This post is hilarious. I think Mr. White is allowed to defend his quotation; a debate is not the appropriate format. did Mr. White email Me. Shea? Did he call or write a letter? His defense on his website is inadequate in that it is not going to reach the same audience as the readers of the book.
Jimmy yesterday, Mark today. The bloggers are taking over!
I've been tempted to call when Jimmy's on the show and ask "Who would win a fight between you and Mark Shea?" but I can't bring myself to waste time and a phone line that way. Once they took up the ethics of employing zombies two weeks in a row, I reconsidered, but ultimately decided against it.
"His absolute first priority was to make sure he found his own name in the text and he makes it quite clear that he resents not finding it. Don't we always approach a book this way?"
Yes. And I have resented EVERY SINGLE BOOK I've ever read!
Wow, Mark! You're "acidic"! I hope he is referring to your saliva (like the "Alien" creature) because that would be awesome.
Seriously, does James White think he's winning any souls for anything with that piece? Or does he just have to be Right At Any Cost?
I went to read "Dr." White's blog post about your books, then noticed something -- as far as a debate: we have a winner.
Mark Shea - allows comments to posts. James White - does not allow comments. In my mind, White's reluctance to broach any discussion on his blog is a declaration of forfeit! Mark Shea is the winner.
(BTW, great to see you at Holy Trinity in Gainesville! Love the books! Keep up the good work!)
Let us not pour any fuel on this particular fire.
It hurts my heart that a man as smart as James White is as committed as he is to his particular positions. I hate to see him disagreeing with Mark about our Blessed Mother.
And, though it may be heaping coals, let me add:
May Our Lady, Help of Christians, obtain for James White all of the graces and blessings he needs to grow in holiness.
your ruining my fun. I say let's pour gallons of gasoline on this fire. It's fun reading Mark Shea's clever wit slice and dice his detractors better than an infomercial. how many people that read White's blog will read Mark's books? Only one
Dr. White's apologetics are hampered by the axiom that Roman Catholics are liars. Not misguided, mind you, but actual deceivers. The more detailed a Roman Catholic position in support of a thesis, the more he believes it to be "proof" of an intelligence which must lie to maintain the thesis. It weakens his apologetics enormously, and does great damage to the cause of sola scriptura.
I thought the constant references to an earlier victory over Matatics were funny, like Queeg reminiscing over stolen strawberries.
I am not a fan of debates. I don't think that they prove anything more than who is the better debater. A really good debater could 'prove' just about anything but it would not necessarily be the truth.
Good article on apologetics, Mark. I well remember the excitement of coming across Karl Keating's stuff all those years ago.
What a joy it was to discover that Catholics not only had answers to various Protestant objections, but damn good answers.
Hi Mark:
Why not debate White anyway? I'm sure many readers would like to see the Catholic answers to his objections. I'd would suggest two things:
1. that the debate be blogged at both White's and your blog and that answers to objections be posted 2 days after the objection or reply is posted (lots of time to re-write, edit, think through the most charitable way to answer)
2. that ground rules for civility be set out in advance and points taken off for either debater breaking the rules
I think such a debate would draw a lot of interest, and the cause of truth would be served.
In Christ:
Tom
"The most infallible and indubitable sign by which we may distinguish a heretic, a man of bad doctrine, a reprobate, from one of the predestinate, is that the heretic and the reprobate have nothing but contempt and indifference for Our Lady, endeavoring by their words and examples to diminish the worship and love of her, openly or hiddenly, and sometimes by misrepresentation. Alas! God the Father has not told Mary to dwell in them, for they are Esaus." -- St. Louis De Montfort
.
I think you're on to something with the scan for references to himself. It's beginning to sink in that this is all his "ministry" is ever going to be, an electronic polemicist and carnival barking gainsayer of the faiths of others.
And not, say, the Machen of the 21st Century.
As Melvin Udall said in his moment of existential dread: "What if this is as good as it gets?"
His ego could not bear the insult. The great James White, Knight Inerrant and Shining Foe of Catholicism, only referred to in a footnote?! Why, he definitively refuted that Marian claptrap in Dr. James White™'s Encyclopedia of Dr. James White's Irrefutable Theological Arguments, Volume 13 (now available with watermarks of the Doctor's™ face on every acid-free, archival quality page--but hurry, supplies are limited!). Pfah--only an acidic clown could try to ignore it. Must be the fear of TRVTH deep within Shea's quailing dishonest Papist soul...
Well, he'll take care of *that.* Sancho--my lance! To the tilts!
The fact he found one whole reference to White's opera of theological negation apparently opened an unpleasant window on the future.
Namely, that the odds of his oeuvre even being referenced two generations after his death are vanishingly small, let alone remaining in print.
Why not debate White anyway?
Do not cast your pearls before swine. Do not give what is holy to dogs.
I've engaged White in the past. It's a waste of time and energy I cannot afford. As I say, my books can take care of themselves.
Thanks Mark:
I understand that. Time is precious. It's better spent on your kids, esp. since the PNW summer is so beautiful right now.
In Christ:
Tom
The reason why James White does not allow comments on his blog or youtube is due to the abuse by those outside of the faith, ie; homosexuals & radical atheists etc. Instead, if you have a disagreement, you can call the toll free number to his program "the dividing line" and there you can have a meaningful discussion on your differences with him. He just had Michael Bellisario on discussing the topic of the Papacy. It was very informative.
I agree with the last commenter.
Instead of doing the "ding dong the witch is dead" dance and song here...
How about extending your view to a much wider audience...someone who is so sure of themselves and their truth would welcome an opportunity to show that right?
I, for one, would like to hear Mr. Shea, or any of these supporters her on the combox speak with Dr. White live, that would be very informative for those of us who don't own your books.
How about it?
Mark, if you took the time to post this blog, I don't see why you couldn't have the time to interact with Dr. White on the topic. He had Matthew Bellisario on his program recently, and they had a charitable discussion on the Papacy, which only lasted about an hour.
However, if time is too precious for such a dialogue, then I completely understand.
How about you just get the books if you actually want to know what I have to say? They don't bite.
Dudes! Think for yourselves. You don't have to have your take on the books mediated for you by James. You can approach them directly, without him acting of co-Mediator of all truth! 
"I'll wait for a critique from a Protestant who is not, a priori, committed to the proposition that Catholics are not Christian."
Finding such a protestant is impossible. Salvation by faith alone defines a Christian.
The reason why James White does not allow comments on his blog or youtube is due to the abuse by those outside of the faith, ie; homosexuals & radical atheists etc.
Mmmhm. Y'see there's this wonderful thing called a "ban file" which generally deals with the few trolls one encounters. On the other hand, if one simply is congenitally incapable of ever, ever, *ever* admitting one has ever, ever, *ever* been wrong about anything whatsoever, I can see how simultaneously vaunting oneself as the Infallible Defender of TRVTH and not having comboxes would be a happy combination. The itch to triumph over all comers can get tiring.
Finding such a protestant is impossible. Salvation by faith alone defines a Christian.
Thanks for that bulletin from deep inside the aomin bubble, dude.
Finding such a protestant is impossible. Salvation by faith alone defines a Christian.
That's weird; I always thought that salvation was by grace alone, through faith, but I don't want to be pedantic.
Catholics consider Protestants to be Christians. All of my Protestant friends consider me a Christian. Those Protestants who do not consider Catholics to be Christians usually don't know any faithful Catholics.
May Christ heal our divisions!
Mark,
Perhaps one day you will actually respond in a meaningful fashion and interact with the copious issues/problems that apologists--such as James White--have raised against your works. Dr. White has spent decades debating the best Catholic apologists and has published numerous books with respect to these issues. It is therefore disingenuous to pretend that Dr. White has not dealt extensively with these matters. You know quite well (whether you would publicly admit it or not) that he has devoted much time in researching the arguments and exposing factual and historical errors--errors that you have yet to address in a meaningful fashion.
Granted, you get better play with your audience by simply defaulting to ad hominem attacks and pretending you want to stay above the fray. However, if Dr. White is the arrogant dult you would have us believe he is then respond to him once and for all and expose his errors.
I’ll be anxiously awaiting a meaningful response.
Adam:
Much of what James has to say is stuff I address *elsewhere in the book* (for instance, his attempt to confine the Church's right to doctrinal development only to what *he* defines as "the early church"). As to his strained attempts to overlook the bleedin' obvious Mary/Ark typology, I'd simply refer you to Albert McIlhenny's youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g...h?
v=gU7fuw6T0ek
James isn't even consistent with himself since he allows for the early Church to do with Jesus what he forbids the early Church to do with Mary, since it suits his polemical needs in debate with Islam. He's right about the development of doctrine with Jesus (and therefore wrong about the development of doctrine with Mary). But James' congenital need to never be wrong and to always trumpet his victorious superiority against all comers in debate makes it impossible for him to learn anything on this score. Instead, he glances at a book, dashes off another "refutation" and pronounces himself Victor Imperator when I don't take seriously his refusal to move beyond regurgitated sound bites.
In short, I can't be blamed if James goes off half-cocked because his a priori commitments prevent him from even knowing what I wrote before "refuting" it. If he's too cocky to read the book before rebutting it--and you are such a fool as to seriously think that a sound basis for a "debate"--then more's the pity for the both of you. But that does not create even a teensy weensy sense of obligation in me.
And, as I said above, if you really want to know what my thoughts are on all this: Read. The. Book. Don't just stand there like a fanboy demanding "Let's you and him fight". Don't anoint James co-Mediator of All Truth and just sit there like a lump while he tells you what to think about a book neither you nor he have read. Read the book and use your head.
your ruining my fun.
We all of us have our crosses to bear.
Salvation by faith alone defines a Christian.
As oppose to the non-Christian who said, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?"
and "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?"
Mark,
First, I want to thank you for responding in such a congenial fashion—your Catholic charity stirs my soul.
Okay, so you purport to address the James White criticisms in your book. If this is truly the case then it should be of little difficulty to cut and paste a few remarks into a blog and refute him easily—correct? Since you have labored to respond to Dr. White’s argumentation (and his kind) in print, then I would think you would want to silence him in a myriad of forums, to include your blog.
So far as your Mary/Ark typology—Dr. White has already pointed out in his critique of this section that you did not begin to address the substance of his rebuttal that he delivered in the 94 Matatics debate. He goes directly to the pages in your latest work, so it is misleading to say that Dr. White is not familiar and/or has not read your work. Or perhaps you have not taken the time to listen to his debates dealing with this issue? (I might also ask here if you have even read any of Dr. White’s book—or does the argument only go one way?)
Again, I look forward to the day when I can read a meaningful response to the issues put forward. Regurgitating empty platitudes plays well with the base but it is not an effective apologetic tool. The goal of writing should be to glorify God by presenting the truth and dealing with the issues honestly. You attack those who ask you to respond to people such as Dr. White as “fools” yet the only response you have to offer people like me is that Dr. White never accepts criticism—as if this has anything to do with the argument at hand.
If you truly have the truth on your side, then responding fairly and honestly with the objections presented should be easily dismantled. After all, does not the truth set one free?
Adam:
Your windy attempt at repeating "Let's you and him fight" and your refusal to, you know, Read. The. Book does not incline me to think that even if I were to post till doomsday you would pay any attention to a word I say.
Read the book if you actually want to know what I think. Read White if you simply are looking for a High Priest to tell you what to think.
Come on, Mark. Let's be serious here--If I was truly looking for someone to "tell me what to think," then we both know that I would be compelled to submit to Pontifex Maximus.
Good one, Adam. Golly, never saw *that* one coming. You're quick on the uptake! Next, you'll be saying, "Heeeeeyyyyy! Wait a minute! What do you mean calling James 'co-Mediator of all Truth'? It's *you* guys who call Mary co-Mediatrix, you know!"
Then I'll say, "Jeepers! You're *right*! Boy is my face red! Total jiu-jitsu rhetorical move, dude! You got me! What an ironic turnabout on my totally unconscious gaffe, allowing you to make that Very Clever Retort. I totally never saw that parallelism between repeated-ad-nauseam-for-years-and-years complaints about the Pontifex Maximus telling people what to think and my remark about James as High Priest telling *you* what to think. *Nor* did I grasp that "co-Mediator" was a reference to a Catholic title for the Blessed Virgin! You're *good*! How blind I've been! Ah me! Hoist on my own petard by a rhetorical and polemical wizard who has obviously sat at the feet of the Master, James White, himself."
Anyway, read the book if you really are interested in what I think. If not, you're under no obligation to do so and you can go on simply letting James White tell you what to think about it and regurgitating his regurgitated remarks. All I ask is that if, like James, you have no interest in what the book says, that you would just stop pretending that you want to know in my comboxes.
I fully understand and agree with Mark's decision not to debate White. Why? It is pointless. Why? Because EVERY debate I see with White follows this formula:
1. White and opponent exchange some facts.
2. In the course of these opening facts, opponent makes a comment that White takes great offense too.
3. The debate then turns into White saying "You offended me" and the opponent saying "I didn't mean to, I'm sorry lets continue..."
4. Then the debate continues with White saying "You offended me, and here is your offense, and here is why I am right because you said something I found offense."
5. Debate continues, not around doctrine, but around whether opponent offended White.
See? Pointless.
Where did Dr White get his doctorate?
Ah, he got it here.
Mark should take this man seriously why, exactly?
Francis, that is what we call a "Genetic fallacy". Unless you have interacted with James White's arguments and found them invalid, you're not in a position to dismiss his claims.
He's interacted with White. This gives him a prima facie case to dismiss White.
Ariel:
How do you know I have not interacted with White's arguments? You haven't read the book. Neither, for that matter, has James. Yet this stops neither of you from indulging in the genetic fallacy. For James' latest argument boils down to "I didn't have to read the book. It was written by a Catholic so I know it's wrong." And you hypocritically just let him do it--and continue to do your thinking for you, unless you actually are reading the book yourself.
You claim to want to know what I think. If you are sincere about that claim, then read the book. It's not complicated. If you aren't, then stop coming here to lie that you do want to know what I think.
Isn't it time for Ni-Hanshi Apologeti Sandan Move #23: "I see you have enough 'time' to explain why you won't debate Dr. White, but not enough 'time' to actually engage his arguments?"
That's usually the form. I'm surprise the Aomin crowd is being so slow.
Mark:
With all due respect, I was responding to Francis' comment. I wasn't claiming to know what you think, so please don't take my comment out of its proper context.
SAM:
Good point, especially since we've seen the beloved "tu quoque" deployed already.
Ariel,
If I'd claimed White's amusing educational status constituted a refutation of any particular argument of his, that would indeed be fallacious. I didn't. My point was simply that the man's feeling the need to get a worthless qualification does make it hard to take him seriously.
Life's short, and if I want to read a Reformed critique of Catholicism I'll read Calvin or Sproul. If White has written anything groundbreaking that hasn't been picked up on by Calvinist heavyweights, he should be taking issue with his fellow Calvinists for not granting him sufficient attention. Not with Mark for being unwilling to debate someone who, sham doctorate in one hand and tabloidy titles in the other, ends up looking a bit of a blowhard.
Is it just me, or do some of these “Mark should debate James White” posts read almost like form letters?
One could almost make a random generator for them using strings of buzzwords like “interact in a meaningful fashion”, “ad hominem” or “misleading and disingenuous assertion”.
I think Francis hit the nail on the head with the last post. I've read Calvin, Sproul and Spurgeon. The Reformed community doesn't seem to waste time on White or seem to find him a representative voice within their enclave, so why should I? It doesn't help that the stream-of-consciousness writing style found on his blog complete with infinitely pointless tangents, self-references and back-patting is tedious beyond compare.
For my money, if you White-heads really care about the truth, you'll add a comment section to your website so that people have time to think over, re-examine and fact-check claims over a long period of time. Phone calls don't cut it, as it's way too easy to gloss over things in verbal context.
Until this changes, debating James White will remain what it's always been: A kick-boxing match with the tar-baby.
"...unwilling to debate someone who, sham doctorate in one hand and tabloidy titles in the other, ends up looking a bit of a blowhard."
Hmm-m... well said my friend... v-e-r-y well said indeed!!!
.
Ariel:
My point remains the same. White, in his latest blog entry, makes the complaint that I won't "interact" with his argument, after having just said that he didn't need to read my book since he knew it was wrong due to its origins. You hypocritically wring your hands about the genetic fallacy (when, in fact, Francis was not claiming to rebut an argument, simply noting that White is dishonest about his "doctorate" and asking why anybody should interact with a man who is documentably dishonest). But you don't make a peep about White's *actual* indulgence of the genetic fallacy.
This inclines me to think you are as dishonest as James and to ignore you in the future as well. If you are honest about wanting to know what I think, you will read the book. If not, go away.
"...he didn't need to read my book since he knew it was wrong due to its origins."
"Though by whim, envy, or resentment led, They damn those authors whom they never read." -- Charles Churchill
.
Your windy attempt at repeating "Let's you and him fight" and your refusal to, you know you know, Read.
I already know what you think, so the old "read my book" answer isn't cutting it.
What I'd like to see is how you fare in a live situation when there is someone who can question you on your position in "real time...and not just "cheerlead" you as is being done on your blog.
It's not a matter of not understanding what you believe, it's a matter of ones beliefs being able to hold up to cross exam instead of the old "throw another grenade from the safety of our bunker" approach.
As another commenter pointed out;
You've spent more than the hour you say that you don't have just responding to all the comments about how you don't have time to respond on Dr. White's show.
Since you consider Dr. White a dolt, it should be a cake walk to show that to the world in real time.
It seems that someone is being a bit disengenious about the whole thing no?
You've spent more than the hour you say that you don't have just responding to all the comments about how you don't have time to respond on Dr. White's show.
And the prophecy of the SAM was fulfilled.
I already know what you think, so the old "read my book" answer isn't cutting it.
Wow. was to justify Mark's whole point about a priori dismissal. It's not just about WHAT we think, it's about WHY we think it.
"It seems that someone is being a bit disengenious about the whole thing no?"
Buzzword alert!
Look, it's quite simple: A scholarly exchange of ideas directed towards mutual discovery of the truth does not easily find a home on a call-in radio program. One simply can't have all the references at hand to quickly review, digest and affirm or refute propositions.
If White was really interested in the truth, he'd at least allow for comments. That way people could mull over his ideas, test them and respond with well thought out answers.
I won't speculate at this time as to why he hasn't done that yet, but I think the modus operandi of AOMIN helps to clarify that issue.
It's illustrative that elsewhere on aomin you can find this:
I truly, truly believe that if you apply the same rules of exegesis and hermeneutics to the text linked above (which, by the way, is a very useful text to have in your library) and to the NA27 (soon to be NA2you will not arrive at a different faith.
That men are saved by parsing Greek correctly seems at odds with my naive reading of various English renderings, to say the least.
And the prophecy of the SAM was fulfilled.
With all due respect to SAM (and that's not boilerplate--I respect him greatly), it was about as daring a prophecy as predicting sunrise.
White's Cadet Corps and Ladies Auxiliary experience a lot of turnover, but the parrot song remains the same.
It's like a metronome, only less musical.
So I guess all of the non-answers to my questions indicate a "no" answer to demonstrating the errors of Dr. White in real-time.
Keep lobbing dem grenades from da safety of da bunker, boys!
So I guess all of the non-answers to my questions indicate a "no" answer to demonstrating the errors of Dr. White in real-time.
Keep lobbing dem grenades from da safety of da bunker, boys!
You're not questioning, you're posturing. Mark's book demonstrates--as in QED, metaphysical certitude--that White was wrong when he claimed that the Fathers said the woman of Revelation 12 was "always" the Church and never Mary. Oops.
Combined response from JW and the Cadet Corps?
"Realtime blusterblusterbluster accusationofbadfaith poundthetable regurgitateaccustionoflogicalfallacy Realtime blusterblusterbluster postureposture Realtime talkingpoints VICTORY!"
It's old, it's predictable, and it's stale, right down to the shopworn "grenade/bunker" taunt, which the Corps was deploying 10 years ago.
"Real time--it's the only way to get at truth."
Yes. Of course.
What *was* the Ancient of Days thinking in letting us come up quills, papyri, parchment and moveable type?
But you can rest assured that your efforts at apple-polishing have been duly noted by the great one (count on this thread to be printed and filed as part of his careful nursing of slights and grievances) and will earn you a heat pat and high fives from the rest of the serving staff.
Careful not to question him, though, when you come to the inevitable point when you realize he's neither infallible nor impeccable. The pack will turn and you'll get enloed.
If anyone on this comment page actually cares about the person Mary, who is a created Being, saved by God's grace, do as she did. You'll find those answers in Scripture alone. Any thing and every thing else about her is rubbish peddled by men for their glory and your demise.
Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn't saved. They will always look to another for help, because the Jesus they believe in, saves no one.
saved by grace in 96
abandoned the traditions of men in 97
For His glory alone,
Brian
"I've read Calvin, Sproul and Spurgeon. The Reformed community doesn't seem to waste time on White or seem to find him a representative voice within their enclave, so why should I?"
John Calvin died in 1564.
Charles Spurgeon died in 1892.
R.C. Sproul is still alive and wrote the foreward to James White's book, The Potter's Freedom.
Apparently the "Reformed community" does "waste time on White".
"I, for one, would like to hear Mr. Shea, or any of these supporters her on the combox speak with Dr. White live, that would be very informative for those of us who don't own your books." - Robert on 7/11
"I already know what you think, so the old "read my book" answer isn't cutting it." - Robert on 7/13
Translation: you either lied the first time you wrote or you are lying now. My money is on you lying the first time. If you want to be informed about what the books say, read the books. If you simply want to know how fast I can be on my feet while the Great Man controls the microphone and flings a bunch of half-truths, impugns my honesty, and plays to the choir I can already tell you: he would confirm guys like you in your prejudices. And the funny thing is, you already know that perfectly well. So you don't even want to be informed about that. You simply want somebody to affirm you in what you already think. Which is sort of my point. James has "refuted" something he has not read for the benefit of people like you, who refuse to read it as well since you mind is made up and you will not be troubled to discover new information.
So please: run along back to the AOminions and enjoy a nice high five.
You'll find those answers in Scripture alone
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
Mary [] is a created Being, saved by God's grace, [so] do as she did
Yeah. That's pretty much the cliff's notes of Mark's book.
If anyone on this comment page actually cares about the person Mary, who is a created Being, saved by God's grace, do as she did.
A concise encapsulation of Catholic Marian teaching and everything my book has to say.
You'll find those answers in Scripture alone.
A purely human tradition and non sequitur stapled on to Sacred Tradition artificially and not following one bit from the words preceding it.
Take off the stapled-on bit and we completely agree. Why then seek to fight?
"were taught" refers to the gospel in the past tense and verifiable from Scripture alone. The old, orally passed down teaching defense is what the Romanist must turn to in order to defend his beliefs. The fact that the gospel was already completed and delivered before being written demonstrates that we are to be on guard against the Romanist and every other sect that commits similar errors. (Galatians 1: What will the Romanist be told to believe tomorrow? Who knows, because he is never satisfied with the once and for all delivered gospel. The additions, which are supposed orally passed down non verifiable traditions, will continue to flow from the hills of Rome. Never satisfying and always leaving it's followers wanting for more, because Jesus Christ doesn't satify the appetite of those He hasn't saved. They always need more.
As for me, the Jesus of the Scriptures is so much more than I could ever want or need. He and He alone has my heart, soul and mind. When my eyes look to Heaven in prayer, it is my God and Savior that is the object of my heart. I can't even imagine directing it any where else. That's what happened to this former Romanist in the spring of 96. It took me almost a year to understand from the Scriptures why I was unable to pray to anyone else besides God. I just couldn't do it anymore. It's because He and He alone purchased me with His blood. No one else. That's why.
I know I can't make you understand this, it has to come from the Holy Spirit. I hope it does.
For His glory alone,
Brian
Nice Calvinist boilerplate. Very Pavlovian. Soooooo.... pre-recorded. Cuz you think for yourself.
Oh, and you gotta love the "I was raised Catholic and can tell you..." stamp guaranteeing freshness.
Even better is the "works availeth nothing" thing after working to post one piece of Calvinist agitprop after another. One of the mysteries of predestinarians is why they constantly labor to push things along to a foreordained conclusion in which not one syllable they write has anything whatsoever to do with bringing that conclusion to pass. Is evangelization busy work? Who knows?
Contrary to what White's fans say, a call-in radio show is not the best forum for exposing falsehood.
I hereby challenge White to "take it to the streets" and see if his Calvinism can match Shea's theological brilliance in true battle of wits:
The dance off.
Bickering on the phone is for old ladies. Why does White and rest of Geneva's cheerleaders hide behind their microphones, keyboards, and debate podiums? Because they're afraid of gettin' served.
This has degenerated into a pathetic display of self righteous behavior. Truly sad. Yes, these works availeth nothing for sure.
You're right, brian. Perhaps availing yourself of the sacrament of reconciliation would be a step in the right direction. I'd even give you a lift if you lived in my area. You could go right after me.
This is rich.
Mark refutes James White's point about Revelation 12--that “In the early fathers, the Blessed Virgin, the Immaculate Virgin, is always the church, not Mary.”--by citing two early Patristic sources who make the Marian connection: one from the 5th century and one from the 6th.
James responds as follows:
"When I speak of the early writers, I am thinking second, third, and fourth centuries, not fifth and sixth. Augustine may sometimes be considered “early” but is most often much more of a transitionary figure into the next stage in church history. So in any case, I was speaking of an earlier period than these two citations represent."
I did a little digging on this, and you can learn on James' own site that the earliest Patristic reference to the Marian interpretation of of Revelation 12 comes from Ticonius in the 4th century. Check it out here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/inde...php?
itemid=2322
I hope James will now acknowledge that this position is attested in what he has already deemed to be the "early" Patristic period. And moreover, he claims that this particular point, "is a much more relevant issue" for him than any of the others that Mark raises. If that is indeed the case, no doubt James will want to publically recognize the fact that--according to his own standards--the Marian interpetation of Revelation 12 stands on much firmer ground than he had previously argued.
In other words, he might just want to admit he was wrong.
brian,
The Bible NOWHERE says it is the Sole Rule of Faith. Nowhere! Thus Sola Scriptura is false BY IT'S OWN STANDARDS.
Deal with it.
"were taught" refers to the gospel in the past tense and verifiable from Scripture alone.
cite Scripture to that effect.
Why if everything is verifiable from Scripture alone even bring the oral tradition?
And why, if Scripture is enough, does it explicitly command that the oral tradition be passed on:
"And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."
?
"In other words, he might just want to admit he was wrong."
Will. Never. Ever. Happen.
He'll just move the goalposts again or arbitrarily redefine his terms and keep declaring victory. His narrative demands it.
Brian:
Interesting bit about Ticonius. Hadn't heard of it before.
What nobody is talking about, of course, is the fact that in preceding centuries Revelation was a book which the Church had not even made up its mind about. Also the overwhelming focus of the Church was on Christological questions, not Mariological ones. That doesn't mean there was no Marian devotion. It's all over the place. It's just that nobody's arguing about it much. But the early Church sure does not look much like a place where James White would be comfy.
Hi Mark,
Speaking of books and wanting to read them...where is my order? LOL. Just kidding, I know you wil ship them post haste.
Peace
What great lengths the creature will go to in order to seek help and comfort of other creatures in the spirit realm. The one true eternal God revealed in the Scripture's doesn't satisfy the creatures on the broad road. Instead, they turn to one another, thinking they can obtain what only God can provide. Repent and trust God alone!
Brian:
If you could hit the pause button on the pre-recorded Calvinist boilerplate for a moment and talk like a real human being for a minute, lemme ask you: Do you have any kids?
Of course not.
A man with children would know that someday, some how, they would read his blog comments. And therefore could never write something as stilted as Brian's most recent for fear that they would laugh themselves into the ER at his expense.
"With all due respect to SAM (and that's not boilerplate--I respect him greatly), it was about as daring a prophecy as predicting sunrise."
I only bet on sure things.
"What great lengths the creature will go to in order to seek help and comfort of other creatures in the spirit realm. The one true eternal God revealed in the Scripture's doesn't satisfy the creatures on the broad road. Instead, they turn to one another, thinking they can obtain what only God can provide. Repent and trust God alone!"
To what great lengths proud creatures will go, inventing a Jesus more to their own liking than the Son of God Himself! The one true eternal God revealed in Scripture is repugnant to their vanity, for He demands that they submit to ministers who are less than He, like the disciples whose feet He washed! How unlike the disciples, these insist that He cannot humble Himself by acting through mere unworthy creatures! So they invent fables, turning from one false minister to another, thinking equality with God is something to be grasped at! Repent, and return to the one, true Church, founded on Peter and his successors!
Or at least agree that fable and proclamation don't make very good arguments.
Brian:
Since you have hinted that you were a former Catholic and have now found the truth elsewhere, I thought you might enjoy reading this short thought process from someone who had the *opposite* experience. BTW... he was still a Protestant when he said this:
["We say that the Apostles considered episcopacy an indifferent matter, though Ignatius says it is essential. We say that the table is not an altar, though Ignatius says it is. We say there is no priest's office under the Gospel, though Clement affirms it. We say that Baptism is not an enlightening, though Justin takes it for granted. We say that heresy is scarcely a misfortune, though Ignatius accounts it a deadly sin; and all this, because it is our right, and our duty, to interpret Scripture in our own way. We uphold the pure unmutilated Scripture; the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants; the Bible and our sense of the Bible. We claim a sort of parliamentary privilege to interpret laws in our own way, and not to suffer an appeal to any court beyond ourselves.
We know, and we view it with consternation, that all antiquity runs counter to our interpretation; and therefore, alas, the Church was corrupt from very early times indeed. But mind, we hold all this in a truly Catholic spirit, not in bigotry. We allow in others the right to private judgment, and confess that we, as others, are fallible men. We confess facts are against us; we do but claim the liberty of theorizing in spite of them. Far be it from us to say that we are certainly right; we only say that the whole early Church was certainly wrong. We do not impose our belief on anyone; we only say that those who take the contrary side are Papists, firebrands, persecutors, madmen, zealots, bigots . . . "]
If you don't know who actually said this then just Google to find out. IMO, you might benefit greatly from reading *much* more of him.
Take care...
.
Not to jump into the fray, by any means, but it does seem silly to want to resolve huge, overarching matters of faith in a "debate." A public conversation is useful when both parties respect each other. Mr. White does not even believe Catholics are Christian, so there isn't much to work with.
I spent my entire adult life in Mr. White's camp. And then I went to a Mass, to the baptism of a friend's baby. I am graduate educated, and yet it took TWO YEARS of going to Mass weekly or more, hounding a priest, a deacon, a youth minister, and a director of religious ed, reading stacks of books by Mark, Thomas Howard, Scott Hahn, etc, before I finally hit the end of all my objections and converted.
A debate? An hour or so? Please.
What great lengths the creature will go to in order to seek help and comfort of other creatures in the spirit realm. The one true eternal God revealed in the Scripture's doesn't satisfy the creatures on the broad road. Instead, they turn to one another, thinking they can obtain what only God can provide. Repent and trust God alone!
"When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones."
"Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne."
I happened to read Abp. Chaput's reflection on the news media at http://www.zenit.org/article-264...26440?
l=english this morning, and this paragraph stood out:
"Visual and electronic media, today's dominant media, need a certain kind of content. They thrive on brevity, speed, change, urgency, variety and feelings. But thinking requires the opposite. Thinking takes time. It needs silence and the methodical skills of logic."
That, in a nutshell, is why the kind of real-time "debates" that Dr. White is so interested in are colossal wastes of time. They're powerless to persuade one's opponent, which is, in fact, the point of apologetics.
Then there's the Scriptural basis for Christian apologetics, 1 Peter 3.15:
... always have your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope you all have.
Lesser known, apparently, is the verse which follows:
But give it with courtesy and respect and with a clear conscience, so that those who slander you when you are living a good life in Christ may be proved wrong in the accusations that they bring.
In all honesty, Dr. White's apologetics do not impress me as courteous or respectful toward Catholics; but they are certainly slanderous, and therefore counter-Scriptural. His treatment of his sister, Patty Bonds, speaks volumes in this regard. (See, for example, http://www.catholic-convert.com/...tty%
20Bonds.pdf ).
Why indulge a bully? After all, people engage in such behavior not because of superior physical or intellectual strength, but out of a sense of insecurity regarding one or the other of those so-called "strengths".
"Repent and trust God alone!"
We do. That's why we believe what He said. ALL of what He said. Therefore, we are and remain Catholic.
It's too bad White won't debate Sungenis anymore (at least for them). They're two peas in a pod - deserve each other.
Sungenis does that, too. It's all about him and it's all about White. Debate me! Debate me! Me, me, me!
Get a life!
It is amazing that the way to enter the Most Holy Place has been accomplished at such a cost, by the blood of Jesus, and yet, men still look for another mediator in the spirit realm to approach God. For those who possess the full assurance of faith, we can not even imagine looking to another intercessor, besides the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit realm. I would rather burn at the stakes than insult my God and Savior, by doing such a thing.
Communicating with the spirits of the dead will leave you dead in your sins. Trust and draw near to God in the way He has established. Stop praying to creatures when God opened for us through the curtain, that is, His body.
If it is James White you have a problem with, go to Proclaiming The Gospel Ministries of Mike Gendron or Berean Beacon of former RC priest Richard Bennett.
For His glory alone,
Brian
Hebrews 10
Oh, Brian. We appreciate your pluck, but not your discernment or knowledge. Show enough respect to at least learn what another person believes before ignorantly critiquing that belief. But thanks for the thought. We'll "pray" for you, too.
On another note, Francis hit that other sameness I forgot about. They both have fake doctorates. They're like mirror images of each other.
Sorry - that's White and Sungenis on the fake doctorate thing.
"For those who possess the full assurance of faith, we can not even imagine looking to another intercessor, besides the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit realm. I would rather burn at the stakes than insult my God and Savior, by doing such a thing."
Ever pray for a family member or friend? If so, aren't you getting in the way of Jesus's mediation? Why do you need to pray for your friends? Ever ask someone to pray for you? Heck, why pray at all if it's predestined, regardless of good or evil actions, whether you are going to hell or heaven. (All Calvinists seem to become Molinists when it comes to actually, you know, living life.)
"Communicating with the spirits of the dead will leave you dead in your sins."
Aren't the saints alive in Christ?
Also, if everything is predestined, why are bothering to post here? If Catholics are going to hell, haven't they been predestined by God to be Catholics?
Anyway, I'll be praying for you.
Communicating with the spirits of the dead will leave you dead in your sins.
"he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive"
Calvin didn't die for your sins brian. Jesus, The Son of Mary died for your sins.
Deal with it.
Also Sola Scriptura IS STILL not taught ANYWHERE in the scripture. But Tradition is 2 Thes 3:6.
Deal with it. You left the Land flowing with Milk & Honey(Jesus) for the House of Bondage(Calvin).
Repent & believe the Gospel not the satanic teaching of Faith Alone(James 2:24) which can only lead to spiritual death.
The pack will turn and you'll get enloed.
ROTFL!!!!
Poor Tim. He's been Verbed.
Incredible. So when the Scriptures refer to the dead, who are these people? You just can't help yourselves can you? You want to contact creatures in the spirit realm, which has nothing to do with asking living people for prayer, so badly, that you twist and turn to do it. Oh, how sad it is for a person to seek the help of creatures when Jesus Christ has shed His blood to allow direct access to God the Father! You choose to communicate with created beings instead of God almighty?
Yes, I pray that God will give you a heart for Him and Him alone. When you stand in judgement there will be no created beings there to help you. It will be too late to call on the name of the Lord. Repent and flee the teachings of man and look to Christ alone!
I am amazed how obtuse the comments are on this board when I write about entering into the presence of God through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ! If you don't feel the need to bow down before Him when you read those words, you don't know Him at all. It is Christ who died in my place and it is God the Father who made me alive with Christ! To Him alone be ALL the glory and honor!
Read Colossians 2:8-15
"So when the Scriptures refer to the dead, who are these people?"
So you believe that God has predestined everyone who has lived to be in the body of Christ? There are no reprobate dead? That seems rather lax for a Calvinist...
You choose to communicate with created beings instead of God almighty?
Um, isn't that what you are doing when you write the above and hit "send"?
OK, OK, enough already. I see no evidence of reverence for God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ and what He accomplished through the shedding of His blood. So, therefore, I must move on.
Seeds have been planted. My job here is done. Let's see what God determines to do with them. After all, He is the Potter.
For His gory alone
"I am amazed how obtuse the comments are on this board when I write about entering into the presence of God through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ! If you don't feel the need to bow down before Him when you read those words, you don't know Him at all."
We do. Every time we go to Mass or Adoration. We bow, kneel or prostrate ourselves before his real physical presence. You're preaching to the choir here, even if you don't yet fully grasp that.
OK, OK, enough already. I see no evidence of reverence for God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ and what He accomplished through the shedding of His blood.
Yes, that does happen when you clamp your eyes shut.
"Seeds have been planted. My job here is done. Let's see what God determines to do with them. After all, He is the Potter."
Although belief in predestination rarely manifests in a Calvinist's daily life, it sure does make for a convenient exist strategy.
For His gory alone
brian | 07.14.09 - 2:23 pm | #
Freudian?
"Seeds have been planted. My job here is done."
Yes, Brian, you've done a good job for your present seed supplier.
As a matter of fact... almost *exactly* like in Matthew (13:25).
Sad... but true.
So here's hoping that God will grant you the grace to see the Truth, stop planting those bad seeds, and return to the Church before "harvest time".
Keep praying...
.
Yes, I pray that God will give you a heart for Him and Him alone.
Amen to this, and I pray the same for you. May God draw all our hearts closer to his.
--
Chris: You're preaching to the choir here...
If your local choir answers back as snappily as Mark does, your church services must be pretty interesting.
Well, our music program at Our Lady of Snark IS rather unique..
"I am amazed how obtuse the comments are on this board when I write about entering into the presence of God through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ! If you don't feel the need to bow down before Him when you read those words, you don't know Him at all. It is Christ who died in my place and it is God the Father who made me alive with Christ! To Him alone be ALL the glory and honor!'
"I am amazed how obtuse the comments are on this board when I write . . . If you don't feel the need to bow down before Him when you read those words, you don't know Him at all."
Wow. Under sola scriptura, every man is not even his own Pope, let alone his own Voice from Sinai.
Catholicism constantly reminds people that there are others in God's order of things who must be respected, acknowledged, and loved. There are risks to the approach, but it keeps "me and Jesus" from becoming "meandJesus" and then, finally, "meJesus."
"Our Lady of Snark"
I was going to query this title, but I suppose she is a Jewish mother...
BenYachov said:
"Also Sola Scriptura IS STILL not taught ANYWHERE in the scripture. But Tradition is 2 Thes 3:6."
Perhaps you should try to understand the other side of the issue. Sola Scriptura is not a positive assertion; the Protestant doesn't claim that the scriptures teach explicitly that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith.
However, Sola Scriptura is a negative assertion, like the statement: "There is only one KNOWN rule of faith", which cannot be proven right, unless one searches all known things to find that there is no rule of faith.
Protestants are "agnostic", in a sense, as to whether or not Tradition is a rule of faith, because they would need to know which traditions are infallible, and which ones are not. As a Catholic, I would reject the Protestant agnosticism, but not on the basis of stating that the scriptures nowhere teach Sola Scriptura...that's simply misunderstanding the issue.
Commenting by HaloScan
