James White: Alive But Still Struggling

This is a response to James Whites recent article: Purgatory and Indulgences, Alive and Still Heretical
08/26/2009 -

James White: You wonder, at times, how it is that those who listen regularly to Roman Catholic apologists do not notice the wide range of differences between them on important matters of theology and practice. Don't they cringe just a little when they hear the "sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy" silliness knowing that they are using a double standard? We can hope some do, and that the Lord will use that as a means of showing them His truth. R. Sungenis: Agreements and disagreements all depend on how sharp one makes his focus on a particular topic. On general things, most Catholics agree, but the more specific the topic, the more chance for disagreement. The latter case comes about because often neither Scripture, Tradition nor the Magisterium give enough information on a certain topic. So, is it wrong for us to take what little we know from these sources and determine the most likely answer to a given specific topic? No, barring an additional revelation from God, it is precisely what we should do. But in doing so, we may run up against another Catholic who sees things a little differently. This is only natural, since all parties are working off the same limited information. Moreover, Roman Catholic apologists have never claimed that they would agree on every single wrinkle of theology. Theology is theology, and men are men, the latter group can disagree about almost anything, even when the truth is clearly laid out in front of them. This is because there are other forces at work that determine what a man believes (his own limitations and misunderstandings, evil forces that distort the truth, etc.). But the same thing happens to Protestant. For example, even though Protestants claim that the Bible is their only authority, there are many specific issues in life that the Bible doesnt address (e.g., contraception, abortion, artificial insemination, test-tube fertilization, genetic engineering, surrogate motherhood, sterilization, masturbation, sex education, eugenics, cloning, equal rights, capitalism, mind-altering drugs, usury, cremation, strikes), but Protestants do their best to come up with specific answers to these questions. Naturally, they will often disagree because they have no central authority to give the ultimate and official answer. The difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations goes a little deeper, however. Whereas neither Catholics nor Protestants can agree about everything in their respective faiths, the Catholics have much greater success in reaching agreement because they have a Magisterium that provides definitive answers on general and specific topics, and a whole 2000-year tradition of theological thought that explains how the Magisterium arrived at its

official decisions. I would estimate that the Magisteriums official decisions on faith and morals comprise, to date, about 85% of what Catholics believe and practice (not counting those Catholics who reject official Church teaching, for example, on contraception). The other 15% we are still debating, for we simply do not have enough information from either Scripture or Tradition, and thus the Magisterium has not seen fit to address the issue and make a definitive judgment. Hence, it is generally in this 15% category of unsettled issues that Catholics may have various disagreements. Of course, they may also have some disagreements about the other 85% due to their own human limitations and misunderstandings, but those disagreements will usually be minor compared to the other 15%. Protestants simply dont have anything close to this. Yes, they, for the most part, believe Jesus Christ is God and savior, but beyond that, they disagree on almost every other issue, whether it is general or specific. In my 18-year experience as a Protestant, I would say the percentages are the exact opposite of what we find in the Catholic Church. Whereas Catholics agree on about 85% of doctrinal matters and disagree on the other 15%, Protestants agree on only about 15% of doctrinal matters and disagree on the other 85%. Im not saying these figures are exact, but from my experience they are pretty close. James White: In any case, in modern Romanism in America it is common to hear a Westernized, softened view of purgatory. You see, there is no escaping the fact that Roman Catholics of the past viewed purgatory as a time of suffering and purification. The fact that indulgences were measured in "days" is not just some odd measuring system, as Tim Staples has suggested. This is obvious due to the fact that despite all the historical controversy over the "Sabbatine privilege" and the Carmelite Order, for many years people believed, and practiced, a belief in indulgences that included Mary descending into purgatory to release the person who died wearing the scapular on "Saturday." Whatever else you do with that, it's hard to get to "Saturday" without the passage of time. The modern "it's not really a place, and there's no time there, it's just a state of mind" type of thinking flies in the face of everything we know of the beliefs of the leaders of the Roman Church in the past. It relies upon the ignorance of the audience who allow today's speakers to mediate their knowledge of church history to them, chewed up and predigested. R. Sungenis: White is only proving my point. Since the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory, and since the Church declined to make any official statements on its nature, it is only natural that people of different eras are going to come to different views of what precisely constitutes the Purgatorial experience. In other words, the nature of Purgatory fits into the 15% area of knowledge that we are lacking. So Catholics have tried their best to piece together the known facts about Purgatory in order to come up with a reasonable possibility as to what the Christian can expect if and when he arrives there. But for

White to then imply from this one uncertainty that Catholicism is no better than Protestantism simply because we have not settled on the nature of Purgatory, is typical of how he and other Protestants capitalize on minor weaknesses and blow them up out of proportion in order to dissuade their respective audiences from taking an interest in Catholicism. If White were to be more truthful, he would tell his audience that the nature of Purgatory is an admitted area of unsettled knowledge in the Catholic Church, but that for the most part, the Catholic Church has settled its doctrinal issues, and it is precisely for this reason that the Catholic Church offers a far better haven of truth than the multitudinous Protestant denominations that span our globe. James White: With that being said, I was pointed to an answer given by Robert Sungenis to the question "What will Purgatory be like?" If you thought indulgences were dead and gone, well, read this: R. Sungenis: John, the truth is, we dont know what Purgatory is going to be like. The Church has received no revelation on its specific character, and there is no detailed information in the Bible. All we know is that it will be a time of purgation and punishment for unconfessed venial sins. But there is another factor we, as Catholics, should consider. Here it is: Good Catholics have no excuse for going to Purgatory. If they are really pay attention to their Catholic faith and take advantage of all the Indulgences that are continually being made available to escape any and all punishment in Purgatory, then it stands to reason that no good Catholic should go to Purgatory. If they do, then its their own fault for not taking advantage of the graces God has given us. The Church has given us a multitudinous array of penances and prayers we can do in order to get a plenary Indulgence. They are just dripping, waiting for us to gather them up. So, dont worry about Purgatory. Spend your time taking advantage of the Indulgences God gives us through the Church. James White: First, note the phrase, "it will be a time of purgation and punishment for unconfessed venial sins." I confess I have no idea how you can have "satispassio," the suffering of atonement, without the passage of time, but I will leave that to our modern Roman Catholic advocates to figure out. It looks like Sungenis is not among them. Next, think through what it means that the punishments due to "venial" sins---which can keep you out of the presence of God due to your impurity---can be removed through the blasphemous practice of indulgences. There are few things that show the reality of Romanism more than indulgences, that is for certain. Every noble attempt to make Rome's gospel look like it is just close enough to slip by the anathemas of Scripture falls to ruin upon the most basic examination of the horrific complex of doctrines that is purgatory and indulgences. That Christ's

atonement does not remove my impurity, but my climbing up stairs on my knees does, is more than enough to close the door on Rome's gospel, to be certain. R. Sungenis: After we have already admitted that being in the 15% area of unsettled doctrine the nature of Purgatory continues to be debated among modern Roman Catholic advocates, the truth is, it really doesnt matter a whole lot. The fact is, Purgatory exists. It can be shown from Scripture, the Patristics, the medievals, and the Magisterium. Whether it is days or some other measurement is not really a make-or-break issue. The important issue is that Purgatory will require some form of punishment and purgation for unconfessed sin. My major point in the above answer was to encourage the Catholic that he need not be concerned with how many days or states of mind he must endure, since by the same Churchs teaching, he can easily escape any of them by receiving the Churchs plenary indulgence. Be that as it may, the more pressing issue is the satispassio that White refers to. This concept returns us to the nature of the Atonement itself. Just what was it that Christ did for us on the cross to provide the satisfaction? Well, this is a subject that is highly debated among Protestants. Every denomination has its own concept of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Suffice it to say, it is a major doctrine with major disagreements. The importance of this doctrine in regards to Purgatory is that the Catholic Churchs doctrine of Purgatory hinges on the Catholic Churchs doctrine of the Atonement. You cant have one without the other. Let me explain: Whites disbelief in Purgatory is not based merely on a lack of Scriptural data. It has more to do with his view of the Atonement, the satispassio, if you will. White, as all Calvinists, believes that Christs death on the cross PAID FOR all the sins of the elect. That is, what you see on the cross is only a small part of what Christ actually underwent. His main act was to suffer the equivalent of an eternity in hell in the space of his three-day ordeal at Calvary. This was John Calvins belief, which I outline in my book, Not By Bread Alone (pages 333-342, first edition). It is this view of Calvins that James White believes, for he is a Reformed Baptist, that is, one who believes in Calvins doctrine of Predestination and Atonement, but not Calvins doctrine of Baptism (which departure is another example of the hair-splitting that occurs on major doctrines among Protestant denominations). John Calvin taught that there could be no further punishment required from a person (e.g., punishment in Purgatory) if Christ had already paid for ALL of his sins. All of his sins were paid for because, since Christ went to hell for him, there is no other payment required. Simply put, since the persons sins would have required the person to suffer hell for eternity, Christ, in being his penal substitute, went to hell for him and paid every bit of the punishment, therefore, there can be no more punishment. Since Christ was God, Calvinists reason that He could somehow come out of hell after three days. (NB: Perhaps someone should ask White how, if he is going to criticize the days of Purgatory, that Christs

satispassio of an eternity in hell can be counted in three days time, but that is another subject). Of course, if you are thinking this out as you are reading it, you will now also realize why Calvin had to believe in absolute predestination, that is, that God chose only certain persons, without regard to their free will, to receive the results of Christs Atonement. For if it is a fact that some people of the human race will go to hell, then obviously the Calvinist must conclude that Christ could not have atoned or paid for their sins. If Christ, by going to hell, had paid for their sins, then God would be unjust if he also sent the person himself to hell to pay for those same sins. That would be double jeopardy, and it would make God a liar. Hence, Calvins solution was to limit Christs Atonement to the elect (the reciprocal being that God predestine all others to hell). In that way, Christ could pay for all the elects sins and no more punishment would be required from them, no matter how menial. The others who were not predestined would receive no Atonement from Christ, and therefore, they would have to suffer hell for their own sins. A simple system, no? Yes, simple, but also simply incorrect. Scripture nowhere teaches that Christ suffered the persons punishment for sin, much less that he did so only for the sins of one group of people. Scripture does not teach that Christ suffered the equivalent of an eternity in hell as part of the Atonement. Scripture does not teach that God only chose certain persons for salvation and had no desire to save anyone else. Scripture does not teach that man does not have a free will to choose for God, nor does it teach that God predestinates without mans free will. Scripture does not teach that God predestinated men to hell. Calvinists usually stumble first over passages such as 1 John 2:1-2: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (NIV) and 1 Timothy 2:3-4: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (NIV). Calvinists cannot read these passages at face value. They must add words or change the obvious meaning. Naturally, if Calvinists believe that Christ only paid for the sins of the elect, then they cannot say, without some kind of fudging, that Christ is the atoning sacrificefor the sins of the whole world, for Christ, they will claim, did not perform an atonement for the whole world. Likewise, if the Calvinist believes that Gods will is one, then God cannot desire to save all men since he did not atone for all mens sins. The Calvinist must then change the face value meaning of the passage. Hence, the Calvinist will change the word men to elect, and then justify this change by claiming that the rest of Scripture requires the change. Ironically, one Scripture is distorted to supposedly make another Scripture clearer. Be that as it may, all these beliefs of James White have ramifications for the doctrine of Purgatory.

The Catholic doctrine of the Atonement is the only one that answers ALL of the relevant Scripture passages. I go through them all in my book Not By Bread Alone. God predestinated, but not without mans free will. God desires all men to be saved even though not all men will be saved. Christs atonement was given to the whole world, and from it all men have the potential to be saved. Christ did not go to hell to pay for mans or the elects sins; rather, Christ propitiated the Father and made salvation possible for all men. All of these are taught in Scripture, and we arrive at these truths by combining ALL of what Scripture teaches. In the meantime, the basic problem with Whites rejection of Purgatory and Indulgences stems from his erroneous understanding of Christs Atonement. Until the doctrine of the Atonement is properly understood, White will continue to reject Purgatory and Indulgences based on a false premise. Incidentally, my apostolate has asked White to debate the above issues concerning Predestination at least four times in the last six years, but he has declined at each request. So now that he has reopened the debate by citing one of my answers on Purgatory, perhaps he will reconsider, since, as we see above, Whites views on Predestination and the Atonement directly affect everything else White believes about the Christian faith, including his aversion to Purgatory and Indulgences. As Ive learned in my 40 years of ministry, either a theology can hang together in all its parts, or it cannot hang together at all. Lets see which of us has the religion that can hang all together. I once again challenge James White to debate these issues in a public forum.
August 27, 2009