C
Catholicdeacon
Guest
Anybody heard the debate today? How was it?
Viva Cristo Rey!!
Catholic Deacon
Viva Cristo Rey!!
Catholic Deacon
- Status
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Where can it be found?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
i didnt know this was going to happen: staples will be debating white at 5:00 central time here:
aomin.org/articles/webcast.html
aomin.org/articles/webcast.html
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Did it anyone else listen to it?
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Here it is!
Tim Staples vs. James White - 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and the Doctrine of Purgatory
You’ll want to allow a minute for the download. Thanks to Alpha & Omega Ministries for hosting this.
In Christ,
Pete
Tim Staples vs. James White - 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and the Doctrine of Purgatory
You’ll want to allow a minute for the download. Thanks to Alpha & Omega Ministries for hosting this.
In Christ,
Pete
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I didn’t think apologists were giving White any more attention. He’s proven to be a polemics driver rather than a serious apologist.
K
kotek
Guest
I listened to the debate and it wasn’t pretty for Tim Staples, Dr. White cleaned his clock and handed his head to him on a platter.
The irony is that Dr. White clearly and accurately exegeted the text in question and his exegesis of the text was pretty much the same conclusion and exegesis that most if not all Roman Catholic Biblical scholars come to as well.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I haven’t listened to the debate yet, but based on the subject matter----you are claiming most Catholic Biblical scholars deny Purgatory in which passages?
M
Mickey
Guest
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
This debate is centered on 1 Cor 3:15, which I personally don’t like because that alone is not a complete picture for why Purgatory is completely Biblical, but anyway…
I listened to most of White’s opening statement (that is until he went on his “Catholic apologists” and the Catholic Church are hypocrites rant toward the end, which is par for the course for this polemicist). But here’s a part I’d like to address. White states:*Now the opposite of the reception of reward is to suffer loss. The Greek term that Paul uses is zhmiwyhsetai (my note, I think he completely mispronounced this) is translated by the vast majority of recognized translations as “suffer loss” and there is a reason for this. Despite the fact that you can render the term as “punish” it’s normative meaning, especially in the New Testament is to experiencing the opposite of gain, that is, loss. *He insists that the passage makes no allusion to a person being purified, but rather that a person just won’t get some reward. He talks very fast and often speaks incoherently (like when earlier he tried to identify the “verb” in 3:13 for “the fire” which isn’t a verb) and it makes him hard to follow. I would posit that he was reading his statements.
Anyway, White goes on to deny that purification is a sense in this text because of this word zhmiwyhsetai, which in Phi 3:8, and the same paraphrase from Lk 9:25, Mt 16:26, Mk 8:26 seems to mean the deprivation of a reward. However, in 2 Cor 7:9 it clearly refers to damage, and Strong’s dictionary defines the word as “to affect with damage, do damage to…to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss.” What White has the most trouble grasping is the nature of fire. Is a person inflicted with fire simply being deprived of a reward? It’s almost too stupid to translate the passage that way, but White does. He also at this point in the debate at least doesn’t seem to get the refining purifying nature of the metaphor of the concept of smelting. Smelting is where gold or silver is burnt up and the other impure substances are destroyed. In other words, the gold and silver are purified, which is exactly what Purgatory is. This concept of smelting is even seen in the Old Testament in Zechariah 13:9 which reads: “I will refine them like silver and test them like gold.” The concept is refinement, which Paul uses as his metaphor. White completely denies refinement has anything to do with 1 Cor 3. His selective rules for translating a particular Greek word has blinded him to the larger context of the entire metaphor, which is the purification of gold and silver, and that the person himself goes through the fire.
I am partly impressed by the complex gymnastics White chooses to do to come up with an anti-purification understanding of 1 Cor 3, but at the end of the day, it just shows how hard he is trying to look for an anti-Catholic interpretation in the text.
And life goes on…
I listened to most of White’s opening statement (that is until he went on his “Catholic apologists” and the Catholic Church are hypocrites rant toward the end, which is par for the course for this polemicist). But here’s a part I’d like to address. White states:*Now the opposite of the reception of reward is to suffer loss. The Greek term that Paul uses is zhmiwyhsetai (my note, I think he completely mispronounced this) is translated by the vast majority of recognized translations as “suffer loss” and there is a reason for this. Despite the fact that you can render the term as “punish” it’s normative meaning, especially in the New Testament is to experiencing the opposite of gain, that is, loss. *He insists that the passage makes no allusion to a person being purified, but rather that a person just won’t get some reward. He talks very fast and often speaks incoherently (like when earlier he tried to identify the “verb” in 3:13 for “the fire” which isn’t a verb) and it makes him hard to follow. I would posit that he was reading his statements.
Anyway, White goes on to deny that purification is a sense in this text because of this word zhmiwyhsetai, which in Phi 3:8, and the same paraphrase from Lk 9:25, Mt 16:26, Mk 8:26 seems to mean the deprivation of a reward. However, in 2 Cor 7:9 it clearly refers to damage, and Strong’s dictionary defines the word as “to affect with damage, do damage to…to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss.” What White has the most trouble grasping is the nature of fire. Is a person inflicted with fire simply being deprived of a reward? It’s almost too stupid to translate the passage that way, but White does. He also at this point in the debate at least doesn’t seem to get the refining purifying nature of the metaphor of the concept of smelting. Smelting is where gold or silver is burnt up and the other impure substances are destroyed. In other words, the gold and silver are purified, which is exactly what Purgatory is. This concept of smelting is even seen in the Old Testament in Zechariah 13:9 which reads: “I will refine them like silver and test them like gold.” The concept is refinement, which Paul uses as his metaphor. White completely denies refinement has anything to do with 1 Cor 3. His selective rules for translating a particular Greek word has blinded him to the larger context of the entire metaphor, which is the purification of gold and silver, and that the person himself goes through the fire.
I am partly impressed by the complex gymnastics White chooses to do to come up with an anti-purification understanding of 1 Cor 3, but at the end of the day, it just shows how hard he is trying to look for an anti-Catholic interpretation in the text.
And life goes on…
D
DaMooksta
Guest
this is terrible!! I always use this text to show the biblical references of purgatory and Staples was just destroyed by a baptist on this verse…
whats next?? scott hahn is going to get refuted on Matt 16:13-18 which is our biblical foundation on the Papacy…
sigh…now what?
whats next?? scott hahn is going to get refuted on Matt 16:13-18 which is our biblical foundation on the Papacy…
sigh…now what?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Now, you need to take a deep breath or two.
Debates are not usually about the strength of the arguments but about the strength of the debaters.
I haven’t listened to the debate yet, but White is a professional, and Staples has never impressed me in this regard. He’s a really nice guy with a great conversion story who delivers prepared talks well. However, I’m not convinced that Tim is in the same league with Sungenis, Matatics or Madrid - all of whom have destroyed White one on one.
Again, I haven’t listened yet, but if Staples lost, I have to say it doesn’t surprise me…I had a bad feeling when I saw the announcement.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Is White really going to debate Scott Hahn?
If so, when?
Also, I don’t think Staples did that bad. The whole debate was on that ONE verse… and one of my favorite parts of the debate was when Staples asked White if he could provide a historical reference as to when the doctrine of purgatory was changed. All he gave was some rant on indulgences (which, when he brought it up, had to do with a certain practice); he couldn’t provide anything as to when the doctrine was changed or invented…
And if purgatory is not true or was not believed by the early Christians, we should expect to find objections to the belief, but we do not.
H
Hubriss
Guest
As an outsider (non-christian) and someone who has spoken with Staples before on matters of religion, here are some of my impressions.
I had the passage they were talking about up the whole time trying to follow them. I gotta say, apologists know their bible. They can refer to passages to each other and the other guy would say “Oh yeah, when Jesus said this, this and this.”
About the debate. First, White was the moderator of the debate, which he was in, so he had the most talking time and the clearest voice since it was on his show that he hosts, so there it might be said that he had a slight personal advantage. Though I can say that White did very well self-moderating. It might have seemed to his advantage that Staples was incompetent or something when White had to interrupt him for going over time and basically force him to stop talking, but Staples responded somewhat well to those occurrences. White did speak quite fast sometimes, but not incoherently. He also didn’t handle it well when people asked questions which he thought he covered in his opening statement.
Staples by the end of it resorted some to attacks on White’s person instead of focusing on the actual issue more, which isn’t surprising to me.
Now, the issues… I’ll try to remember the debate as best as I can. To me it seemed like much of it came down to what “suffer loss” actually means.
I guess I’ll pick on MarcoPolo and his giant gymnast paragraph above. “Suffer loss” if correctly translated (know nothing about that) clearly means what it says: they will lose something, and it will be a negative loss because losing it will cause them to suffer. You don’t suffer the loss of a sickness or impediment or something negative. The only time you suffer when you lose something is when you lose something good that you wanted. It does not necessarily mean the person is losing out on the reward, but there does not seem to be anything left that they could lose, since the context would be the Day of the Lord (the apocalypse) and all worldly things would not matter.
This passage is clearly referring to peoples’ works and how they build up each person’s metaphorical temple spirit which God dwells. To me at least, it clearly does not refer to any kind of purifying, or references to destroying the negative qualities of a person’s temple. It has nothing to do with any smelting metaphor because he says you can build on a temple with “gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw.” You don’t smelt costly stones, wood, hay or straw. It follows the building metaphor, yet there is a mixing also of worldly perception. You do not build with gold or silver normally, yet they are precious earthly metals that shine. So the reason that all these materials are listed seems to be a metaphor for the perception or showing of good works of people by people. Like when Jesus said that the poor woman who gave two coins gave far more than any rich man who gave more because she gave proportionately more of what she had. The metaphorical materials used to build refer to the peoples’ value of the works, and not God’s.
(Breaking into paragraphs) The “fire” will reveal the buildings/works for what they actually are. This seems to imply that works that have the appearance of gold or straw may actually have the same quality. The “fire” is just a scrutiny of the works which “shows them for what they are” and does not refer to any punishment inflicted on the actual person’s soul which purgatory is supposedly supposed to do. This is highlighted in line 15 where it says that if a person’s house does not withstand the scrutiny, he will still be saved (from hell I’m guessing), yet he will be as one escaping through the flames. The words “escaping” and “through” imply that the fire does not actually harm or punish the person, nor purify.
To me it seemed like Staples had to do a lot of gymnastics to pull references from other passages in which words might have contextually meant one thing, and tried to use that contextual meaning in the context in this passage, while refusing to think of or ignoring the separate context that this passage has by itself. White pointed this out a couple of times and I would have to agree with him, in terms of interpreting it from a faithful Christian perspective. To conclude the existence of an extra “state of being” as Staples said purgatory was, you’d have to do a lot of… fancy footwork.
It was funny at the end. White reminded Staples that he could invite him to debate on Catholic Answers, which Staples will probably NEVER do because it will appear to legitimize White, and there are likely lots of protestants who’d like to be on a Catholic radio show. Plus there is an advantage in terms of target audience for debating in your opponent’s realm. If you lose, not many on your side hear you, yet if you’re able, you can impress some on your opponent’s.
I had the passage they were talking about up the whole time trying to follow them. I gotta say, apologists know their bible. They can refer to passages to each other and the other guy would say “Oh yeah, when Jesus said this, this and this.”
About the debate. First, White was the moderator of the debate, which he was in, so he had the most talking time and the clearest voice since it was on his show that he hosts, so there it might be said that he had a slight personal advantage. Though I can say that White did very well self-moderating. It might have seemed to his advantage that Staples was incompetent or something when White had to interrupt him for going over time and basically force him to stop talking, but Staples responded somewhat well to those occurrences. White did speak quite fast sometimes, but not incoherently. He also didn’t handle it well when people asked questions which he thought he covered in his opening statement.
Staples by the end of it resorted some to attacks on White’s person instead of focusing on the actual issue more, which isn’t surprising to me.
Now, the issues… I’ll try to remember the debate as best as I can. To me it seemed like much of it came down to what “suffer loss” actually means.
I guess I’ll pick on MarcoPolo and his giant gymnast paragraph above. “Suffer loss” if correctly translated (know nothing about that) clearly means what it says: they will lose something, and it will be a negative loss because losing it will cause them to suffer. You don’t suffer the loss of a sickness or impediment or something negative. The only time you suffer when you lose something is when you lose something good that you wanted. It does not necessarily mean the person is losing out on the reward, but there does not seem to be anything left that they could lose, since the context would be the Day of the Lord (the apocalypse) and all worldly things would not matter.
This passage is clearly referring to peoples’ works and how they build up each person’s metaphorical temple spirit which God dwells. To me at least, it clearly does not refer to any kind of purifying, or references to destroying the negative qualities of a person’s temple. It has nothing to do with any smelting metaphor because he says you can build on a temple with “gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw.” You don’t smelt costly stones, wood, hay or straw. It follows the building metaphor, yet there is a mixing also of worldly perception. You do not build with gold or silver normally, yet they are precious earthly metals that shine. So the reason that all these materials are listed seems to be a metaphor for the perception or showing of good works of people by people. Like when Jesus said that the poor woman who gave two coins gave far more than any rich man who gave more because she gave proportionately more of what she had. The metaphorical materials used to build refer to the peoples’ value of the works, and not God’s.
(Breaking into paragraphs) The “fire” will reveal the buildings/works for what they actually are. This seems to imply that works that have the appearance of gold or straw may actually have the same quality. The “fire” is just a scrutiny of the works which “shows them for what they are” and does not refer to any punishment inflicted on the actual person’s soul which purgatory is supposedly supposed to do. This is highlighted in line 15 where it says that if a person’s house does not withstand the scrutiny, he will still be saved (from hell I’m guessing), yet he will be as one escaping through the flames. The words “escaping” and “through” imply that the fire does not actually harm or punish the person, nor purify.
To me it seemed like Staples had to do a lot of gymnastics to pull references from other passages in which words might have contextually meant one thing, and tried to use that contextual meaning in the context in this passage, while refusing to think of or ignoring the separate context that this passage has by itself. White pointed this out a couple of times and I would have to agree with him, in terms of interpreting it from a faithful Christian perspective. To conclude the existence of an extra “state of being” as Staples said purgatory was, you’d have to do a lot of… fancy footwork.
It was funny at the end. White reminded Staples that he could invite him to debate on Catholic Answers, which Staples will probably NEVER do because it will appear to legitimize White, and there are likely lots of protestants who’d like to be on a Catholic radio show. Plus there is an advantage in terms of target audience for debating in your opponent’s realm. If you lose, not many on your side hear you, yet if you’re able, you can impress some on your opponent’s.
J
jericho777
Guest
Very true that’s why I’m not a fan of debates. You are throwing Mr Staples under the bus with his lack of ability. However if you felt your guy won I think your tone might be a little different.Now, you need to take a deep breath or two.
Debates are not usually about the strength of the arguments but about the strength of the debaters.
I haven’t listened to the debate yet, but White is a professional, and Staples has never impressed me in this regard. He’s a really nice guy with a great conversion story who delivers prepared talks well. However, I’m not convinced that Tim is in the same league with Sungenis, Matatics or Madrid - all of whom have destroyed White one on one.
Again, I haven’t listened yet, but if Staples lost, I have to say it doesn’t surprise me…I had a bad feeling when I saw the announcement.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I disagree. This doesn’t address my larger point of fire used as the analogy at all specifically with the materials of gold or silver, or that the person himself is said to pass through the fire. As Tim said earlier in the debate, White tries to separate the person from the works, when Paul’s passage certainly does not, culminating with the person being saved “through fire.” I also pointed out how in the NT, “suffer loss” means “no reward” in 1 other Pauline passage. In the other Pauline passage, also to the Corinthians no less, it refers to damage or harm (2 Cor 7:9). I think your final implication above does not do justice to this or the rest of my post.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I think the following goes along well with what you’re saying
Now, we remember that in the background to 1 Cor. 3, we see that Paul is talking about some doing bad works which are sins (the very verses brought up earlier,). In fact, much of the Corinthians letter is Paul complaining about the sins of the Corinthians. Thus, he is not merely speaking about greater rewards in heaven for good works, and just less rewards if you have bad works. Because bad works are sins, and according to the passage, must be judged by God. You can not separate this background from verses 14-15 and verses 16-17. Here, Paul is speaking about the day of judgment which tests each man’s work. And here, he is not speaking about merely giving rewards to Christians, but judgment for sins. Now, in v. 14 what do we see? Those who have built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and have co-labored successfully get their reward. And what is the reward? Entrance into heaven. But also rewards for their faithfulness. Now what do we see in v. 15? His works are burnt up. What works? Sins, which are bad works. He suffers loss, the word, with the background can be interpreted ‘punished.’ What is the difference between the people in v. 14 and the people in v. 15. The people in v. 14, who were so obedient (with gold, stone and silver) that they did not have to suffer loss, or punishment, and went straight to heaven. Why do I say that? Look further in v. 15. it says he will be saved, as through fire. Now, not being a Catholic Scholar who knows Greek, let us look at the word sometimes translated ‘suffer loss’. Robert Sungenis writes this:
The Catholic exegesis of 1 Cor 3:15 is further supported by Paul’s use of the Greek word zemiothesetai (translated as “suffer loss” in many translations).** Its verbal root zemioo, has a wider meaning than merely suffering loss. It can also refer to punishment. Hence, there is a component of punishment associated with the word that is not brought out in most translations. Interestingly enough, in the Septuagint, zemioo is used only in reference to punishment. Since Catholic doctrine understands purgatory as a place to expiate temporal punishment for sin, then the lexical meaning of zemiothesetai which refers to suffering punishment fits in very well with classical Catholic teaching on 1 Cor 3:15. **The Christian will suffer punishment for his bad works. It should also be noted that the Greek word “houtos” (“yet so”) in 1 Cor 3:15 is an adverb modifying the verb “sotheesetai” (“shall be saved”) and points to how the man is saved, i.e., by fire. “Houtos” can best be translated as “likewise,” “similarly,” “just as,” “in the same way,” “even so,” “in the same manner,” etc. These words are comparative. In context, compare the fire of verse 13 with the fire of verse 15. Hence, Paul is saying that in the same way that God’s fire will purge any dross or foreign material from the work accomplished (verse 13), similarly, the fire will purge the man himself of any imperfections (verse 15). The Scriptures use two images of God’s fire. One is a refining fire which makes good material better by purging out impurities (e.g., Malachi 3:2-3; 1 Peter 1:7); the other is a consuming fire that totally destroys the object in view (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 12:29). Those who suffer temporal punishment for sin, either in this life or in purgatory, do so under God’s refining fire. On the other hand, those destined for eternal damnation suffer God’s destroying fire. Catholic theology holds that these respective judgments occur for the individual immediately after death. It is referred to as the “particular” judgment. At the final judgment, one’s eternal destiny is finally sealed. From net2.netacc.net/~mafg/prgtry01.htm
Thus, the language pointed to here in v. 15, points to punishment. Now, some will say that it is the work that is burned, not him. Thus, it is only figuratively speaking about works. However, as Sungenis, notes, this does refer to the person, as well. Protestants will generally try to say that this has nothing to do with punishment for sins. That one will be ‘barely saved’, but this is only a reward for good works. If one has works that are bad, they are not sins, according to this view. There is no such distinction in Scripture for that theory in any way, shape or form that bad works are not sins. 1 Corinthians 3 shows that there is punishment for sins in judgment. Some are punished eternally by being destroyed by God (v. 17), others do get refined, where they are purged of iniquity (v. 15), which is purgatory, so they could join those whose works were pure gold, silver & stone (v. 14).
source matt1618.freeyellow.com/purgatory.html
G
Gatecrasher
Guest
In any case, you SHOULD be a fan of debates because that’s one of the reasons why God allows heresies to arise…“so that the one who is approved may be made ,manifest”Very true that’s why I’m not a fan of debates. You are throwing Mr Staples under the bus with his lack of ability. However if you felt your guy won I think your tone might be a little different.
(1 Cor 11:19).
BTW, how do you add your own avatar on this site? I’ve looked all over and the closest thing I see is how to edit it, but nothing on how to add your own.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I clearly stated that I have not actually listened to the debate, yet. Therefore, my tone is based on listening to MANY debates “featuring” James White. White is good at debating, but that does not mean that his points are the reason he “wins” or “loses”. He has a quick mind, he is articulate, and he prepares extremely well for these events. In contrast, folks like Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Gary Michuta have not been well-prepared for the aggressive, rapid-fire assault that White launched at them. They are more “academic” and slower (read - too polite) in their responses and have been overwhelmed by White’s relentless questions and comments.Very true that’s why I’m not a fan of debates. You are throwing Mr Staples under the bus with his lack of ability. However if you felt your guy won I think your tone might be a little different.
Conversely, White has been demolished by Madrid, Sungenis and Matatics precisely because they were equally nimble, just as tough and persistent, and they have the advantage of 2,000 years of Catholic truth on their side.
My opinion is that if you want to know the truth of something, get it in writing and take your time analyzing what you read. Judging complex issues based upon what is said into a microphone with a timer running is not good idea.
G
Gatecrasher
Guest
Briefly, puragtory is unnecessary and a slap in the face to the cross-work of Christ.
The Bible says to “put on” the Lord Jesus Christ, as He will be the one to give us “the robe of righteousness”, otherwise known as the wedding garment that was to be supplied by the Host (Matt 22). If we come in wearing our own filthy garments, we will be thrown out, as Christ explained. He is therefore to be called, “The Lord OUR righteousness” (Jer 23:6). This is foreshadowed in Exodus 28:36-38 by the plate of pure gold (typifying the righteousness of Christ) which was put on Aaron’s “hat” engraved with “Holiness to the Lord” so that, “Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things [which are offered by the people] so that they may be accepted.” God sees the “iniquity even of the holy things”, but we are safe within the robe of Christ’s righteousness, showing the pristine obedience He rendered of more value than all the obediences and works of men put together. “I will make mention of thy righteousness, even of thine ONLY.” (Ps 71:16).
“Doctor” of the RCC, Ludwig Ott explains that, “the temporal punishments for sins are atoned for in the purifying fire by the so-called suffering of atonement (satispassio), that is, by the willing bearing of the expiatory punishments imposed by God.”
(Fundamentals of C Dogma", p. 485).
We are immediately offended by this doctrine because sin is said to purged ----NOT by the solitary granduer of the work of Christ—but by the offender’s OWN SUFFERING (i.e. “suffering of atonement”). It is not then, by the suffering of Christ, but by the individual, and hence, Bible believing Christians cannot be friends with Roman Catholic theology.
Count on it. Jesus is our “purgatory”, since it was He who by Himself, “PURGED our sins” (Heb 1:3).
- Status