Staples White debate on Purgatory

[Catholicdeacon]

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

Dear Mr Swan,

It is a real shame we are forced to interact with Mr. White just twice a week at a specific time. (Or that he has to interact with the members of this forum by proxi and not personaly). You see some of us are in diferent time zones and our job schedule does not allow for calls at these times. Some of us do not feel comfortable in a “call in program” setting, some of us might even have speach impediments… there are a number of reasons why writen text is more preferable than just calling in. I think it could be of a great advantage to the members of this forum and to Mr White’s mistry if he were to bend his rules of “Just call my podcast” just this one time. This could even open new avenues for potencial future debates. I ask you to please forward this request to him.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Deacon Harbey Santiago

 

[Redrum]

Here’s the passage

1 Cor 3:

12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13* each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation*** survives, he will receive a reward***. 15* If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though*** he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.***

Since you listened to the debate and are in agreement with White,

could you briefly give White’s exegetical understanding on the following words used in that scripture example?

• the Day
• fire (that destroys some things but not other things. what kind of process does this describe)
• receive a reward
• suffer loss
• will be saved,
• but only as going through this fire. (some translations say escape through fire)

How does he exegete these thoughts

I think we all need to remember that this is an analogy here from the very beginning when Paul says he is “**like **a skilled master builder…”. and if you push an analogy too far you can and will come up with all kinds of weird stuff.

 

[Redrum]

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.

Even if the word does mean inflict damage or burn up, isn’t the whole point or argument here that it’s directed at the faulty Christian work? Not at the person? (The work will become manifest, revealed and tested by fire, etc… If the work survives, if the work is burned up… though he himself will be saved.) Maybe my mind is too simple but it seems Paul is saying that a work dependent upon the wrong source is like perishable materials when you pass them through a fire. Then at the end he says the person will be saved but, but only as through fire. In other words if he passes through fire with straw, but he himself is saved, he now has a small cup of jack squat.

And so I now feel like we’re arguing over the three little pigs here and whether the big bad wolf’s breath also purified the piggies in the process. The point of the analogy is the houses were made with the wrong material.

 

[Monte1945]

Even if the word does mean inflict damage or burn up, isn’t the whole point or argument here that it’s directed at the faulty Christian work? Not at the person? (The work will become manifest, revealed and tested by fire, etc… If the work survives, if the work is burned up… though he himself will be saved.)

Yes, I agree, (but through my logically opinion) I have always felt the scripture was an attempt of a person attempting to describe a truth of God through his language.

This whole idea is very difficuilt to even attempt to comprehend than to try and describe logically through “reason” alone… But since we only have reason to work with we have to do the best we can with what we have to do it with.

There exists many lenghty responses from the Catholic theologians who have attempted to deal with the subject of Pergatory. Some say it is a “place” others say it is only a
“process”. Some say it happens while we are in our spiritual mode and others say it
is when we are reserrected from the dead back into our physical bodies.
There were many other issues the Catholic Church had to deal with regarding this
subject. Especially from the churches of the Reformation periods. (Germany, England and France)

There is an interesting history to this doctrine of the church… and I found it well worth reading and studying. But I won’t go into all of those layers of discussions the church had to contend with but I will write what the Catholic Church has concluded so far…

This is quoted from the book of: “Catholicism” by Richard McBrian which is a book used by seminarians for study of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith.

For Pugatory it states:

Pugatory is best understood as a "process by which we are purged of ouir residual selfishness so that we can really become one with God. It is that part of that larger process which we are called out of nothingness into existence, from existence to
to selfhood, or responsable human existence, from responsable human existence
to Christian existence and from Christian existence to full and final incoroperation into God.

The kind of suffering associated with purgatory, is not suffering which is inflicted upon us from the outside as a punishment for sin, but the intrinsic pain that we all feel when we are asked to surrender our ego centered self so that the God-centered self may take its place. It is part of the process which we are called to die and rise with Christ.
(Unquote)

 

[Apologist78]

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?

Catholic Answers has never been able to effectively deal with White, which is I can only guess why they avoid taking him on. Madrid got trounced on the subject of Scriptura Sola. Pacqua got trounced on the subject of the Papacy and Scriptura Sola. Stravinskus got trounced on the subject of Purgatory. Sungenis (not a part of Catholic Answers) has faired only slightly better. Matitics got trounced on the subject of Scriptura Sola. White knows his stuff, and White knows the art of debate. Catholic Answers is from what I can tell not geared towards a more scholarly defense of the Faith, but rather only broad and general defenses. In other words for those who are more versed in the Faith, and the polemics between Catholics and Protestants, this website is not for them. I met Staples at a parish and I pointed this out in a more polite way-- to which he resonded “White is a liar, and Karl Keating doesn’t want to keep giving him a platform.” At that point I knew Stales didn’t get what I was saying and so I dropped it.

If White is indeed a liar (which I don’t believe) then it is up to Catholic Answers to show where he is lying. Actually I find White to be very scholarly, and while I do not reach his conclusions, or agree with him I have to give him credit for a fair and honest researched critique of the Catholic Faith. I can tell you, I know my stuff theologically, and I would not want to go up against White. White is like a Chess player— he is always ten steps ahead of you at any given time.

This website is more for those who are just looking to get started in apoligetics, and it introduces them to the very basics. I myself would like Catholic Answers to become more high powered, and answer White, but that is not currently their market. I can tell you this: If I ever hit the lottery a few of the things I would do:

1. Have the works of Robert Bellarmine’s Disputations and Stapleton’s works translated into English. While Whitaker wrote a reply to those works, they still remain the most effective Catholic apologetic works against the Protestant heretics known. Francis DeSales also wrote a small work.
2. Hire the best and brightest Catholic Theologian or theologians to sit down and write up a reply to William Whitaker, George Salmon, William Goode, Lightfoot, Chillingworth, etc. Today, theologians have no interest in the above, becasue theology is not geared towards polemics anymore.
3. White simply parrots these authors in his own works and debates. Consequently to know and understand the above authors is to know and understand White. To refute the above authors is to refute White. Catholic answers dosen’t seem to get that. Actually Salmon simply parrots the old Gallican arguments and debates. Thus, to be familiar with the Gallican debates and the replies to the Gallican bishops, one already has a leg up on Salmon. You know what they say “There is nothing new under the Sun.”

All this being said, part of the problem in any Catholic/Protestant polemics is differences in theological and spiritual methdologies. Protestant Theology and Spirituality is masculine in emphasis. Consequently any other meanings to Scripture beyond what the literal meaning is, and what historical exegetical methods can surmize is simply ignored. This is the weakness with White. There is on his part an over reliance on the historical exegetical method of Scripture Scholarship and thus he lacks the ability to see more broadly when he reads Scripture. This problem plagues modern Catholic Scripture scholarship as well, even the orthodox ones.

Catholocism by contrast is more feminine. This make sense becasue the essence of the Church is feminine. Consequently there is an ability to view the Scriptures more broadly and not narrow the Scriptures down and limit them to their historical context. The Church transcends time, thus the Scriptures being a product of the Faith the Church professes also transcend time. Meanings while founded on the literal can be varying and broad depending on the contraversies the Church is facing at a given time.

 

[steve_b]

I think we all need to remember that this is an analogy here from the very beginning when Paul says he is “**like **a skilled master builder…”. and if you push an analogy too far you can and will come up with all kinds of weird stuff.

You weaken the meaning of analogy.

Analogies when done correctly (as Paul would do ) produce

• clarity and understanding
• resemblance in the comparison communicates truth
• likeness in its reality
• comparison corresponds to type and form of the actual reality

Paul begins Ch 3 with

:

1: But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. 2* I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh

He brings his teaching down to their level. That doesn’t mean he is telling them any untruths or weird stuff.

I’m interested in how White exegetes the words I highlighted.

 

[Redrum]

You weaken the meaning of analogy.

Analogies when done correctly (as Paul would do ) produce

• clarity and understanding
• resemblance in the comparison communicates truth
• likeness in its reality
• comparison corresponds to type and form of the actual reality

Paul begins Ch 3 with

He brings his teaching down to their level. That doesn’t mean he is telling them any untruths or weird stuff.

I’m interested in how White exegetes the words I highlighted.

How do you exegete them and what message do you think Paul is trying to communicate here?

 

[MarcoPolo]

A few more thoughts on the debate. I do think Tim did a decent if not good job. White never offered an explanation for the key figure in the passage, namely precious metals and weaker substances in the fire.

One of the places where White fails is that he believes that in order for the passage to be expressing “purification” (which he denies) the passage must include a Greek word within it that means “purification.” What he precludes is the possibility of Paul expressing the idea figuratively, which the concept of gold and silver in fire certainly does. White never had an answer for this. He remained hung up on “which verb in the passage means to purify?”

Let’s say I said, “The Colts sure put the Jets in their place in the championship game.” And say someone interpreted what I said as “The Colts were victorious.” James White would then come along and say, “Can you show me which word in that sentence means anything like ‘victory’?” His very question would show a deficiency in verbal comprehension. This is what he did to Tim Staples.

The 800-lb gorilla in the passage for White is the use of the fire metaphor with precious metals. As I said earlier, this is a reference to smelting and can be seen in the OT in Zech 13:9 or Ez 22:22 for instance. This concept is inherently “purifying.” By looking for a single verb to express purification in the passage, White ends up not seeing the forest for the trees.

In his closing remarks, White ignored Tim’s explanation of fire and purification and remained hung up on there needing to be a single verb meaning purifying: “Mr. Staples has failed to show us that the actions of fire in this text are purifying. He’s asserted it, but he hasn’t been able to show us where the actual words mean that. He’s assumed that based upon his external authorities.”

The other concept White dismissed was that a person’s works are attached to him. He denied this and challenged Tim: “Are the people in this text ever the direct object of the action of fire?”

Tim pointed out the obvious at the end of v. 15 that the person would be saved “as through fire.” But even if that verse wasn’t there, the previous verses describing the works going through fire can’t be separated from the person either. Consider what Paul wrote later in the same epistle, chapter 12, the famous “Love is patient, love is kind…love doesn’t seek after itself.” You see here how Paul personifies the works? It is a person that exercises patience or that seeks not after himself. This is active language, something that a person does. So when Paul says “love seeks” he means also a “person who loves seeks.” It is Paul that attaches the work to the person. White’s argument, which is clear only to the extent that he definitely disagrees this passage has anything to do with purification, disembodies a work from a person.

So I think the two points on which White failed the most was his inability to recognize purification in Paul’s use of the fire/metal/smelting metaphor, and also that the person also undergoes purification, having his sinful works purged away from him.

In my next post, I will share some understandings of the early Church on this very passage. You will see in every instance, the Church Father will either recognize purification in this passage and/or that the person himself endures it and/or that the works are attached to the person.

 

[MarcoPolo]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS on 1 Corinthians 3:15 (and a couple on purifying fire)

Origen, Homilies on Jeremias, ca. 244 A.D.
Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works."

St. Lactantius, Divine Institutes 7.21.6, ca. 307 AD
But also, when God will judge the just, it is likewise in fire that he will try them. At that time, they whose sins are uppermost, either because of their gravity or their number, will be drawn together by the fire and will be burned. Those, however, who have been imbued with full justice and maturity of virtue, will not feel that fire; for they have something of God in them which will repel and turn back the strength of the flame."

Pseudo-Ambrose, Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, ca. 377 A.D.
If anyone’s works proves lasting, he will receive his wage. He will be** just like the three brothers in the fiery furnace**, destined to receive as his wage heavenly life with glory.

Pseudo-Ambrose, Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, ca. 377 A.D.
To suffer loss is to endure reproof. For what person, when subjected to punishment, does not lose something thereby? Yet the person himself may be saved. His living soul will not perish in the same way that his erroneous ideas will. Even so, however, he may suffer punishments of fire. He will be saved only by being purified through fire.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Dead, ca. 382 A.D.
If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire."

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 9.5, ca. 395 A.D
If someone has the right faith but leads a wicked life, his faith will not protect him from punishment, because his work will be burned up. A man in gold armor will pass through a river of fire and come out shining all the more brightly, but a man who passes through it with hay will lose it all and destroy himself besides.

St. Augustine, Explanations of the Psalms 37.3, ca. 392 A.D.
‘Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in Your anger’ (Ps 38:1)…In this life may You cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of the corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire…for it is said: ‘He shall be saved, but as if by fire’ (1 Cor 3:15). And because it is said that he shall be saved, little is thought of that fire. Yet plainly, though we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life."

St. Augustine, City of God 21, ca. 420 A.D.
In this fire neither man will be lost forever, through the fire will profit the one and harm the other, being a test for both.

St. Augustine, Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love 18.69, ca. 421 A.D.
That there should be some such fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish – through a certain purgatorial fire (per ignem quemdam purgatorium)."

continued…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Theodoret of Cyr, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 183, ca. 450 A.D.
The teacher teaches what is right. Some follow him; others do not. Those who follow will be like gold and silver––purified by the fire and shining when they emerge from it. The others will be burned up. But the teacher will not lose anything by this. If he has been faithful, he will receive his reward regardless.

Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 179.1, ca. 515 A.D.
There are many people who understand this text incorrectly, deceiving themselves with a false assurance. They believe that if they build serious sins upon the foundation of Christ, those very offenses can be purified by transitory flames, and they themselves can later reach eternal life. This kind of understanding must be corrected. People deceive themselves when they flatter themselves in this way. For in that fire it is slight sins which are purged, not serious ones. Even worse, it is not only the greater sins but the smaller ones as well which can ruin a person.

St. Gregory, Dialogues 4.41, ca. 600 A.D.
We should remember that in the world to come no one will be purged of even his slightest faults unless he has deserved such a cleansing through good works performed in this life

St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on First Corinthians, 169, ca. 1260 A.D.
Now a man’s work is said to burn in two ways: in one way on the part of the worker, inasmuch as he is afflicted by the fire of tribulation on account of the immoderate attachment he has to earthly things and by the fire of purgatory or by the fire which goes before the face of the judge on account of venial sins, which he committed by caring for temporal things or even by the frivolous and vain things he taught. In another way a work burns in the fire on the part of the work itself, because when tribulation comes, a person cannot find time for foolish teaching or worldly works: “On that day all his plans perish” (Ps 146:4). Furthermore, the fire of purgatory or the fire which goes before the face of the judge will not leave any of these things to act as a remedy or as merit.

 

[steve_b]

How do you exegete them and what message do you think Paul is trying to communicate here?

I would say

• the Day = day of our judgement
• fire (that destroys some things but not other things. what kind of process does this describe) = purification / purgation
• receive a reward = whatever God has in mind.
• suffer loss = whatever God has in mind
• will be saved, = guranteed to be in heaven after the process is through
• but only as going through this fire. (some translations say escape through fire) = everybody that will be saved, goes through it, because nothing unclean can enter heaven [Rev 21:27]

But this is not about how I would exegete it, it’s about how White exegeted it in the debate with Staples. Kotek thought White cleaned Staples clock. So I’m interested in how White explained the terms.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But this is not about how I would exegete it, it’s about how White exegeted it in the debate with Staples. Kotek thought White cleaned Staples clock. So I’m interested in how White explained the terms.

Personally, I think White was unclear as to his own interpretation of the words. He kind of said works go through the fire but not the person, meaning the works are disembodied, and he didn’t clarify this that I remember when Tim brought it up… White goes into the Greek word for “suffer loss” and insisted it didn’t mean any kind of punishment but rather the opposite of receiving a reward, i.e. not receiving a reward. Like I said, even his explanation is vague.

For his part, White was by and large more “the passage doesn’t mean anything Catholic” than giving a positive understanding. He didn’t defend a position as much as he was on the attack for Tim to defend his. Your best bet is to listen to White’s opening statement, but I think his “explanations” were not explicit enough to get a clear understanding of what he thinks the text really means. However, I’m very clear on what he DOESN’T think the passage means…

 

[Des]

receive a reward = whatever God has in mind.

This makes me think of the filled to the top, big/small cups one will have in Heaven according to how much they participated with God Graces here on earth.

suffer loss = whatever God has in mind

I recall Robert Sungenis mention that the word here could also be translated as ‘punish’. Likewise loss and punish are not so dissimilar where they couldn’t mean the same thing.

So being prevented from seeing the Beatific Vision of God could be seen both as a loss or a punishment.

 

[Dozie]

Mr. White is neither motivated by scholarship nor by honesty in his opposition to Catholicism. He was already anti-Catholic before he finished High School and one would labor in vain to find scholarship there. Mr. White is driven by his passion (anti-Catholicism) pure and simple.

It is blindness to say that White beat Tim Staples in the debate when White was unable to show where the disputed text made reference motivation. He made the same argument in his short radio debate with Dr. Sungenis. In that debate, Sungenis asked him, as did Staples, to show where the text made reference to motivation; he could not. One would have thought that by now White would have had enough time to make a more plausible presentation than he did with Dr. Sungenis. He simply continues to regurgitate the same falsehood and some get blinded and pass his rhetoric as scholarship. Persons who want to be regarded as scholars take the pain to do what it takes.

 

[Apologist78]

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.

I agree that Paqua, Michuta, etc have not been prepared for White’s style, and I agree that Paqua is more academic. Michuta is not a theologian, so I am not certain about him. In any case it is not typical of scholars to engage in debate tactics for debates don’t prove anything. However- from my view Paqua SHOULD have been prepared, and there is no excuse for him NOT to be. White’s books, debates, etc are readily avaliable. Before you engage your opponent in debate it is up to you to KNOW your opponent, and know what arguments he will most likely use.

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.

No, I disagree. I think White was just as effeective against these people as well. I do not believe they faired any better. Using arguments like “Jesus never wrote anything, and never instructed his followers to go and write” demonsrates they fail to grasp the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and it demonsrates they have never read anything of what White has written on the subject, not to mention debated.

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 could not agree more. To tell you the truth, I would have been converted by White long ago if all I had to go on was his performance in debates.

 

[Apologist78]

Is White really going to debate Scott Hahn?
If so, when?

That would be nice wouldn’t it? But from what I hear Hahn refuses to debate him becasue he sees him as “uncharitable.” (If by uncharitable Hahn means White is well prepared, and does not just roll over and play dead, then Hahn would be correct.)

 

[ericcantona71]

That would be nice wouldn’t it? But from what I hear Hahn refuses to debate him becasue he sees him as “uncharitable.” (If by uncharitable Hahn means White is well prepared, and does not just roll over and play dead, then Hahn would be correct.)

With respect, do you accept that Mr.White has lost any of his debates?

 

[steve_b]

That would be nice wouldn’t it? But from what I hear Hahn refuses to debate him becasue he sees him as “uncharitable.” (If by uncharitable Hahn means White is well prepared, and does not just roll over and play dead, then Hahn would be correct.)

I don’t think it has to do with White being “uncharitable” Hahn has nothing to prove by debating him.

 

[Redrum]

Come on guys, is there ever a “winner” of a religious or political debate? There are no score cards and no one gets knocked out at the end. There are only two sides, in which emotions play a huge part, wanting very badly for their ideology to be true (this includes the audience).

At best you can usually learn something new from each view point in these debates and then try to use your brain, although very difficult, in an unbias manner.

 

[Churchmouse]

Folks, a debate isn’t a boxing match. It isn’t like a debator is pummeled, staggers to get up, “knockout” pending? It isn’t as if one’s “fave” wins hands down despite being manhandled by his opponent. A debate is a matter of presenting point and counterpoint via facts and substance. It is left up to the listener to resolve what is being debated and, hopefully, make honest observations. Some will be in denial and others will beat their chests, and the debate may cause more questions than answers, but the honest CAN and WILL separate the meat from the bones, even if it hurts. The question shouldn’t be “Who won?” and we shouldn’t let preconceptions rule the day. If truth is truth then one must “man up” to it.

Just my .02 cents.

Peace,
CM