he's deliberately deceiving the audience and playing a little shell game - hiding the REAL topic - since he's yet to actually deal with the REAL topic.

34:20 - Then Peter comes to the stand.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0f95nvmfVs

Here is the full debate on YouTube provided through James White's Alpha and Omega Ministries:

(2 hours, 42 minutes)

Click Here to go back to Indulgences Debate Index.

Indulgences Debate Commentary Part 2

OK, we've heard from James White, now at about the 34 minute mark it's Peter Williams' turn. 

Williams opens by thanking everyone for being there and having him there to discuss what he says are crucial topics. Right here I'd like to, respectfully, correct Williams. This is NOT a crucial topic! White is trying to MAKE it a crucial topic by equivocating indulgences to the Gospel - but as we have seen in Part 1 of my response - and as every Catholic who knows his/her Faith should know, if the topic is indulgences it is NOT about salvation and therefore is NOT about the Gospel at all. Williams can win the debate on this point alone.

Williams begins his actual opening statement in explaining what White has defined:
Let's note the nature of the proposition before us... My opponent has proposed this evening that indulgences are a fundamental denial of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To see why he is completely wrong, I think we have to answer two fundamental questions: 1) What are indulgences? and much more basically... 2) What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I propose to answer both and comparing one to the other we'll show why indulgences are fundamentally an affirmation and an application of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Here I will interject - Williams is leaving room for White to continue diverting this debate into something it is not. While indulgences are indeed an affirmation and application of God's love and compassion for us - it is fundamentally NOT the Gospel message and again, I believe Williams could win this debate on THIS fact, alone. He continues...

What is the Gospel, let's start with that. I think that is the most fundamental. (From Greek) euangelion - evangelion those are the fundamental words underneath it, reducible to "good" and "news" - eu meaning "good" and angelion meaning "messenger" from the Old English, Godspell, Good News. Very arguably this is deeply unhelpful however as a translation of euangelion. That we've had lovely weather recently, that was good news. If someone buys me a pint after this debate, that would be good news, certainly. But to describe however, the cosmic, awesome, life changing, Earth shattering, wonderful news of Jesus Christ, to describe that as "good news" is damning by faint praise, a pathetic translation. Rather, "Gospel" is an announcement of victory. In the closer context of the 1st centuries BC and AD... using the documents we have (both secular and religious) it is using the documents we have to denote a specific form of good tiding, it is the announcement of a great victory.  So here's the situation... your city is about to be invaded by an army from a surrounding nation, and your army has gone out to meet them on the battlefield - and you're terrified because if the enemy reaches the city they'll torch everything, the men will be killed, women raped, the children enslaved - it will be disaster - an existential threat to your very existence. And then, a corus, a herald comes along and declares, "The battle is won!" There is no more threat, the invading army has been destroyed... "we're safe."  THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a euangelion. THAT is the kind of thing we're talking about... 37:15... Christians took this word from the surrounding culture and they used it, invested it with new meaning. The Gospel then, the Christian euangelion is the proclamation of a fact. The fact is the victory of Christ is accomplished and the establishment of His Messianic Kingdom. The use of the term "Gospel" then evolved in way it is employed in the early modern period, to not just be the basic announcement of a fact of Christ's redemption - but also whole New Covenant Law, the whole New Covenant itself established by Him and in His Church. But initially, scripturally, it is the announcement of that event of the coming of the kingdom through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

38:30 - Peter goes into a short discussion of the nature of God Himself 

....as the ipse esse subsistence, the Subsistant Being, Himself, the Ground of All Being. God is not "a being" like "a bloke" or a superman, like Thor, God is the Source of All Being, All Goodness, All Perfection. All perfection comes from Him because He IS goodness, He IS perfection. They flow from His nature as God. He is Holy. Since He is the perfect source of goodness all sin is an offense against Him, the Transcendent Creator, and it creates an inequality of justice a debt which has to be satisfied in order for the sinner to enter into communion with Him. If that does not happen, then justice has to be applied...

45:36 - Applying concept to Justification...

The Council of Trent, which is the great council which dealt with Justification and Salvation, more broadly, uses this schema: The Efficient Cause, the Principle Efficient Cause, of our Justification of our Salvation, is the Merciful Blessed Trinity. The Secondary Efficient Cause is grace merited by Christ on the Cross, because it is the propensitory Sacrifice of the Cross which makes satisfaction for us unto the Father and merited Justification. Christ is the SOLE, MERITORIOUS CAUSE. There are instrumental causes, however, that communicate the grace that was bought for us by His Sacrifice. What are those?  Baptism, Confession, our ongoing works as well, these are all INSTRUMENTAL causes. What do I mean by that?  They are means by which we access that which Christ has merited for us. It's a bit like this... I'm a child and I want a shower - who pays the bill for that?  It's my dad. The father has paid the bill for the shower to take place. The efficient cause of my being cleansed would be the water flowing released in the secondary sense, but I have to turn the faucet on. The turning of the faucet on doesn't earn me anything, the turning of the faucet doesn't merit in a strict sense, my shower, but I have to do it otherwise I won't gain the benefits of it. Do you see the difference? Meritorious cause is who pays for it, who merits it; instrumental cause is how you gain the benefits of it.

47:10 - So what are Indulgences?

How is all this relevant?  We've answered what the Gospel is and we've answered what the meritorious cause is. The announcement of Christ's Victory especially for the perfect propitiatory Sacrifice of His Cross, the offering of His Precious Blood. So, how does this affect indulgences? Well, let's just define what they are. We had a decent, faithful definition from Dr. White, now let's see more into it.  Well, indulgences are the remission before God the temporal punishment, temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed going into the certain prescribed conditions for the acts of the Church when as the minister of redemption she dispenses and supplies from the treasury of the merits of Christ and the Saints and note those three things I've emphasized. 1) The temporal punishment; 2) The minister of redemption; 3) The treasury of merit. We're going to go into those.
Temporal punishment v. eternal punishment. The eternal punishment due unto our sins is avoided by our access to the instrumental cause of our justification. The grace merited by the Cross which we gain through Baptism through Faith, in other words through all the Sacraments. Nonetheless, we still suffer temporal punishments for sin, and we see this - there are penalties that we go through, through our lives as part of God's organization of cosmic justice throughout the world. Regardless of our eternal punishment, which thankfully we have avoided, by the Cross in a direct sense, there are still temporal punishments we have to go through, one of which are the penal consequences, the penalties, of Original Sin. Women suffering in childbirth; man working by the sweat of his brow; suffering and death itself. Now, those of you who believe yourself to be forgiven of Original Sin, I imagine it most of you here - certainly everyone who has been baptized. Okay, which of the men who think so do not expect to work by the sweat of their brow? Which of the women who think so, don't expect to, if you haven't already, suffer through childbirth? Who here never expects to experience suffering or physical death? Yeah, I thought so. No one here is a fantacist, that's good. So who here has never suffered any temporal consequences for their sin as well (personal sin)? That's the next bed. We have penal consequences and punishments of personal sin. If I go out and sleep with a prostitute and get an STD, well that's a penal consequence of my sin. If I lie and suffer humiliation when I'm found out, that is a penal consequence of my sin, a temporal consequence of my sin. And we see this, don't we, in Holy Scripture itself. Look for example at Samuel 12, the incidence of King David after King David has killed Uriah the Hittite, and he has stolen his wide, effectively - he has slept with Bathsheba and made her pregnant, committed adultery in other words. He is sorry for his sin, he has repents of his sin, very, very powerfully in fact he's weeping, fasting, he's laying prostrate on the ground for seven days. He is forgiven by God and yet despite his forgiveness he suffers temporal punishment. His temporal punishment is what? The death of the child he has conceived with Bathsheba and rape of his wives, which in a sense is a payback for he did. He killed, so a life for a life. He violates his sexual integrity so his sexual integrity, via his wives, is thereby dealt with as well. This was a redress. That is temporal punishment and we see this collectively as well. The fact that the Israelites did not trust that He would be there ultimately and bring them to the Promised Land, and what does this mean to the Israelites who did this? They had to go round and round in the desert and never see the Promised Land, ultimately. Their lack of patience meant that their impatience that their patience later would never be rewarded.
So, how do we deal with this?  How does this temporal punishment get dealt with? Well, we deal with it through our experience, we deal with it through our everyday sanctification. We also deal with it through what is called Purgatory. Purgatory is a state after death where those who are justified go through any remaining temporal punishment for their sins as part of a final purification. This process is called "satispatsio" as we've seen. "Satis-" meaning enough, satiated in other words and "-patsio" suffering. We know nothing unclean shall enter Heaven. We know that without holiness, no one will see God. Yet, we all die in a state where we're not completely sanctified. No one dies morally perfect. We all have sanctification to go through by the time we go (through death). So Purgatory satisfies the lesser cosmic justice of temporal punishment, but also frees us as well from last remaining impurities and imperfections finishing our sanctification. We see this in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 which describes an eschatological fire which a person, through their works, is tried and rewarded in the good and suffering in the bad when it talks about suffering loss... So it also describes a financial penalty, and punishment elsewhere, other forms of punishment elsewhere in the Septuagint. In the New Testament it is actually used to actually denote eternal punishment. So this is a phrase used not to describe "oh, I've lost out on something," no, it means a penalty you suffer because of the works that are burnt up.
If you want to see the context of this idea of the fire that burns up the wood, the hay and the straw or purifies the good silver and precious stones, look at all the other references that are there within the Holy Scriptures to this idea of the purifying fire. "The crucible is for silver and the furnace is for gold... and the Lord tries hearts," that's Proverbs 17:3. "Purify themselves and be refined," Daniel 12:10. "And I will put this third into the fire and refine them as one refines silver and test them as gold is tested," Zachariah 13:9. "But He is like a refiners fire and like full of soap, He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver until they present right sacrifices to the Lord," (Malachi 3:2-3) and so on and so forth. All of these references to gold and silver, sound familiar? That is exactly the wording used in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. 

53:40 - Williams makes a reference to C.S. Lewis (an Anglican), and also asserts "Even if you're not Catholic, you almost intuit(ively), by virtue of the facts, you realize the way that sanctification works, that sanctification involves suffering..."

."..As Dr. White rightly said when we heard that we have this false dichotomy between temporal punishment and fatherly chastening; there is no distinction between them, they are the same thing. The same God who is Holiness and Justice is the same God who is Love and Mercy. They both happen at the same time.
We see prayers for the dead as an illustration this, 2 Maccabees 12:41-45, but I don't have much time to go into this too much, but the idea there is Judas Maccabees is effectively trying to pray for and offer sacrifice on behalf of Jews who have died. Now, all this really proves is prayers for the dead, it doesn't prove Purgatory and I'm not saying it does, all I'm saying is the idea of praying for the dead, the idea of making sacrifices for the dead was something which was very much believed at the time and to this day all Orthodox Jews pray for the dead. The Mourner's Kaddish is something you pray, as an Orthodox Jew, a year after the death of your loved one, as all ancient Christian churches indeed do. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Catholic Church all pray for the dead. You don't need to pray for those in Heaven; there's no point in praying for those in Hell; so what does that indicate?  It indicates a tertium quid, a third thing, a state whereby our prayers can help those in that state.

Spiritual Solidarity...

55:55 - We don't just help the dead by prayers, but also by spiritual solidarity. We see this in the third century practice of libelli. Libelli was certificates of indulgence which were issued to people in the third century generally in North Africa and Asia Minor in which confessors or martyrs interceded for "the lapsi" - those who had effectively apostacized under the Roman persecution but had come back to repentance. Confessors, that is to say the pastors of these souls, were understood to be petitioning that their own merits should be applied to the lapsi to procure for them the remission of the temporal punishment due to their defection. This was not simply the remission of canonical penance, which is effectively what the Church says as a discipline against you, rather it was believed that it availed before God and remitted the temporal punishment that would otherwise be required after death. If you want to see a discussion of this, go to St. Cyprian's On The Lapsed. 

Beware of Linguistic Anachronism...

56:45 - Now beware of, I've just used the word "merit" and we heard it discussed somewhat in Dr. White's presentation, beware of linguistic anachronism and ambiguity. When we use the term "merit" we don't mean it is earning something. We don't mean, I've already made it very clear, the sole meritorious cause of our salvation is what? Christ and His Precious Blood, it is not us. Strictly speaking, only Christ strictly merits anything, all we do is receive rewards, due rewards. We see this in Romans 2:6, that He will render unto everyone according to his works. In 1 Corinthians 3:5-9 who plants and he who waters is equal and each one shall receive his wages according to his labor. This isn't trying to say that you earn salvation or you earn grace, you can't possibly earn grace, by definition. What it is saying is that our good works are rewarded by a loving Father with further grace, not sanctification.

Analogy of Father and Child...

57:35 - The analogy I'll use is of a father and a child. If a father says to a child, "You know if you do your chores, if you mow the lawn, let's say, I'll take you out to the cinema, or I'll buy you an ice cream or buy you a present or something like that." Now that is the commercial quid pro quo. You don't say, "Alright, I've earned that now, Dad," no Dad could just say, "Do your chores" without any reward whatsoever. But, because of his loving condescension and kindness to his child he gives him a reward. That is what we're talking about. The whole way that Christianity works, the whole way the Church works, the whole way our salvation works - is not as a law culture, is not as a quid pro quo relationship, it's as a loving Father to His children. That's what we're talking about. That's when we talk about merit, when the Church talks about merits, that is what its talking about. In fact, St. Augustine of Hippo, in fact all our works enabled by grace, this is why St. Augustine can say, because all our works that we do are enabled by God's actual graces themselves, the supernatural life that He pours into us to enable us to do this, he says "If then your merits are God's gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits but as His own gifts." So this is not a matter of earning salvation or trusting on something other than Christ or trusting in something other than God, it's about appealing through Christ. That's why St. Philip Neri says, "Never say what great things the Saints do, but what great things God does in His Saints." Again, what are we? We are instrumental causes. We're not meritorious causes; the only meritorious cause is Christ alone.

The Thesaurus Meritorium...

59:10 - There is also the concept we have heard, the thesaurus meritorium is the idea that all the merits that Christ has, all the merits of His Precious Blood, and all the merits that He causes through us are all in this treasury of merit. Now that's absolutely true! Note the difference, however, between the Efficient Cause of it, God, the true strict meritorious cause, this is God the Son, and again the instrumental causes which contribute to it, which is simply us. Simply God pouring His grace through us and meriting His own merits thereby. So a mixture of Christ's merits and those of the Saints, like Mary, because the merits of the Saints are not alien to those of Christ - they ARE the merits of Christ poured into us! You can't merit anything on your own, only in the grace of God can you. The merits of the Saints are the merits of Christ applied in the lives of His Saints. The reason why you can believe in the idea of indulgences is, the application of those merits is because of the power of the keys.

The Power of the Keys...

1:00:05 - The power of the keys is this, in Matthew 16:18-19, St. Peter is promised by Christ the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Now, He says, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God," Jesus answers him, "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven has and I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church and the powers of death (the gates of Hell) shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven." Now this is an allusion back. Anyone who heard these words of our Lord would have known what He was saying. It goes back to Isaiah 22:15-23 where the Lord replaces Shebna as the asher al habayit, that is to say the chap who is over the house, the chief steward of the Davidic Kingdom who is given the key of the House of David (Isaiah 22:22).

This is Hugely Important...

1:00:56 -This is hugely important when we understand why our Lord is making reference to this, Christ as the Messiah, as Mashiac, is also the Davidic King. He has come to fulfill the Davidic prophecies that the establishment of the Davidic Kingdom would happen again. By promising to give to St. Peter the keys to the kingdom our Lord is investing him with a station analogous to that of Eliakim and others who were the al hiakim (sp?), especially of the Messianic significance of the king who was king at the time. King Hezekiah, remember King Hezekiah? Just before he died, he's on his deathbed and he asks God for mercy, and God says, "I've heard thy prayer, I've seen thy tears and behold I've healed thee - ON THE THIRD DAY thou shall go to the Temple of the Lord." Anyone hearing Christ allude to this is going to realize He is making a Messianic reference and he's going to associate Jesus and Peter with Hezekiah and Eliakim. The keys indicate a spiritual authority. Not just the kingdom of Heaven includes the earthly Church as we see from the use of phrase, kingdom of Heaven, by our Lord in parables in Matthew 13 for example, but because the keys referred to in the Book of the Apocalypse refer to keys of death and of Hell and the bottomless pit. That's why the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church - because the Church has the keys to these places. Dr. White might want to say that verses disprove Petrine authority, Christ holds these keys in the book of the Apocalypse and the key to the House of David in Apocalypse 3:7 is said to be held by Him in particularly - but this tells us absolutely nothing. Christ is delegating His authority to St. Peter as the Davidic kings did to their chief stewards. They don't relinquish the keys, they delegate them, besides which the Book of the Apocalypse is eschatological and thereby based on future events when Earth is passing away.

The Nuptial Covenant...

1:02:36 - This is all about the nuptial covenant because the Church is in that nuptial covenant. We heard earlier about the Lamb... "Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb" because the idea of the covenant is a nuptial image. Holy Scripture, especially St. Paul, shows the diatheke, the covenant is not a purely passive inheritance, it's a transactional relationship. It's not unilateral, it's bilateral. It is a relationship, in other words and we see that use in that simile in Ephesians 5.
In the nuptial framework of St. Paul's day the covenant between husband and wife was confirmed. The bride's authority extended to that of a full partnership with the husband in a mutual and all important enterprise of bearing and raising their children and governing the marital household. If the Church is the Bride of Christ she is therefore the Steward of His Merits. The Church is the fully endowed spouse of Christ who has by virtue of her ongoing covenant with Him has the authority to distribute the contents of the marital treasury for the sake of her children, i.e. faithful Christians.

Indulgences are an Imputation of Christ's Merits...

1:03:33 - Indulgences therefore are an imputation of Christ's merits. This is what is so ironic about this, this is the one part Catholic soteriology which actually applies in a Protestant sense, that actually does use the idea of imputation. The imputation of Christ's merits on the basis of concessionis, they are attached to your works. It's not that have value that the works earn God's grace, but rather that God through His grace, through the action of His Church is granting you this imputation. This is to encourage the Christian faithful into holiness. It includes reading the Scriptures for at least a half an hour each day; participating during the week in Christian unity and other such things.

Indulgences Do Not Deny the Gospel, They Are an Application of the Gospel!

1:04:22 - So, this is not as James White states, Grace doled out, it is the (on-tick?) power of supernatural life of God, it is the faithful application of the merits of Christ by Christ's Bride to remit temporal punishments and enables communication of spiritual solidarity between Christians so as to foster holiness and purification of the members of His Body. This is NOT contrary to the Gospel, this is an APPLICATION of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I commend it to you tonight.  Thank you.

As you can see, Part 2 of this debate has Peter D. Williams presenting the Catholic case for indulgences. As one might expect - I believe Peter did an excellent job in this presentation so I have little to add in the way of comments. I would take a moment here though to point out a point I wish Peter had made (maybe he makes it later?) and that is that White has focused so much of his argument on "salvation" and "justification" - and this debate is NOT on those topics! As I pointed out in my responses to Part 1 (James' Opening Statement) indulgences can only be applied to those who ARE saved - those who ARE justified. White is simply barking up a wrong tree when he argues THOSE points in THIS debate.

On to Part 3...

Click Here to go back to Indulgences Debate Index.