Dave, as someone with no horse in this race, let me observe the following re the Jonathan Edwards segment: protestantism is (I do not mean this to be derogatory, just an analogy) like a lizard that can survive by separating from its tail, since one of the core doctrines is willingness to always be corrected by scripture and never revere any person or institution above that.
Hence White can claim, "Well, Edwards was mistaken on this point, thanks for pointing it out, I'll read him with greater circumspection in the future."
He made this point against Matatics in the (I think) Marian dogmas debate when Matatics criticized Luther.
So I'm not sure why you follow this line. If you could show Edwards used an interpretive method that White uses (say in other contexts) to reach this conclusion, that would be a different matter. Cheers.
Mostly I did the paper because it was fun and interesting.White will simply ignore it.
Another absolute classic of illogic and insipid, puerile misrepresentation:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=2075
Mr. Armstrong writes:
"Another absolute classic of illogic and insipid, puerile misrepresentation:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php? itemid=2075"
How exactly did Mr. Swan misrepresent you. He merely pointed out the folly of your attempt to hogtie Dr. White by invoking the view of Edwards. Protestants are under no obligation to walk in lockstep with all of the views of theological giants of the past. Edwards certainly was no friend of Rome. He would disagree with you on many things. So what exactly have you proven? Again, how have you been misrepresented?
Protestants are under no obligation to walk in lockstep with all of the views of theological giants of the past.
The trouble is that when you critique protestantism for having no firm roots in history. When you say thay are like "infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.(Eph 4:14)" That they are too influenced by the current time and culture. When you make that point they will say their teaching is at least a few centuries old and they do respect the older confessions and leaders. So they want it both ways. They want to claim a pedigree but they also want the freedom to ignore that tradition without a second thought.
So if the complaint is that protestantism is contradictory and irrational and therefore hard to disprove rationally then you are right. We just need to lay out that fact and pray the Holy Spirit will cause some to see the truth.
If you claim something is clear in scripture yet even your favorite theologians don't see it there that can give you pause. You just never know what will make somebody see the light.
Excellent point Randy.
This shows the typical Protestant flaw in getting to pick-and-choose the theology that agrees with what they want to believe.
I am sure that we will next see on the AOM site that the quote Dave uses is being taken out of context. We will see the usualy spin take place on how it does agree with the AOM theology.
The quote that AOM provides as a defense simply show again how straw-man arguments are always being constructed against the ultimate truth delivered by Jesus Christ to the Cathoic Church.
>How exactly did Mr. Swan misrepresent you. He merely pointed out the folly of your attempt to hogtie Dr. White by invoking the view of Edwards. Protestants are under no obligation to walk in lockstep with all of the views of theological giants of the past.
I reply: Which is one of many reasons I could never beleive in Protestantism. It has the character of a do-it-youself custom made religion.
Not cool.
How exactly did Mr. Swan misrepresent you.
One has only so much patience. I spent a lot of time with Doug Mabry's inanities, to show exactly how his thinking went awry and illogical. Once in a while it is worthwhile to do this. Before that I showed how White was thinking illogically in a similar manner. This is standard practice with anti-Catholics.
The Swan piece was so ridiculous that it would be an insult to my intelligence and that of virtually all of my readers (who aren't anti-Catholic) to reply to it. It doesn't deserve the dignity of a reply. It's simply an attempt to throw out whatever hogwash (in an anti-Catholic mentality) that can be dished out in order to cover up the embarrassment of Jonathan Edwards contradicting their position, and to special plead.
In other words, it is exactly what I have less than no patience with, and so I won't waste my time. I'll wait for White's next "review" and search for the little tidbits of actual content here and there.
The Swan piece was so ridiculous that it would be an insult to my intelligence and that of virtually all of my readers (who aren't anti-Catholic) to reply to it. It doesn't deserve the dignity of a reply.
Here we have the ravings of a man with his back up against a wall. That's exactly what I thought. Thanks anyway.
Oh no, not a man with his back against the wall. A man who has already responded to Mr. Swan many a time, as Dave's links can attest to. If you wish to understand Mr. Armstrong's frustration with him, I suggest you go read those.
Otherwise, it is cowardly of you to simply charge right in, and accuse the webmaster of this site of being raving mad, without any proof to back it up. You should try actually listen, instead of charging in like a bull.
It would appear that Mr. White is now consulting a Hebrew lexicon in an another failed attempt to refute an apologist of Rome.
This time he misinterprets (either intentionally or otherwise) the Hebrew word "darash" (where the word drash comes from) to argue that somehow Catholics violate the biblical injunction contained in Deut. 18:10.
By taking the translation from NASB (does he get paid a nickle everytime he quotes from a product that he was hired to be a "critical consultant" for?) and a Hebrew lexicon, he seeks to give the impression that the OT prohibition set forth in Deut. 18:10-11 was against prayers to saints in heaven. The problem with his argument is that the phrase "darash 'el ha-methim" doesn't mean communicating with the dead, it means calliing up the spirits of the dead (i.e. summoning the spirit to come and appear before the summoner) for the purpose of consulting or for divination. In short, he tries to make an argument against a specific action encompass a general proposition.
Please note that in I Sam. 28:3-19, Saul had the witch of Endor summon the spirit of Samuel to come before him so that he may inquire of Samuel the outcome of the impending battle with the Philistines. Saul didn't "pray" to Samuel. Saul didn't ask Samuel to intercede with God for him. Saul wasn't content to leave Samuel in the bosom of Abraham; Saul made him come back and present himself to Saul.
When a Catholic, Orthodox, Copt and the like "pray to" a saint, we are not calling them up to appear before us here on earth for consultation, divination or anything else. When we "pray to a saint," we are asking a saint who is in heaven to intercede with God and ask God to grant our prayers, just like we would ask someone still alive on earth to do.
Now, I guess if I used a necromancer to summon up St. Anthony to appear before me to inquire about tomorrow's winning lottery numbers or to tell me if James White will ever win an argument with David Armstrong, then I would be violating the injunction set forth at Deut. 18:10-11. But to my knowledge, we Catholics are not in the practice of calling up dead saints to come back to earth to tell the future or even to do a song and dance for us. I and every Catholic that I know are content to leave the saints up in heaven where they belong and where they can do us here on earth the most good.
BTW, if one were to use Mr. White's criterion, it apparently would be ok to pray to Enoch, Elijah and the Virgin Mary since they were assumed to heaven alive and never died.
A few brief comments from one of our Lutheran brethren re the heavenly saints knowledge of earthly affairs.
Beacon Lights: A Series of Short Sermons (1900) by Joseph A. Seiss (pastor at the Church of the Holy Communion, Philadelphia), p. 535
http://books.google.com/books?id...thly+affairs%
22
"I spent a lot of time with Doug Mabry's inanities, to show exactly how his thinking went awry and illogical."
Yeah, I know how you feel....
http://gojiras-stomping-ground.b...-part-
2_25.html
Excellent comment and info. Paul. Thanks! Wouldn't it be nice if White would interact with that?
Commenting by HaloScan
