Protestant theologians can say exactly the same thing about you, so your comment is worthless.I didn’t think apologists were giving White any more attention. He’s proven to be a polemics driver rather than a serious apologist.
And anyone, such as Mr. Staples, who could say the following, needs to go back to Bible 101.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.
I know you did not listen to the debate. I was just commenting on your lack of confidence in Mr Staples. But if he was any good according to you you might have shown a littlt more enthusiasm for debates in general.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.
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.
I agree with what Randy said. I don’t think debates are a good way to judge the truth. They are a sign of a specific personality, not of truth. Rather, if someone wants to know the depths of a system of thought they should read the theology. If you want to know Catholicism then read P. Benedicts books or Cardinal Newman. Read the saints. Similarly, if I wanted to know protestantism I would read Luther or Calvin or any other big protestant theologian. If you want to compare them then read them both.I know you did not listen to the debate. I was just commenting on your lack of confidence in Mr Staples. But if he was any good according to you you might have shown a littlt more enthusiasm for debates in general.
Incorrect.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).
I am more and more amazed at how Christians try to bend and twist the words of their own Bible to come to conclusions that they desire. In your 2 Cor 7:9, it does not say anything about suffering loss, only being sorrowful or grieving. Maybe the original script used the same word that was used in 1 Cor 3, but no English translation I can find says “suffer loss” at all in that passage, which means translators thought it meant something different.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.
The agreed-upon time frames were rigidly adhered to. This can be confirmed by downloading the MP3 and marking the time elapsed indicator. The only sense in which White had the “most talking time” was that he made non-timed comments updating listeners about what timed part of the debate they were about to hear.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.
I had already agreed with randy in my first post that debates were not the way to go.I agree with what Randy said. I don’t think debates are a good way to judge the truth. They are a sign of a specific personality, not of truth. Rather, if someone wants to know the depths of a system of thought they should read the theology. If you want to know Catholicism then read P. Benedicts books or Cardinal Newman. Read the saints. Similarly, if I wanted to know protestantism I would read Luther or Calvin or any other big protestant theologian. If you want to compare them then read them both.
Excuse me, but if you really believe that Jesus paid the WHOLE price for our sanctification (initial and final), why then is there need for a TREASURY OF MERIT???Incorrect.
His sufferings paid the price for us to be sanctified, and his sufferings paid the price for the whole of our sanctification – both the initial and final parts. Thus it is because of Christ’s sacrifice that we receive the final sanctification in the first place! If he had not suffered, we would not be given the final sanctification (or the glorification to which it leads), but would go straight to hell. Thus purgatory does not imply Christ’s sufferings were insufficient; rather it is because of Christ’s sufferings that we are given the final sanctification of purgatory in the first place!
MarcoPolo,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…
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…
Because contrary to White’s allusion, his understanding of “suffer loss” is not the end-all meaning of the Greek word, which was part of my point.no English translation I can find says “suffer loss” at all in that passage
James White is free to post here any time of day.Marco Polo,
Dr. White hosts the Dividing Line broadcast Tuesday Morning at 11:00am MST. The upcoming broadcast (2/2) will be addressing some of your concerns over New Testament Greek. You can tune in live here.
Dr. White also invites you to call during the broadcast, it’s a toll free number.
Regards,
James Swan
I have no idea what debate you listened to; I have listened for the second time the recent debate between James White and Tim Staples and I was more than happy with Tim’s performance. Tim won the debate by a run-away margin. While White boasted of this infallible reading of the text, he failed to show how the passage was principally a reference to what kind of motives were involved in the work of Christian ministers. Tim explicated Catholic teaching on purgatory as best as any Catholic can do; James White expressed his opinion on what the passage means and there lies the major problem. We need more of Tim Staples. He is a worthy Catholic apologistI 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.
I’ll repeat what I wrote before:I have no idea what debate you listened to; I have listened for the second time the recent debate between James White and Tim Staples and I was more than happy with Tim’s performance. Tim won the debate by a run-away margin. While White boasted of this infallible reading of the text, he failed to show how the passage was principally a reference to what kind of motives were involved in the work of Christian ministers. Tim explicated Catholic teaching on purgatory as best as any Catholic can do; James White expressed his opinion on what the passage means and there lies the major problem. We need more of Tim Staples. He is a worthy Catholic apologist
I suggest that you might go up to the catholic data on this board… and “search” forAnd anyone, such as Mr. Staples, who could say the following, needs to go back to Bible 101.
“Jesus didn’t suffer and die so that we don’t have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific.” (Tape set, “God’s Perfect Plan: Purgatory & Indulgences Explained”).
I would tend to agree on the fact that Tim Staples did really well and got across some excellent points. There is no way in my opinion that Tim Staples did badly, he held his ground. I have said that it was at least a draw in my previous comment. But would not argue with anyone saying Tim won. James White did ok as well, but usually does quite well in debate against Catholic apologists. The debates were JW lost against Catholics were usually the ones on Sola Scriptura and most of the ones he has done with Sungenis.I have no idea what debate you listened to; I have listened for the second time the recent debate between James White and Tim Staples and I was more than happy with Tim’s performance. Tim won the debate by a run-away margin. While White boasted of this infallible reading of the text, he failed to show how the passage was principally a reference to what kind of motives were involved in the work of Christian ministers. Tim explicated Catholic teaching on purgatory as best as any Catholic can do; James White expressed his opinion on what the passage means and there lies the major problem. We need more of Tim Staples. He is a worthy Catholic apologist
Don’t make 1 text alone the entire reason for a belief. The Church doesn’t.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…
Again, don’t make 1 text alone the height and summit of a belief. The Church doesn’t do that.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?
Here’s the passageI 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.