You did a good job of giving the technical meaning of vicar, and sort of making Protestant criticism of the term look bad, etc.
But what Protestants usually understand the term to mean "the representative of Christ on earth", they are referring to the Holy Spirit, (not in the way you are interpreting Protestant understanding); but rather based upon Jesus own words and Acts 2,
"If I do not go away, the Spirit will come come, but when I go, I will send Him to you. John 16:8 see also through verse 12
And Acts 2:33-36 -- about how when Jesus was ascended to the right hand of the Father and sat down and was exalted, The Father and He send the Spirit to baptize the church and give them power to witness and live holy and guide the church.
That is the main point that Protestants are making. the Holy Spirit is the person in the Trinity who is more actively working directly in the church and believers on earth; in that sense He is vicar or representing Christ on earth in the church and in regenerate believers in Christ.
He, the Holy spirit is God and Christ is God and the Father is God; but there is only one God. There is no blasphemy or heresy. You seemed to have gone overboard on this.
"Spirit of Christ" in Romans 8:9 could also be twisted and wrongly interpreted in the way you did; but that is wrong. Romans 8:11 also.
Barney Fife's picture and emphasizing "administrative deputy" and accusing of subordinationism and some kind of other Sabellianism implications are big stretches.
Why do you think Jesus said what He did in John 16:8, and then the reality of the Spirit's coming in Acts 2:33-34 (also prophesied in John 7:37-39 and john 14, 15, 16)?
What is the purpose of the seeming necessity for Christ to leave the earth, and for the Holy Spirit to only seem to be able to come to earth if and when Christ ascends? "If I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you . . . "
Why did Jesus speak this way?
What is God's purpose of this relationship of going and coming and taking the place of on earth, even tough they are spirit and not limited by place or time or space?
You can see why Modalism, Sabellianism, Monarchianism, and subordinationism gained as much ground as it did in Church History and as does naturally in people's minds.
I do think Phil Vaz and Steve Ray defended the 33,000 denomination thing quite well.
http://blog.catholic-
convert.com...p=1536#comments
Just skimming through it makes White's quibbles over how many thousands meet the technical definitions of protestant and denomination look quite silly. I am amazed Phil put this much work into it. The fact that trying to count them makes your head spin is a sign there are quite a few.
Ken, about a year ago a Protestant posting over at the the Envoy apologetics site recommended that I read John Paul II's encyclical regarding the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. I read it and liked it very much and I bet you would to.
http://www.vatican.va/
holy_fathe...icantem_en.html
Ken, you're not dealing at all with the meaning of the word "vicar," which always refers to a subordinate of someone higher in rank or authority. The Holy Spirit is not the vicar of anyone or anything. The Holy Spirit is the Almighty God, the Lord and giver of life, co-equal and co-essential with God the Father Almighty and the eternally-begotten Son of God. Yes, Jesus continues to be present and active in His Church and in thr world through the Spirit, but that doesn't make the Spirit a subordinate deputy of Jesus.
Hi Ken,
Ditto Jordan's last sentence. None of what you cited from Scripture implies a lessening of the divine status of the Holy Spirit at all. But calling Him a "vicar" clearly does, as is now proven beyond argument.
White needs to retract this. This is not a time for foolish pride and never admitting that a lowly ignorant Catholic can be right about anything and an exalted, elect Reformed Baptist mistaken.
As a teacher and influential person in the anti-Catholic community, White is responsible for not leading people astray, even in an area where all Christians agree, and Catholics and Protestants have no dispute.
That is the main point that Protestants are making. the Holy Spirit is the person in the Trinity who is more actively working directly in the church and believers on earth; in that sense He is vicar or representing Christ on earth in the church and in regenerate believers in Christ.
Your point is theologically defective. All ad extra Trinitarian acts are common to all three divine Persons, because they share a common divine will and power (on account of common divine nature). The Spirit does not "replace" Christ on earth. Rather, the mode of bodily presence, which is unique to the Person of the Son (although the act of Incarnation itself is common to all three), is replaced with a mode of divine presence that reflects the Triune operation more directly and that is attributed primarily to the Spirit by the doctrine of appropriation.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
01658a.htm
That's Dave's point. "Vicar" implies that the Person of the Spirit is acting in place of the Person of the Son, which is clearly not the case. All three Persons are still present in all Trinitarian acts. The Son hasn't "gone" anywhere in the sense of not being fully present in all Trinitarian acts; only Calvin's nonsensical understanding of the Ascension says otherwise. Likewise, the Holy Spirit has not become uniquely present in Trinitarian acts to the exclusion of the Father and the Son. It's errors in these basic matters of Triadology that make us so suspicious of White. The notion of the Holy Spirit as "Vicar" simply reinforces by suspicion that White doesn't believe that there is a single divine will so that all divine Persons are present in every ad extra divine act.
I speak from experience, because I myself made the mistake a couple of years ago of inadvertently denying "one God = one divine will," but when I realized I was wrong, I admitted my error and corrected it:
http://energeticprocession.wordp...ent/#comment-
40
It wouldn't be such a bad thing if White would admit when he had blown it on the Trinity and retract his published errors on the subject. Your interpretation of the Paraclete is clearly wrong, and if that is White's position, then he is wrong as well. But you can't just screw up basic Triadology and treat it like it's no big deal. It opens up the door for Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., to attack our belief as irrational. I don't appreciate White giving these people an "in" just because he's too proud to admit that he's screwed up.
Note the requisite charge against Dave's honestly, without which it wouldn't be a James White post:
"Follow the logic of that one through. In any case, here are the opening paragraphs of an e-mail promoting Dave Armstrong's books from Sophia Institute as sent to James Swan:
A lifelong Protestant Scripture scholar has recently brought forth evidence that Catholicism is the only Christian religion that agrees completely with the Bible --- evidence that's so compelling it led him to become a Catholic!
...
Could it be that Armstrong has deceived Sophia Institute? I suppose. Or, could it be that some over-zealous copy writer for Sophia Institute went off on a tangent and Armstrong is not responsible for it? Sure. And if that is the case, I'm sure I will see an article on DA's website tomorrow correcting the advertisement. But the chances of that are about as good as my finding a retraction and apology for his absurd accusation of implicit Trinitarian heresy based upon his inane handling of a single Latin term."
Given that anyone familiar with Dave's work knows that he has repeatedly stated that he is NOT a scholar, it's obvious that the blurb should have said "student of Scripture" or some equivalent term. Indeed, I'm fairly certain that Dave has explictly pointed out that he is not a scholar in articles to which White has directly responded, so why White would expect him to say anything else now is beyond me.
On the substance, though, I think White's use of Vicar does connote the Holy Spirit being "in place of" Christ after Christ's Ascension, and that is clearly a theologically erroneous interpretation of Pentecost. Indeed, the Gospel itself points out that the Holy Spirit's presence is in common with the Son and the Father (John 16:13-2
. The Holy Spirit can hardly be a "vicar" when the Son is right there with Him.
A few responses to a few of James White's comments:
James White said: Now he and a few other Romanists have decided that if I object to the application of the title 'Vicar of Christ' to the Pope, this means I would logically have to subordinate the Spirit in a heretical sense.
Sorry, that's a straw man. We aren't saying that objecting to the Pope's title of "Vicar of Christ" means one must subordinate the Spirit in a heretical sense. Rather, we are saying that calling the Holy Spirit "Vicar of Christ" is suggestive of Subordinationist heresy. One can deny that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ without asserting that the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ.
JW continues: And the reason for this? It's easy: pick a single meaning for 'vicar/vicarious' to fit your absurd assertion, ignore the original context, and voila! You have yet another wonderful apologetic argument.
Again, you have failed to address the objection we have raised. "Vicar of Christ" as applied to the Pope carries a specific range of meanings. You, however, said that it is blasphemous to apply the title of "Vicar of Christ" to any man, since the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ. If you mean that the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ in the same way that Catholics mean when they say the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, then I'm afraid you've accidentally lapsed into Subordinationism.
The problem is that you seem to want to use the word "vicar" in a sense that is not the usual sense, and not the sense that Catholics use in reference to the Pope.
JW continues: The serious reader knows that my objection to the term 'Vicar of Christ' is based upon the fact that it is the Spirit who is sent by the Father and the Son into the world so that believers are not 'left alone,' as Jesus promised in John 15-16.
But that is not what a "vicar" is. To use the word "vicar" to describe the Holy Spirit's role is to suggest that the Holy Spirit is present with us while the Father and the Son are present elsewhere. It is to suggest that the Holy Spirit has a lesser, provisional office, and has authority and glory only as the Father and the Son see fit to bestow it upon Him. (Jonathan Prejean explains it perfectly, I think.)
JW continues: To give that role and title to a man is blasphemous; and what is more, it would be very easy to develop the point even further, demonstrating how often Rome has claimed authority over the church that only the Spirit of God Himself could ever truly bear and wield.
We believe that God Almighty condescends to work through frail and sin-prone human nature to accomplish His will. The Pope as "Vicar of Christ" is another aspect of the Incarnational Principle at work.
JW continues: But to take a different meaning of 'vicar' that is utterly outside of the range of meaning that I myself have used and then turn it into an implicit charge of Trinitarian heresy is simply despi
JW continues: But to take a different meaning of 'vicar' that is utterly outside of the range of meaning that I myself have used and then turn it into an implicit charge of Trinitarian heresy is simply despicable, let alone ridiculous . . .
As has been made clear here, we know you believe in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit is co-equal and co-essential with the Father and the Son, that the Holy Spirit fully possesses the single divine nature and divine will. What we are objecting to is your use of language that is misleading and incompatible with your Trinitarian belief. Please don't be so proud as to dig in your heels on this matter just because this error of yours was pointed out to you by a few lowly Romanists.
Jonathan said: The Son hasn't "gone" anywhere in the sense of not being fully present in all Trinitarian acts; only Calvin's nonsensical understanding of the Ascension says otherwise.
That's a good point. James White is a Calvinist. So perhaps he shares John Calvin's defective understanding of the Ascension?
So perhaps he shares John Calvin's defective understanding of the Ascension?
At least implicitly, he must. That's the only way that the notion of the Holy Spirit as a "replacement" for Christ makes sense. Having something like that belief is the only way that one might deny that Christ is sending Himself back along with the Holy Spirit.
Be sure to see White's "response" to this post:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=2259
And my counter-reply:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-hit-
piece.html
Could it be that Armstrong has deceived Sophia Institute? I suppose. Or, could it be that some over-zealous copy writer for Sophia Institute went off on a tangent and Armstrong is not responsible for it? Sure. And if that is the case, I'm sure I will see an article on DA's website tomorrow correcting the advertisement. But the chances of that are about as good as my finding a retraction and apology for his absurd accusation of implicit Trinitarian heresy based upon his inane handling of a single Latin term."
Ken,
I apologized for my slight to Dr. White. Will he apologize to DA for his?
White has never, ever apologized to me for anything. If he does now, it'll be the first time in 12 years, and we all know how much he has lied about and insulted me over that time.
I've apologized to him (always publicly) maybe 6-8 times, have defended him against detractors, have made links to his stuff and acknowledged helpful research that he does, urged Catholics to lay off insulting him, offered to go onto his webcast for a friendly, non-theological chat, etc.
One can see a clear, major difference there. Yet he claims to be the elect, regenerate Christian, and claims I am not. You know the tree by its fruits. I never say he is not a Christian, but he is certainly one who very often does not act as a Christian should act: lovingly towards others, even proclaimed, supposed "enemies".
I have now tripled the size of the original post, adding some good combox discussion, more original materials, and a section on where White seems to have derived his goofy "argument".
Note also the irony of White accusing me of apologetics that is the equivalent of "Jack Chick level materials" while he actually uses an exact argument that is found in Chick publications. The king of double standards and rank hypocrisy reigns!
Another classic of misrepresentation, from one Cory Tucholski:
I suggest that you check out Dr. White’s recent blog entry on this unfortunate example of dishonesty from one of your own apologists, Dave Armstrong. According to this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, vicars are representatives with the same authority and powers granted to the ordinary in their diocese. This means that the Pope is claiming the authority and power of Jesus Christ, which is blasphemy. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would fill that office, not a mere man. This article explains it in greater detail.
Armstrong quotes the dictionary definition of a vicar, but he knows full well that this is not the definition of vicar that is implied by the Pope’s Vicar of Christ title. That is blatant dishonesty on his part.
On which bank of the Tiber will I remain? The one that represents truth and doesn’t have to resort to name-calling and dishonesty to try to call someone a non-Trinitarian. James White has undoubtedly done more to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity than any of the Roman Catholic apologists who would be his detractors. This is the side of the river you’re trying to entice me to? No, thank you. I will stay put.
http://josiahconcept.org/2007/09...ng-james-white/
I replied there:
Where did I ever assert that White was a "non-Trinitarian"? This is the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, I wrote in the paper itself:
"I am not asserting that James White consciously, deliberately denies the divinity or deity of the Holy Spirit. Of course he does not. He defends the Holy Trinity . . ."
It's highly interesting that you lie in the course of railing against someone who supposedly lied but in fact did not. Is it that difficult for you to verify the "facts" you present?
In Him,
Dave Armstrong
http://josiahconcept.org/2007/09...e/#comment-
3361
Cory still doesn't get it, so I have clarified a second time:
Cory Tucholski, on September 11th, 2007 at 5:32 pm Said:
Where did you assert that Dr. White is a non-Trinitarian? In the title of the article itself: “James White . . . Asserts a Statement that Logically Reduces to a Denial that the Holy Spirit is God.” If one denies that the Holy Spirit is God, that would, in my mind at least, make a person a non-Trinitarian.
You assert that he doesn’t “consciously” or “deliberately” deny the divinity of the Spirit, but your article asserts that he is doing so on some level. In fact, the paragraph you quote in the above comment ends thus:
"What I am contending is that one particular statement of his, made recently, can hardly (in and of itself) be interpreted in any other way (once scrutinized as to possible and plausible objective meanings) than the denial that the Holy Spirit is God."
I’m hardly misrepresenting your position.
http://josiahconcept.org/2007/09...e/#comment-
3363
Dave Armstrong, on September 11th, 2007 at 7:00 pm Said:
Nope. You’re dead wrong again. One can argue that the logical implications of a statement or argument leads to a position that the person himself would not agree with. In other words, one is contending that the person in question has not thought through the issue properly, so as to see that the conclusion of his argument leads to something that he himself doesn’t even agree with. I stated as much in the third paragraph:
“It’s a problem, not of theological error per se, but rather, of overzealous rhetoric, ‘pat’ answers not properly thought-through, . . .”
Indeed, this is one of the key elements of the reductio ad absurdum argument in logic. I use the argument all the time, and almost invariably it is misunderstood by someone like you who doesn’t comprehend the very form of the argument.
You write:
“If one denies that the Holy Spirit is God, that would, in my mind at least, make a person a non-Trinitarian.”
Yes, of course. But I have not stated that I think White denies the deity of the Holy Spirit, and have asserted the contrary. He is guilty of imprecise language. Now you are lying about me, and insist on doing so, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And this is standard anti-Catholic technique: anything goes where a Catholic is concerned, no matter how antithetical to fact and reason. I have plainly stated. clear as day, that I have not accused White of denying that the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet you want to keep saying that I have done so. So this means you either insist that I am lying through my teeth about my own argument, or that I am such an idiot that I don’t even know what my own argument is, and you know what it is better than I do myself.
Further down in the article, I reiterate a third time:
“I happily note again that I have not accused him of denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but — beyond that — he is responsible for not leaving this very heretical and dangerous impression upon less theologically-astute readers.”
Jordan Potter, one of my readers, who made this observation first, plainly stated that he is not denying that White is a trinitarian, either:
“. . . As has been made clear here, we know you believe in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit is co-equal and co-essential with the Father and the Son, that the Holy Spirit fully possesses the single divine nature and divine will. What we are objecting to is your use of language that is misleading and incompatible with your Trinitarian belief. Please don’t be so proud as to dig in your heels on this matter just because this error of yours was pointed out to you by a few lowly Romanists.”
That’s now four times our viewpoint has been made clear. Perhaps you will deal with our actual argument now, rather than misrepresenting and grotesquely distorting it? White won’t, as usual, but that doesn’t mean that no one else can do so, just because he lacks the confidence to defend his positions against rational critique.
http://josiahconcept.org/2007/09...e/#comment-
3364
According to this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, vicars are representatives with the same authority and powers granted to the ordinary in their diocese.
That's not all it says. It also makes absolutely clear that vicars are representatives and subordinates of those who have higher rank and greater authority. You are not being honest and forthright about what The Catholic Encyclopedia says.
This means that the Pope is claiming the authority and power of Jesus Christ, which is blasphemy.
Did St. Peter blaspheme when he worked miracles with the very authority and power of Jesus Christ? Do Christians blaspheme when they baptise in the name of Jesus Christ? Are you a blasphemer when you conclude your prayers, "in Jesus' name. Amen"?
Sorry, Cory, but you don't seem to have a very good grasp of Christianity, nor of elementary logic.
On which bank of the Tiber will I remain? The one that represents truth and doesn’t have to resort to name-calling and dishonesty . . .
Wonderful news! See you at the next Easter Vigil!
Our friend Cory has taken up the challenge. Good for him. He has more backbone and intellectual confidence than James White (whom he has to defend because the man can't defend his own statements and arguments):
"Additionally, a new project has presented itself. Dave Armstrong has challenged me to substantiate my views on the Vicar of Christ and answer the arguments presented in his article. I will begin a detailed examination and refutation of his arguments tomorrow as well."
http://josiahconcept.org/2007/09...busy-busy-busy/
I've moved this post to the top of the blog (for the convenience of my readers) in light of Cory's announcement that he will be doing "a detailed examination and refutation of it.
Cory is really on the ball when it comes to accurately describing Catholic beliefs (being a former Catholic himself):
"I see them [Marian dogmas] as obvious syncretism to help evangelize folks who believe in female deities. Elevating Mary to an equal status with Jesus makes the Gospel more attractive to folks like that."
http://josiahconcept.org/2007/01...g-up-confusion/
"I see them [Marian dogmas] as obvious syncretism to help evangelize folks who believe in female deities. Elevating Mary to an equal status with Jesus makes the Gospel more attractive to folks like that."
And my record remains unbroken. I have never-- and I don't mean almost never or 99.999% never and one or two exceptions--heard a former Catholic correctly articulate Catholic teaching.
Oh, he's a former Catholic turned anti-Catholic fundamentalist? No wonder he doesn't accurately represent the content of the Catholic faith.
Of course, before I knew better, before my conversion, I had the same uniformed idea of the Marian dogmas as Cory.
I forgot that I used to worship Diana and Isis. Whew! What a long strange trip it's been! Pretty soon we'll have all of the rest of the trillions of female-deity-worhippers in our ranks and then, watch out!
LOLOL I confess that, many years ago, I came close to worshiping certain female goddesses of a TV actress sort, never, however, imagining for a second that somehow they would replace the function and prerogative of Almighty God. 
Oh, he's a former Catholic turned anti-Catholic fundamentalist? No wonder he doesn't accurately represent the content of the Catholic faith.
My sentiment exactly. Sometimes I don't know whether to grind my teeth in frustration at these "converts" and their ignorance of the Catholic faith, or weep over them in sadness.
Cory has commented on some of our comments:
http://josiahconcept.org/2007/09...lt-apologetics/
He has actually retracted the remark above (good for him), but claims that I have a "personality cult" going on on my blog.
I don't think so . . . that ain't me, and it ain't my readers. I think it is a gross distortion of both myself and my goals here and the general nature of the comments and those who make them. It ain't about me; it's about the Catholic Faith.
I know that full well and I think my readers and commenters here know it too.
Commenting by HaloScan
