Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Debate on Indulgences

Dr. James White recently debated Roman Catholic Peter D. Williams on Indulgences.  Another one of the lay Roman apologists "who do the heavy lifting" (Matthew Schultz rightly wrote).

"The refrain of lay Catholic apologists is that Protestants must submit to the Magisterium. Yet if the primary lens of theological inquiry is authority, why is so much of the heavy lifting done by Catholic laypersons?"  (Matthew Schultz) 


Addendum: (June 30, 2018)   The debate goes to the nature of the gospel in the way Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree with each other, and they also touched on issues like purgatory, church history, Semi-Pelagianism, Augustine, Gottschalk, the development of doctrine, the wrath of God, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and Sola Scriptura and the Canon. Rich in content.



15 comments:

Algo said...

Peter was very certain that nobody prior to Calvin believed in "Penal Substitutionary Atonement".
Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Now, since hatred was predicted against that Son of man who has His mission from the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, as derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of man’s sake, because He is Christ, it determines the point that that was the Son of man in the matter of hatred who came according to the Creator’s purpose, and against whom the hatred was predicted. And even if He had not yet come, the hatred of His name which exists at the present day could not in any case have possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name. But He has both suffered the penalty in our presence, and surrendered His life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles. And He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man on whose account our name also is rejected. ANF: Vol. III, The Five Books Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 14.

Algo said...

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/12/visit-to-catholic-answers-forum-part-3.html

Algo said...

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/12/visit-to-catholic-answers-forum-part-4.html

PeaceByJesus said...

Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”? was just posted on Free Republic" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3669317/posts from https://web.archive.org/web/20140528104851/http://tquid.sharpens.org/sin_boldly.htm

James Swan said...

PBJ:
Thanks for the heads up.

Scott Windsor said...

I offer you my comments on this debate here:

http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2018/07/indulgences-debate.html

In brief summary, White loses this debate on the simple fact that he misrepresents our belief/confession/teaching on indulgences. We cannot and should not have to answer to his interpretation of our belief/confession/teaching. The strange part is, he mentions our teaching, but then ignores the fact that indulgences have nothing to do with salvation - as the recipient of an indulgence would already be "saved" or "in the state of grace" - outside of which, there can be no indulgence.

To the greater glory of God, (AMDG)
Scott<<<




EA said...

I really have to agree with Mr. Windsor: indulgences have nothing to do with salvation.

Finally, common ground.

James Swan said...

Scott: Could you, in theory, obtain an indulgence for yourself? I assume so, if you are currently, "'saved' or "'in the state of grace'."

Hope you stay "'saved' or "'in the state of grace'"!!

Scott Windsor, Sr. said...

EA - (smile)

James - To answer your questions in order:
1) Yes. One can obtain a plenary or partial indulgence for themselves.
2) Your assumption is correct.
3) "Saved" (or "condemned") is a judgment which will be passed on each of us when we stand before the Judgment Seat.
4) I too hope to stay in the state of grace, but if (when) I falter, there is a means to restore me to that state.

Thank you!

Scott<<<

PeaceByJesus said...

Indulgences (rejected by EOs as non-traditional) is based on Purgatory, which is based upon a false premise, that of the need for perfection of character (if by grace) in order to be with God, versus penitent faith which appropriates justification, which purifies the heart (Acts 15:9) and is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and renders one accepted in the Beloved (on His account) and positionally seated together with their Lord in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) from where they await the Lord's return and His final subduing of our "vile body," that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Philippians 3:21)and which is the only transformative change after this life that the Scriptures speak of.

However, this saving justifying faith, is a faith which effects obedience by the Spirit, in word and in deed, in heart and in life, whereby "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, (Romans 8:4) insofar as we do. And since faith and works go together like light and heat, sometimes they are used interchangeably as to what they effect. And which obedience includes penitent confession when convicted of not pleasing the Object of his faith for salvation, the risen Lord Jesus.

The appeal to the believer is to produce fruit consistent with faith, as a consequence of being accepted in the Beloved (on His account), to be practically (in heart and deed) as they are positionally in Christ, (Colossians 3:1-4) to be as much conformed to the Lord Jesus in this life as we can be, and will be in the resurrection. (Philippians 3:7-21)

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25)

But which progressive practical sanctification is not the cause of the sinner's justification and acceptance in Christ, but testifies to such being a believer, evidencing "things which accompany salvation," (Hebrews 6:9) and fit to be rewarded. (Revelation 3:4) For this faith, as manifested in said obedience, God will recompense (Hebrews 10:35) under grace, even though it is God who motivates and enables all obedience, (Philippians 1:12,13) while the only thing we can and must take credit for it our disobedience.

In contrast to this salvation by effectual faith, is salvation by grace thru works, as in Roman Catholicism, in which by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God via the act of baptism, even without the required wholehearted repentant faith. (Acts 8:38; 8:36,37)

However, since the carnal nature remains and few successfully attain to complete victory over any attachment to sin and perfection of character, then most baptized souls are sent to Roman Catholic (EOs trend to reject Rome's) Purgatory to endure purifying torments to atone for sins they sufficiently failed to provide for while on earth, and become good enough to enter glory.

To be continued

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2

There is some wiggle room as regards the conditions of purgatory since what this suffering actually entails and how long are not dogmatically taught, but while salvation by grace thru faith as in sola fide means it is effectual faith being imputed for righteousness that justifies, salvation by grace thru works means that by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God, which premise either requires perfection of character in this life (and which merely being made clean in baptism would actually not effect) or postmortem purifying torments.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc.

And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory

Likewise Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

However, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)

And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4)At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6)

Anonymous said...

The debate on "indulgences", if we can call it that, was quite frankly, terrible. Peter offered absolutely nothing of substance when he actually got around to mentioning indulgences. He talked about quite a few things, rarely indulgences. The only thing I can recall him saying that was already quite obvious, was that you won't find indulgences in Scripture and he's completely fine with it. Waste of time, imo.

Scott Windsor said...

PBJ,
While I get the rationalizations you put forth, the question of the debate was "Do Indulgences Deny the Gospel?" Regardless of the EO stance and the prooftexting you can do to rationalize there is no Purgatory and hence no indulgences - I can provide prooftexts which allow us to rationalize that there is indeed a Purgatory -and- if it exists, then the Church, through her authority to bind or loose whatsoever she chooses, could indeed loose in a a plenary or partial fashion the time spent in Purgatory.

Back to the question at hand, "Do Indulgences Deny the Gospel?" White continually attempted to equivocate indulgences with salvation, ironically even after he put forth the truth of the matter - that indulgences are ONLY for those who are saved already. Hence, there is NO denial of the Gospel message of salvation and since White's position asserted the positive (that indulgences DO deny the Gospel) - he therefore loses this debate.

Scott<<<

PeaceByJesus said...

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

While I get the rationalizations you put forth,

No, what you do not get then is that Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4)At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

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

- I can provide prooftexts which allow us to rationalize that there is indeed a Purgatory -

And which attempts have been refuted here in a succession of posts, and shown that belief in Purgatory is not what is manifest in the the only wholly inspired authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels). But there is always another RC devotee who seems compelled to defend whatever Rome imagines, regards of how cultic it makes them look.

and- if it exists, then the Church, through her authority to bind or loose whatsoever she chooses, could indeed loose in a a plenary or partial fashion the time spent in Purgatory.

Please. Parroting prevaricating propaganda may be comforting to the Catholic choir but it simply will not stand the test of examination of what the NT church believed in the most ancient substantive record. But I do understand that Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

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

that indulgences are ONLY for those who are saved already.
I think I expressed that, except that "saved" in Scripture means the next conscious reality for believers after this life it is with the Lord. Who is not in RC Purgatory.

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

Scott Windsor, Sr. said...

Greetings PBJ, I took the time to respond fully to your posting. It became too long (mostly because of the list of Bible verses you cited, but didn't quote) for a combox response so I posted to my blog. Click Here for my response.

In Christ,
Scott<<<