Hi Dave,
Since there has been a lot of news about Dr. Beckwith, I’m going to put one of his videos here. http://www.aei.org/events/
eventI...vent_detail.asp This video is related to your post on Church and State below. “Francis Beckwith asks, is not the religious motive analysis a type of “religious test for office” prohibited by the Constitution’s Article VI? When applied to citizens, doesn’t this analysis limit the political rights of citizens based on their beliefs, which is a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent?”
Your friend,
Kyl
Here is White's profound, reasoned response to my critique:
"And, of course, Dave Armstrong's never-ending ranting has now moved over here as well.
"Both of those [mine and another response] demonstrate, beyond all needed documentation, the vast difference between us. I will simply say in closing that those who think this is about Frank Beckwith or James White only demonstrate in so thinking that they have completely missed the point. The inability of but one person to recognize the factual issues here, let alone the theological and moral ones, is a sad commentary on the state of the non-discussion."
http://
meanderinghome.blogspot.c...526764221418953
I completely agree that the responses compared illustrate "the vast difference between us."
"roamin' catholic" replied:
"Dave Armstrong was not ranting but rather ANSWERING the questions that YOU asked. That was what I was trying to do as well. Again, you are showing a lack of intelligence in this whole discussion. You ask a question, people answer it, and then you attack them for doing so?
"What was your motive in announcing Dr. Beckwith's reconciliation before he had a chance to announce it himself? (it had only been a few days!) It is difficult for most of us to believe that the love of Christ was your motive. And what was your motive in questioning a college student on her blog?"
http://
meanderinghome.blogspot.c...210056230644088
"And, of course, Dave Armstrong's never-ending ranting has now moved over here as well.
Dave, can't you see you've been refuted? Why does Mr. White even bother with such long sentences? His time would be better spent going house to house outing potential Catholics.
Yep, Richard. I'm so refuted I couldn't possibly utter one word in reply! Surely this is proof of White's unique gift and genius. Who else, after all, I ask, could thoroughly refute someone with one precisely-worded sentence such as this????
Ok, I swear Im not an enemy here, but I have to say this...I may be naive here but I think this response to White wasnt necessary. The only thing White did wrong here was to originally talk about a private matter which had not gone public by Beckwith yet.
Ill be honest here, I like the passion people have for their faith and especially when they are not afraid to say it openly, in White's eyes Beckwith turned to follow satan. It is his duty to make such feelings clear. The problem we have though is that this is all done under the banner of Christianity and so one group (either a Protestant denomination or the Catholic side) will always feel hurt, attacked and betrayed.
Dont get me wrong, I am ALL FOR point/counter-point blog entries, but the fact is there isnt anything to really talk about yet.
Dont worry, it is coming and I am eager to see what White said come about: "I would imagine we will, in time, be provided a fairly full apologia of his decision. At that time it would be highly appropriate to once again provide a biblical response."
When this so called "Biblical response" comes out you are free to tear it to shreds, and I will enjoy reading what both sides have to say.
Again, I may be naive here but you cant respond to everything someone says, you have to focus on the important stuff (ie the "biblical response"). That is why White is having a field day over all these almost knee jerk blog entries to everything he says.
Im a proud Catholic and I love Dave's work so I hope people dont take this the wrong way.
Nick, you are right to a degree. It just amazes me that someone could applaud and cheer people being excluded (from whatever). I understand his position, from a biblical perspective (and I agree with you that he is passionate about what he believes, and for that I respect him) but his is not a balanced view.
Nick, the problem I see with your view is that Dr. White refuses to let people comment on his blog. One has to call him to account where they can. The only means that one has to confront him otherwise is to call his radio show where he will attempt to exploit the conversation with debating tricks that only lawyers who are not capable of reasoned argument often use at trial. For example, his tactic of "outing" Dr. Beckwith and then posturing reasons for Dr. Beckwith's re-conversion couched in anti-catholic rhetoric is called "poisoning the well". It's is a tactic used often on his blog and by his minions as well. It doesn't matter what Dr. Beckwith now says because some people will not believe it because Dr. White put a contrary notion in their head.
Not only is such an approach unethical, it is un-Christian as well.
I have been following this with some interest. By the way Yankee Apologists if you want to know the scoop of what is happening at a Southern school like Baylor go to their football Board.
http://www.baylorfans.com/forums...ad.php?
t=124704
LOL, trust me it will be a font of info if it is not censured
That being said I have noticed that some people that seem big in the Evangelical movement that have blogs think he is the first of many about to swim the Tiber or maybe head East. It is like they suspect many are in the works right now. I find that interesting. This guy is one of many that says this
http://www.apprising.org/
archive...ancis_beck.html
I am very concerned and will keep him in my prayers. Baylor to say the least is unique. It aint your typical Baptist school since they have Alumni that could fund the budgets of a decent size state. Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including their Baptist Colleges. THey have Catholics and Orthodox on staff but I am curious how this will be viewed by w the Board. I hope he keeps his job.I think he will because if he doesnt it will create a firestorm between those at Baylor and other Baptist schools that are in the academic freedom camp
Should be interesting
Hi Nick,
That's fine. I have no problem with a disagreement. But I've seen nothing to make me change my mind on this.
Secondly, you'll note that White himself asked for explanations as to why folks thought he slandered Dr. Beckwith. So I obliged. I believe I gave several solid pieces of analysis and reasoning in there. Maybe a few went too far, where it wasn't a personal attack but an honest disagreement. I recognized that possibility, even in my reply. Some stuff was borderline. So I would expect people to disagree. What I did write was, I believe, perfectly valid argumentation and response.
Dave and all, the uproar about Dr. Beckwith's reconversion to the Catholic faith and the discussion that has ensued on the net has some interesting historical parallels to Ven. John H. Newman's conversion to Catholicism and the uproar that it caused in England. If anyone is interested, read JHN's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, especially an edition with all of the letters written leading up to the writing of the book.
I find it interesting. I'm looking forward to learning more about this man. I had no clue who he was until this firestorm erupted.
Paul H,
Wow, I didnt realize it before but White doesnt have the option to comment on his blog. That says a lot to me.
Now that I think about it I can see how it would be suicide for White to allow comments to his blog entries.
White's latest "replies" to me:
======================
If anyone "descended" on this blog [Meandering Home], it was Dave Armstrong, who decided to flood it with his normal verbal floods.
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=1966
That blog article became the grounds for the unhinged to start posting their shots at me (like Dave Armstrong).
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=1967
I agree with Nick. White shouldn't have outed Beckwith. I understand his concern regarding the ETS, but there are probably better ways of handling that situation.
But here's my question for complaining Catholics. Why are you upset that White would suggest that his reasons for conversion are not intellectual? Would you expect him to assume that an honest evaluation of the facts leads a person to Rome?
I called his webcast and told him that I was a former believer, now a skeptic. He informed me that I was never a Christian to begin with, and if he were to talk with my pastor or my friends he would probably discover the true reason for my change, and it wouldn't be intellectual.
I told him it didn't bother me that he said that, because I expect him to think that. Why? Because I expect him to be consistent. He's been consistently consistent. He believes the Bible. Paul teaches that if you reject the truth (as described by Paul) you must not be a lover of truth.
I heard less of that from Catholics. Catholics didn't assume that. They almost were ready to assume that I was being honest. I appreciated that. I found Cathlics were more charitable, more gracious.
But in being charitable, in being gracious, you are not being biblical. And I respect James White for being biblical. I would rather that he was more like a Catholic. Charitable, gracious, and unbiblical. But on the other hand there is a measure of respect I lose for Catholics when on the one hand they claim to believe the Bible, but on the other hand they are unwilling to say the uncomfortable thing that the Bible does say.
I know Christians that read Ex 21:20 and agree that a person should be allowed to beat his slave to death as long as death occurs a few days after the beating, rather than immediately. I respect their committment to the Bible, but I would prefer that they be inconsistent.
Jon,
I would respectfully suggest that you do not understand fully the Scripture passages that cause you to see inconsistency with Catholic's behavior regarding being charitable and gracious.
For instance, St. Paul very clearly suggests that we must not judge unbelievers as Mr. White has, for instance in 1 Corinthians 5:12, where he says, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?. God will judge those outside."
The various Old Testament laws, such as the one you cited, are most often misunderstood and taken out of very important context. However, most importantly is the overall context of the purpose of these laws in the history of civilization. Their purpose was to build a civilization - to take man from his more violent, "savage" (for lack of a much needed better term) state to that of the more civilized society that would be capable of accepting Christ and taking the final steps (which we have as of yet failed to take as a people). You can't take a smoker and make him quit cold turkey, and no matter how hard you try you can't take a civilization in the state it was in Moses' day and bring it about to the one of Jesus day immediately. It takes gradual weening (if you wish ot preserve freedom of the will), and laws such as this were a part of this.
But here's my question for complaining Catholics. Why are you upset that White would suggest that his reasons for conversion are not intellectual? Would you expect him to assume that an honest evaluation of the facts leads a person to Rome?
No. What I would expect is that he prove it objectively. That's the real point. You can always, in principle, say whatever you want, but if you do it without actually doing the sorts of things that you mentioned (talking with the pastor, etc.), then you've insulated yourself from reality. In the real world, people are expected to back up the claims that they make. If he wanted to have this private opinion, then that would be fine. Just because consistency demands you to hold a belief doesn't mean you are excused from objectively proving what subjective consistency demands of you. Subjective consistency is relatively easy; objective proof is the real challenge. You let White off too easy; he made a claim about you, and he should have to prove it, regardless of his personal belief.
Shane, tell me if you think I'm wrong regarding I Cor 5. As I look at it, it appears to me that Paul is judging a person that claims to be a brother in the Lord, but in fact is sleeping with his father's wife. In the text you cited Paul says that those outside of the church are another matter. God will judge them. But for someone that claims to be a Christian, Paul is well within his rights to pass judgement and demand that the person be expelled. I don't really see how you can take a text like that and say that White contradicts the Bible in passing judgement. Paul is in the very act of passing judgement in this text, and further he's passing judgement on someone that claims to be a Christian (but presumably really isn't a Christian according to White's reading). So it seems to me he's acting in a manner consistent with the Bible.
He's implied that Beckwith doesn't love truth citing 2 Thess 2:10-12. Hey, I don't like it that he says these things to me. I know that it was the love of truth that pulled me away from Christianity. But the Bible says that it can't be a love of truth that pulled me away, but in fact the reason is that I delight in wickedness. I know that that is absurd, but what would I expect a Bible believer to think about my reasons for leaving Christianity?
Maybe you know people that have changed their mind about their religion. Maybe you know people that have left RC-ism. Maybe you think people can honestly reject the gospel. I of course entirely agree, and I would be glad to hear that this is your view. But I would further encourage you to reject the Bible, which says exactly the opposite.
With regards to Ex 21, I think it is pretty obvious that this is not a matter of taking baby steps away from a savage civilization. (Ps)Moses could have easily at least demanded some sort of sacrifice for beating a slave to death. The true bible believer embraces all of God's laws, including this one, and as I said, I know Christians that are willing to do so.
Jonathan,
I think all White was saying to me was exactly what the Bible says. Having rejected the gospel I obviously am not interested in truth. There is another explanation for me having left the faith. Maybe he would be able to find out the real reason if he talked to my pastor or my friends or family or whatever. But the real reason must be something other than an honest evaluation of the evidence. The only proof that he needs in order to make this claim is proof that the Bible is true. If the Bible is true, then he's right. He doesn't need any more proof than that. His proof for his claim rests on the authority of the Bible, and not on any evidence he could glean from interviews with my pastor or anybody else.
So I'm not going to demand that he go talk to my pastor and prove his claim. I know where the justification for his claim lies. It's in the Bible. If I show him that the Bible is not the word of God, and hence not without error, then I can perhaps persuade him that his belief is false. But if he thinks the Bible is the word of God then he actually should believe that my reasons for leaving the faith are not intellectual. This is entirely consistent of him.
Is it harsh? Yes. Is it annoying for me? Sure. Does it question my motives even without evidence? Yes. But it's still logical and consistent with the Bible. And in my view Catholics abandon that consistency and instead opt for kindness and grace. Not that that bothers me, but like I said I still have to respect James White for his approach.
Hi Jon,
I called his webcast and told him that I was a former believer, now a skeptic. He informed me that I was never a Christian to begin with,
Don't feel bad. He says the same thing about me. I was never a Protestant, so sez Jimbo, and since Protestants are the only real Christians (and Calvinists the only real Protestants), I was not a Christian. I am unregenerate and if I don't become a fundamentalist Baptist, I'll go to hell.
Paul teaches that if you reject the truth (as described by Paul) you must not be a lover of truth.
That's in Romans 1. But in Romans 2 Paul also teaches that if you haven't heard the whole truth, it isn't necessarily because you reject it, but from simple ignorance, and that such people are judged by what they know, and from their conscience.
White doesn't know his (whole) Bible. He only cites portions of it that appear prima facie to support his view, which is a tiny minority position, and a half truth, which is as good as a lie. You've been fooled that he is actually taking THE biblical position. He isn't. That's the whole point.
But in being charitable, in being gracious, you are not being biblical.
That's sheer nonsense. You are misinterpreting the Bible, by accepting the report of those who only cite carefully selected portions of it.
I think all White was saying to me was exactly what the Bible says. Having rejected the gospel I obviously am not interested in truth.
That doesn't necessarily follow at all. You very well could have rejected something which is, in fact, not the gospel. You wrongly rejected what you mistakenly believed to be the biblical or Christian position. In that case, it would not be a problem of evil, wicked rebellion, but rather, misinformation, leading you to a path that you feel is the only intellectually honest and ethically consistent one (but this is based on false premises).
Or you could very well be in abject rebellion against what you know to be true. I don't know that. I can neither affirm nor deny it. Only God can know for sure. All I'm saying is that being a skeptic or atheist or agnostic does not automatically equate (even in the biblical worldview) with being in evil rebellion: rejecting what is known to be true and good.
If the Bible is true, then he's right.
Not necessarily so. He may be right, by the luck of the guess, but he can't know for sure the state of your heart, anymore than anyone else can, except you yourself and God. But we are very good at deluding and fooling ourselves, oftentimes, too.
Very interesting exchange indeed . . .
Hey Dave,
Don't feel bad. He says the same thing about me. I was never a Protestant, so sez Jimbo, and since Protestants are the only real Christians (and Calvinists the only real Protestants), I was not a Christian. I am unregenerate and if I don't become a fundamentalist Baptist, I'll go to hell.
My position Dave is that should not bother you. What he's telling you is exactly what the Bible says of those that reject the gospel. Don't take it personally. George Salmon has a great line at the beginning of The Infallibility of the Church. He says that a man is not your enemy for pointing out errors in your views, and in fact the more important the subject the greater a service he can provide you if he can help turn your false opinions into true ones.
You should be grateful that he tells you that you are going to hell. What would truly be wicked is if he actually believed you were going to hell, but out of a desire to "be nice" actually refused to say it, and blithely let you continue to walk down a path that would lead to your eternal damnation. He is more your friend than are the Norman Geisler's of the world, who on the one hand will say that you deny the gospel, but on the other hand will not say that you are going to hell. Geisler wants to be faithful to his understanding of the gospel, but then doesn't want to make enemies of Catholics. Catholics should be offended at Geisler's position and be grateful for people like James White. And I say this as a person that thought CBF was a pretty good book and TPF wasn't. I was a big fan of Geisler as a Christian, but White is more consistent on this issue.
That's in Romans 1. But in Romans 2 Paul also teaches that if you haven't heard the whole truth, it isn't necessarily because you reject it, but from simple ignorance, and that such people are judged by what they know, and from their conscience.
When I spoke with him he first asked if I was active in a sound church. I think I satisfied him that I was, and his further comments went ahead and assumed that I understood the gospel correctly based upon this. With those things in mind I stand by my claim that his statements were biblical (2 Thess 2:10-12).
Are we going to continue this discussion over lunch some time or what? I don't think you're getting my emails.
My position Dave is that should not bother you. What he's telling you is exactly what the Bible says of those that reject the gospel. Don't take it personally.
First of all, it doesn't bother me personally in the slightest. But it bothers me because falsehood is being spread. That always bothers me. It's intellectual, not simply emotional and "personal" passion.
But you're missing my point again. There are two fallacies here that White is burdened with (and you, insofar as you agree with his false conclusions): that Catholic soteriology somehow is antithetical to the (biblical) gospel and that "rejection" automatically amounts to deliberate spurning of what one knows to be true, when it could just as well be a rejection based on ignorance (which is, technically, not even rejecting the thing itself).
He says that a man is not your enemy for pointing out errors in your views, and in fact the more important the subject the greater a service he can provide you if he can help turn your false opinions into true ones.
That's exactly my approach to White. But he refuses to interact with me, because he "knows" that I am evil and wicked. He's in this ridiculous bubble of his own making.
You should be grateful that he tells you that you are going to hell.
That's an absurd statement because no man knows another's eternal destiny. It's meaningless. You can say someone is endangering his soul by sinning, etc., but no one can know this for certain. Even White's superhero John Calvin states several times that no one can know for sure about their own election or any other man's.
on the one hand will say that you deny the gospel, but on the other hand will not say that you are going to hell.
Yes, because he is smart enough to know that he can't know that. He can tell me that I believe false things. But Geisler is not an anti-Catholic like White is.
When I spoke with him he first asked if I was active in a sound church. I think I satisfied him that I was, and his further comments went ahead and assumed that I understood the gospel correctly based upon this.
That's him. I'm another person, and I would have to see what your understanding was. That would take some time. Hang around for at least a year and maybe we will get somewhere in reclaiming your soul for Christianity.
Are we going to continue this discussion over lunch some time or what? I don't think you're getting my emails.
Some time ago your e-mails started bouncing. I have tried to communicate on a few blogs, with no success. I'd be happy to have lunch anytime (esp. if you treat, as you said you would LOL).
I haven't gotten recent emails form you that I am aware of. I changed my e-mail address last November. See the bottom of the sidebar.
The only proof that he needs in order to make this claim is proof that the Bible is true. If the Bible is true, then he's right. He doesn't need any more proof than that.
...
So I'm not going to demand that he go talk to my pastor and prove his claim. I know where the justification for his claim lies. It's in the Bible. If I show him that the Bible is not the word of God, and hence not without error, then I can perhaps persuade him that his belief is false. But if he thinks the Bible is the word of God then he actually should believe that my reasons for leaving the faith are not intellectual. This is entirely consistent of him.
Then you've abdicated your claim to be a rational person. If you let someone escape reality by pleading formal consistency, then you have lost any touchstone in reality by which ideas of truth can be judged. That's just the same old Kantian garbage in which there is no way you can connect thought to phenomena in any true way. Now maybe you actually believe that there is no connection between thoughts and objective reality, so that you and he can play "language games" in your little Viennese bubble as if there were no reality out there to adjudicate your claims. But you can't grant that someone is rational just because he is formally consistent. You're essentially arguing that it is commendable to be consistent no matter how ridiculous the conclusion, and from my perspective, I can't think of anything MORE reprehensible. If anything, at least modification of your formal structure, even if it introduces inconsistencies, shows that you actually care about the truth. Once you become so attached to theoretical consistency that your theory is unrevisable in the face of the data, you've flipped the switch on your brain to "off." For somebody to say, "I don't need to verify the applicability of my theoretical construct to its object because my theory says I shouldn't have to do so" is to admit to formal solipsism. Do you seriously think it is admirable for someone to consistently hold the position that he is a brain in a vat, in the Matrix, etc.? What is admirable about that? The unlimited capacity of the human mind for self-delusion?
Keep in mind Dave that if you want to evaluate whether or not White is out of line you have to adopt his assumptions and only then evaluate his behavior. White of course thinks the gospel is pretty simple. Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus. That’s not that hard. Beckwith rejects this. I reject it. Beckwith is no dummy. He’s perfectly competent to understand the gospel as per the Reformation. Perhaps White is paying me a compliment and assuming I’m smart enough to figure it out as well. I think I am.
I think I know what I’m rejecting and I think it is the gospel as per the Reformation. So if White is logical he should conclude that 1-I’m going to hell, 2-I was never a Christian to begin with, and 3-that I do not love truth and in fact delight in wickedness. He’s wrong on all three, but he’s being logical. As I’ve shown, this is what the Bible teaches.
What of Geisler? As a Protestant he probably thinks that the gospel is simple. He probably thinks that informed Catholics understand it and reject it. If he was consistent like White he’d tell you that you were going to hell.
Now, if you want to say that the gospel is complex, and maybe I didn’t understand it, I suppose that is fine. I suppose I could see why if you believed that you would think that we shouldn’t be so quick to assert that those that reject the gospel hate the truth, etc. But I suppose I would say that this might be another area where I think Catholics deviate from the Bible. All this talk of “I don’t know another man’s heart” and “I’ll leave that for God to decide” sounds to me like an excuse to avoid saying the politically incorrect thing that the Bible is not all that hesitant to say. Jesus does not hesitate to condemn people that believe the wrong thing to an eternity of molten sulfur. Paul doesn’t hesitate to assert that the Judaizers have nullified the gospel by adding works. Where are Paul’s “But I don’t know your heart” type of statements. James White sounds more like the Bible to me. But I’m open to correction on this point if you want to try and help. The Bible is on both sides of a number of issues, so it wouldn’t surprise me if you could also prove the opposite view.
The issue here is not whether Catholic soteriology is unbiblical. The issue is, based upon White’s assumptions, what is the right thing to say? What does the Bible say about such situations? He’s putting forward the biblical, non-PC response to such a situation. I’m not so sure you are willing to do the same.
And yes, dinner's still on me.
I think I know what I’m rejecting and I think it is the gospel as per the Reformation. So if White is logical he should conclude that 1-I’m going to hell, 2-I was never a Christian to begin with, and 3-that I do not love truth and in fact delight in wickedness. He’s wrong on all three, but he’s being logical. As I’ve shown, this is what the Bible teaches.
Nonsense! Not to be rude, but that is literally what it is. The Bible never says "x will definitely go to hell because he is an atheist." It says things like "Outside (of heaven) are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood" (Rev 22:15). But that does not in any way, shape, or form, translate into a particular judgment: Jon the skeptic ands former Christian will definitely go to hell."
As to your #2: never being a Christian to begin with is simply Calvinism, which is only one strain of Christianity. Most Christians believe (and believe that the Bible teaches) that one can truly fall away from grace. So don't make the mistake of equating Calvinism with "biblical teaching." It has been challenged and/or refuted on all of its points where other Christians disagree with it, and with firm biblical evidence. Look on my Salvation web page for some of that if you are interested.
I've already dealt with your point #3.
If you used to be a Calvinist (I don't know, but it sure seems like it) and were convinced that the Bible taught Calvinist doctrine, and you discovered that it didn't and so rejected the Bible and Christianity both, then clearly one of the problems causing your departure was your failure to recognize that there are other biblical systems of theology than Calvinism.
I've never been a Calvinist and my apologetics are soaked with the Bible everywhere. The problem still remains of determining which Christian system is more biblical, but that is far different from your casual assumption that the Bible clearly teaches Calvinism, and no one could possibly honestly deny this with reason, Scripture, and a straight face.
All this talk of “I don’t know another man’s heart” and “I’ll leave that for God to decide” sounds to me like an excuse to avoid saying the politically incorrect thing that the Bible is not all that hesitant to say.
Then John Calvin falls to the same error because he stated that no one could know who is in the elect. Here is my paper on that:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ows-who-
is.html
Jesus does not hesitate to condemn people that believe the wrong thing to an eternity of molten sulfur.
1) Jesus DID know men's hearts,
2) usually these instances are general statements: "IF you do this, you will go to hell" (which is exactly what I am saying.
3) Sometimes it is a group situation: "the Gentiles will get into the Kingdom of heaven before you do" (speaking to the Pharisees). Obviously that can't apply
(cont.)
. . . to an individual.
Paul doesn’t hesitate to assert that the Judaizers have nullified the gospel by adding works.
Yes, as a matter of false teaching. That doesn't translate into automatic damnation for every Judaizer, either.
It would help to know your Christian background at this point, because it seems to me that you have a lot of baggage that strikes me as fundamentalist. If so, that is one point where I wold maintain that you never really correctly (or fully) understood the Christian faith that you rejected. You needed better theology and apologetics. James white would have been able to do little to help you because he is burdened with many falsehoods himself.
Where are Paul’s “But I don’t know your heart” type of statements.
I mentioned one passage: Romans 2. I've written about a lot of this lately in critiques of presuppositional apologetics (White's brand, and that of many fundamentalist Calvinists)
The Bible is on both sides of a number of issues
Well, this is what you have been falsely led to believe. I can reason through all my beliefs, with abundant biblical argumentation (one reason why White avoids me like the plague LOL).
The issue here is not whether Catholic soteriology is unbiblical. The issue is, based upon White’s assumptions, what is the right thing to say? What does the Bible say about such situations? He’s putting forward the biblical, non-PC response to such a situation.
Nope. Like I said, even Calvin disagrees with his quick damnations of individuals, as if he is God and knows who is in the elect and who isn't, and hence, whom can be regarded as evil and wicked and therefore ignored (as he does with me).
I’m not so sure you are willing to do the same.
I can defend the Catholic view from the Bible at every turn. some things are not as explicit in the Bible, yet they don't contradict Scripture.
Hey Jonathan. I had missed your comments previously.
Your make a good point, and perhaps if I clarified exactly what White said to me you may agree that your criticism doesn't apply in this particular case (though it may apply to James White in other cases).
What he actually said was that he suspects if he were to talk with my pastor, etc, he would find other non-intellectual reasons for my de conversion, and he based this on the fact that this was his universal experience. I have no objection to him speculating about these things based upon his experience and based upon his understanding of the Bible. And since he said this was his "suspicion" that assumes he is still leaving open the possibility that the evidence would overturn this suspicion.
Would he force the evidence that he learned from my pastor into his Calvinist grid? Probably, and as far as he does this I think you're right that he would be better served allowing for some inconsistency in his view temporarily as he tries to work out a more consistent worldview.
So you are right that I shouldn't ignore the fact that under normal circumstances people should look for evidence to back up such assertions as what James White made about me, and in that way continue to inform themselves. Perhaps they will learn things that could change their views. In this case of course we're talking on his webcast and interviewing people isn't practical. He's just speculating and allowing that he could be wrong, and I'm fine with that.
I think there are two separate issues that are being confused here, Dave. The first is whether or not James White was wrong to suggest that Beckwith is not a lover of the truth. The second is whether or not RC’s are consistent in their approach with the Bible.
Whether RC soteriology is biblical or whether Calvinism is biblical is unrelated to the first point. In order to decide if this was wrong of James White we have to start with the beliefs of James White. What does he think about salvation? What does he think the Bible says about those that leave the faith. Based upon his assumptions, what is the right thing to say for him?
Forget about telling him he’s wrong, or that Calvin disagrees with him. That is beside the point. Given that he thinks the gospel is simple, that Beckwith had a proper understanding of it, and that the Bible teaches that those that reject it hate the truth, how should James White deal with the issue if he wants to be consistent and biblical. Now, I agree with Jonathan that consistency is not the only thing in the world. Sometimes it is better to be inconsistent. But consistency is also a good thing, and worth striving for.
No, I was not a Calvinist as a Christian. But what I’m doing that I think you’re failing to do is I am taking on the assumptions of my opponents and trying to understand their reasoning within their own paradigm. Within this Calvinist paradigm what he did not only was not unexpected, it wasn’t even unreasonable.
What I’m further saying is that if I were to put on Geisler’s assumptions I would find that he is inconsistent to call RC’s brothers in Christ. If I remember Geisler right I think that he says that even belief in a proper understanding of RC dogma allows that that person is still a Christian. But this is utterly inconsistent with his belief about what the gospel is.
Now, I bet I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that Geisler is right. A proper understanding of RC dogma is not inconsistent with the Protestant gospel properly understood. But this is not Geisler’s view. This is your view. You want to impute your understanding of what divides RC’s and Protestants with regards to the gospel onto Geisler. This is not what you need to do if you want to evaluate my claim. You must entirely put on Geisler’s views and see if what he is saying is consistent with that.
cont'd
Now, I simply base this on what I think Geisler teaches about the gospel. If I’m wrong in my understanding of what he thinks the gospel is, then fine. Maybe he’s acting in a consistent way. If you want to prove me wrong though, don’t start defending the notion that this is all just a misunderstanding like Jimmy Akin would. Quote Geisler, particularly on his critiques of Rome’s gospel, and see what he says.
But regardless, even if I’m wrong about Geisler, I’m still right about White. The man clearly believes that the gospel of Rome and the gospel as he understands it are completely at odds. The right thing for him to do is to tell you are not saved, you are on your way to hell, and you were never a Christian to begin with (and yes that is the Calvinist perspective, but again, that is his perspective, so to determine what the right thing is for him to do we need to adopt his assumptions.)
I remember Andrew Sullivan vilifying Mel Gibson because he was willing to say that his Lutheran wife would end up in hell if she didn’t change from being a Lutheran to being a Traditional Catholic. He thought it was terrible. I thought it was great, even though I entirely disagree with Gibson. He loves her enough to tell her the truth as he really sees it. But to understand that this is the right thing for him to say you need to take on his assumptions. I don’t think you’re doing this.
Briefly, with regards to RC’s and being biblical, I’m telling you right now that I don’t think Jesus rose from the dead. I don’t think he’s God. I don’t have faith in him to cover my sins. The loving thing to do is tell me the truth as you see it. I’m on my way to hell and if I continue with these beliefs and attitudes I will end up in hell. That’s the truth as you see it. James White would tell me that. Can you?
But what I’m doing that I think you’re failing to do is I am taking on the assumptions of my opponents and trying to understand their reasoning within their own paradigm.
Yes, I already did that. I have stated several times that White was perfectly consistent within his own framework. Then I proceeded to question the premises. I always do that, as a good socratic (if you've read any of my debates with anyone, you would have seen that very quickly). I always go deeper, to one more level of analysis.
Now, I bet I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that Geisler is right. A proper understanding of RC dogma is not inconsistent with the Protestant gospel properly understood. But this is not Geisler’s view. This is your view.
I understand Geisler's view perfectly well, as it used to essentially be my own. He thinks Catholics are Christians (as I did) but that the Protestant and Catholic views of the gospel are a bit different.
Where Geisler and I agree (both before my conversion and now) is that there is a sense in which "gospel" is a broader thing that all Christians can agree on. It is not simply a system of soteriology, but rather, the Good News of Jesus Christ. And I am saying this is the biblical view, rather than an unbiblical tradition of man, as Calvinism is.
I respond in an overall attempt to understand my opponent's position adequately all the time. So you're telling me nothing new here at all. You're preaching to the choir.
The man clearly believes that the gospel of Rome and the gospel as he understands it are completely at odds. The right thing for him to do is to tell you are not saved, you are on your way to hell, and you were never a Christian to begin with (and yes that is the Calvinist perspective, but again, that is his perspective, so to determine what the right thing is for him to do we need to adopt his assumptions.)
It's not "right"; it is merely self-consistent. White claims to base his views on the Bible, and that is where his view can be shot down. But he won't argue the Bible with us lowly papist hogs. So he is in his self-contained, invulnerable Gnostic bubble, immune to all rational criticism. And, as Jonathan Prejean noted, he actually glories in this. He is a prisoner of both presuppositionalism and fundamentalism: both quite amenable to rotgut anti-Catholic dim-witted stupefaction.
For about the 6th time now, it is not required of Calvinists to say with definitiveness that a particular person is not saved and is going to hell. That IS within the Calvinist paradigm, as I showed you (but you ignore it because you have a point you want to make and don't want to be confused with a relevant consideration such as this). It is John Calvin's teaching.
Now, if one can't know who is in the elect, then they can't apply a lack of regeneration and Total Depravity to them and claim to "know" that they are motivated only by wicked motives. This makes all th
(cont.)
. . . the difference in the world as to how others are approached and treated (with charity). They can speculate and say it MIGHT be the case, but they can't know for sure, just as they can't know for sure that they are saved or in the elect (because when someone they think was in that number falls away, they immediately apply the canard that he was never saved in the first place. So if they were wrong about this person, then how can they be certain about anyone?).
White's problem is that he is (ultimately) not even a consistent Calvinist (and here -- I see now -- I must qualify my earlier remarks). He consistently accepts Total Depravity (and its manifest effects in the unregenerate man) and the black and white notion of the elect and non-elect, but where he fails is in applying this to any given individual.
ALL Christians believe that there are saved and lost people (elect and reprobate), so that is by no means exclusive to Calvinists.
But to understand that this is the right thing for him to say you need to take on his assumptions. I don’t think you’re doing this.
Then you think wrongly, as I have explained till I am blue in the face.
Briefly, with regards to RC’s and being biblical, I’m telling you right now that I don’t think Jesus rose from the dead. I don’t think he’s God. I don’t have faith in him to cover my sins. The loving thing to do is tell me the truth as you see it. I’m on my way to hell and if I continue with these beliefs and attitudes I will end up in hell. That’s the truth as you see it. James White would tell me that. Can you?
Absolutely, but with an important qualification that White overlooks: the subjective factor. You have to know in your heart of hearts: know that you know that all these things are true, and then deliberately reject them and in effect spit in God's face. To truly reject God and rebel against Him one must believe that He exists in the first place. How can one reject that which he thinks is not in existence? It would be like me saying "I reject the tooth fairy's existence." So now I am a wicked revel? Subjectively, there is no rebellion if one truly (albeit mistakenly) believed this.
In my experience with many atheists and agnostics, there are many layers of fallacy and falsehood and misconceptions about many areas of Christian theology (and HUGE, MASSIVE ignorance about what the Bible teaches, that I have shot down lots of times), leading me to suspect that they don't truly know what they are rejecting. The reasons they give for their non-belief betray this.
And so I maintain hope that these psychological factors and the loophole of invincible ignorance (that is entirely Catholic, I can assure you) will allow some of these people to be excused on Judgment Day.
But only God knows that in the end. This is the whole point. I can enthusiastically agree with White, my brother in Christ, that anyone who truly rejects Jesus and the existe
(cont.)
. . . existence of God, knowing full well that they exist and that Jesus is our savior and redeemer, and the gospel of grace for salvation, will be damned for eternity and tormented in hellfire for eternity. I have never taught otherwise. I'm not scared, and I don't give one damn (no pun intended) about how unpopular I am when I say this. Anyone who follows my endeavors can see that I am quite frequently attacked personally, as a result of what I teach. So why would I possibly be reluctant to express any Christian truth?
Whether you or any man are in that category, on the other hand, is not able to be determined with certainty by any man. All we can do is present the gospel to you and defend it and answer all your questions to the best of our ability. Apologists (it shouldn't even be necessary to say) don't save or damn anyone. We simply preach the message and try to remove roadblocks to its acceptance. And hopefully we are vessels of God's message and grace and "epistles read of men" (good examples of what a Christian should be, and the difference that God makes in a human life).
I suspect there will be many many surprises if we get to heaven by God's grace, including many seeming Christians (or Christians who really were that and fell away) being damned and many atheists and skeptics in heaven, because God knows all the secrets and motivations of men's hearts.
But what I’m doing that I think you’re failing to do is I am taking on the assumptions of my opponents and trying to understand their reasoning within their own paradigm. Within this Calvinist paradigm what he did not only was not unexpected, it wasn’t even unreasonable.
But reasonability is an objective judgment. You mean it wasn't inconsistent, but it assuredly was unreasonable if the starting premise of the paradigm was unreasonable. One is still guilty of irrationality for accepting unreasonable premises, even if one is consistent in their application. That's the point that most Catholic apologists make; sola scriptura is irrational. There's no reason to believe it. It is accepted through fideism, being unassailable to any rational argument. Obviously, this is simply one more application of an irrational worldview, but I see nothing wrong with pointing out that it is yet another claim that can be challenged in reality (by collecting the evidence that we described) that is apparently being held solely on fideistic grounds.
And I do consider it irresponsible to speculate about another person's motives publicly. Given that one is necessarily in a worse epistemic position, it is all the more crucial to refrain from speculation without evidence. And nothing in Calvinism requires one to publicly speculate (even if one privately holds the belief), so it's just as bad for a Calvinist to do so as anyone else. That was the gist of Kacy's objection as I understood it.
Another intellectually profound tidbit from James White on his webcast, Dividing Line (5-8-07):
(starting at 7:20 to 7:44)
"Obviously, the moonbat left fringe of the Catholic apologetics community: people like Dave Armstrong and Mark Shea, Art Sippo, the ones who would have made great inquisitors, during
the Inquisition, man: they would have been right in the forefront, you know, pitchfork in hand, they're out there doing their things, and they're not thinkin' either, so we don't have to
worry about them too much; they're just doin' their thing."
http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/
20...20070508fta.mp3
It seems to me that the real issue is now coming to the fore. There is no reason to express outrage that White thinks Beckwith does not love truth. That's consistent with his Calvinism. Basically you're just outraged that White is a Calvinist. That's the real issue here. What that means (and what my point has been the entire time) is that this is all nonsense. The real issue here is you just don't like Calvinism. So why even discuss White's treatment of Beckwith?
Perhaps if the shoe was on the other foot you'd understand what I'm seeing here. Suppose your bishop denies a woman the right to be a priest. You then watch as the media vilifies the entire RCC. I'd defend you against the media. I'd say "What do you expect. Christians believe the Bible. This is what the Bible teaches. I don't agree, but the problem is not the actions of the Bishop. The problem is Christianity altogether. So there's no reason to get all excited about this one incident. This is what we expect of Catholics if we expect them to be consistent. And we do expect that. And we should respect them for it."
Or take the outrage over Mel Gibson's movie. "I can't believe he would portray Jews as killer's of Christ." Well, this is what the story about Jesus involves. Why be outraged that Gibson tells this story. Be outraged at the gospels if you want, but there is no reason to be outraged that a Christian told the story exactly as we would expect him to.
This is how you guys are reacting to James White. "I am outraged that James White would express opinions consistent with his Calvinism. I am going to start several threads on this issue. Can you believe what has happened here? All these personal attacks, which are consistent with his view of the Bible. How dare he!"
James White has been a Calvinist for a long time. What you guys are doing is exactly what the media does to the RCC. I will agree that the media is being ridiculous and I will point it out with you. You should do the same for James White. There's a double standard going on here.
It seems to me that the real issue is now coming to the fore. There is no reason to express outrage that White thinks Beckwith does not love truth. That's consistent with his Calvinism. Basically you're just outraged that White is a Calvinist. That's the real issue here. What that means (and what my point has been the entire time) is that this is all nonsense. The real issue here is you just don't like Calvinism. So why even discuss White's treatment of Beckwith?
Because White's treatment of Beckwith deals with an OBJECTIVE claim. How hard is that to understand? You can't make objective claims without proving them; doesn't matter whether you're Calvinist, Zoroastrian, Hare Krishna, atheist, or whatever. "I believe X" is not a justification of an objective claim; it's just an assertion.
Perhaps if the shoe was on the other foot you'd understand what I'm seeing here. Suppose your bishop denies a woman the right to be a priest. You then watch as the media vilifies the entire RCC. I'd defend you against the media. I'd say "What do you expect. Christians believe the Bible. This is what the Bible teaches. I don't agree, but the problem is not the actions of the Bishop. The problem is Christianity altogether. So there's no reason to get all excited about this one incident. This is what we expect of Catholics if we expect them to be consistent. And we do expect that. And we should respect them for it."
Why on earth would we want that brand of defense? You're basically arguing that it's permissible to be consistently irrational, even when making objective claims. No Catholic would condede that his belief was irrational or fideistic, so your defense would be every bit as objectionable as the media's initial charge.
We have no desire to be respected for being consistently wrong, but for being consistently right. We want a substantive defense based in objective reality against charges of error, not a patronizing excuse that "respects" us for being fideistic morons. If you think it is objectively unfair to exclude women from any profession, including the priesthood, then you should condemn us along with the media. If you don't, then you should defend us based on your reasons for that belief. But at no time should it be considered acceptable to say "that's just what they believe" as a defense to an objective argument. You're effectively part of the problem, because you are licensing the media to treat religious claims as irrational, when our claim is that we can defend our claims objectively just as well as any other.
You're basically arguing that White is excusable in making an objective claim about some real entity simply because the Bible tells him so, without actually demonstrating the objective properties of the thing to correspond to what the Bible says. If we were to grant that sort of claim uncritically, we might as well just give up on testing religious claims in reality at all.
By that reasoning, young earth creationists should be admired rather than vilified for consistently adhering to nonsense. Our point in objecting to particular instances is that it provides concrete examples of where claims aren't being subject to any sort of test for conformity with reality, even when such tests are reasonably available.
At the bottom, yes, it is simply irrational to ALWAYS believe what the Bible tells you irrespective of whether what the Bible tells you is conformable to reality. But SOMETIMES it is reasonable to accept what the Bible says (because one has no independent way of knowing about the object, as in the case of mysteries like the Trinity and the Incarnation that are beyond the grasp of reason), so a blanket condemnation of the attitude is insufficient. But note also that one has to use one's reason to determine what the limits of reason are. One could never accept the Bible if it contradicts what one knows through natural reason, for example. This is an example of irrational reliance on the Bible; it contradicts natural reason regarding what one can reasonably know about another person's motives. So we rationally say that in this particular instance, an objective claim is being made on inadequate rational grounds. Subjective sincerity is not enough to justify an objective claim.
It seems that your previous Christian tradition must have been fideistic or irrational, because you speak as if it folded the minute you subjected it to rational scrutiny outside the tradition. Catholics welcome that sort of scrutiny, because we believe that Catholicism holds up under natural reason better than any other counter-position.
It seems to me that the real issue is now coming to the fore. There is no reason to express outrage that White thinks Beckwith does not love truth. That's consistent with his Calvinism. Basically you're just outraged that White is a Calvinist.
Nope. I disagree with his Calvinism. I am outraged that he unethically, uncharitably accuses someone of a grave character fault without cause. It's mostly an ethical issue when I am discussing White's personal attacks against Beckwith. If his Calvinism leads him to that conclusion, then so much the worse for the Calvinism (which is unbiblical anyway). This serves as a reductio argument against it (though not the primary one, by any means).
What that means (and what my point has been the entire time) is that this is all nonsense. The real issue here is you just don't like Calvinism.
I don't like anything that I regard as falsehood. But Calvinism is not all bad.
So why even discuss White's treatment of Beckwith?
Because as Christians (and as ethical human beings, Christian or no) we are called to treat our fellow man charitably, and to not falsely bear witness against them (that's one of the Ten Commandments). Jesus said to love one another as He loved us. White is not doing that with regard to Dr. Beckwith at all.
You seem to be caught up in this abstract world of propositions and forget that there are live human beings here, who are being lied about (not to mention the Christian disunity that ensues).
The female priests analogy doesn't apply because that has to do with the ontology of gender, as opposed to uncharitable judgments of a person without cause, and judging men's hearts.
This is how you guys are reacting to James White. "I am outraged that James White would express opinions consistent with his Calvinism. I am going to start several threads on this issue. Can you believe what has happened here? All these personal attacks, which are consistent with his view of the Bible. How dare he!"
For now what must be the seventh time: Calvinism (rightly understood, as a system deriving from John Calvin) does not give a license to judge whether a man is in the elect or not. In that sense, white is not acting consistently. Ken Temple, a Calvinist on this board, has stated the same thing. But you ignore it over and over. Why? Because it doesn't work with your critique?
James White has been a Calvinist for a long time. What you guys are doing is exactly what the media does to the RCC. I will agree that the media is being ridiculous and I will point it out with you. You should do the same for James White. There's a double standard going on here.
Not at all. Not in the slightest. I link to dozens of White's papers. I have defended him, even against some of my Catholic friends, who took a dimmer view towards him than I do. I've written papers about how I respect Calvinism quite a bit.
The media lies about and distorts
(cont.)
. . . Catholicism. I'm not lying about what White has done. I'm revealing it for what it is: calumny and personal attack, that goes beyond the Calvinism issue. Plenty of Calvinists and other Protestants have reacted to Beckwith without all the vitriol and nonsense, as I documented in my recent post.
White goes beyond that. He has to get into character issues. That's why this is ethical. To the extent that White's extreme brand of Calvinism affects his behavior, then so much the worse for it. But you must realize that his brand does not represent all Calvinists, or the best versions of it, by any stretch.
Folks like J.I. Packer and Charles Colson can be Calvinists, yet not be anti-Catholic as White is.
I agree 100% with Jonathan's comments, too. He has simply approached the matter from a different perspective: more epistemologically (a subject that I also love), whereas I have concentrated on the ethical aspect.
Yes (following Jonathan's last thought): I think it is time to learn what Jon's previous Christian tradition was (particularly if he followed any apologetic method). It seems to have left a residue in his brain, related to how he analyzes Christian goings-on now.
So what can you tell us about that, Jon?
Well, Jonathan, I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. I do have a measure of respect for those that in their consistency believe what is wrong, and I lose a measure of respect for those that abandon fundamental principles (i.e. abandon consistency) in order to say the PC thing. White could have abandoned principles and said what is a lot more “nice.” I have more respect for him in what he did than I do for others who think just like him, think that the gospel as he understands it is the only way to be saved, and further are unwilling to say the uncomfortable truth as they see it.
And no, I will not be criticizing RC’s for keeping women out of the clergy, because I respect their consistency. They’re wrong about it. But this error is a symptom of another error, and it is that other error that needs to be focused on. You’re wrong about women because you’re wrong about the Bible, and you’re wrong about Jesus’ death and resurrection. So those are the things I will be focusing on. I know your views about women because I know your views about the Bible. So when an incident occurs where you treat women like I don’t think they should be treated, I don’t act all shocked. I don’t get outraged. I already knew this was your attitude before any incident happened. Why act surprised when it does? It is nothing but the logical outgrowth of a more fundamental error.
For now what must be the seventh time: Calvinism (rightly understood, as a system deriving from John Calvin) does not give a license to judge whether a man is in the elect or not. In that sense, white is not acting consistently. Ken Temple, a Calvinist on this board, has stated the same thing. But you ignore it over and over. Why? Because it doesn't work with your critique?
I ignore it, Dave, because it is irrelevant as I’ve already explained before. First of all, White has no obligation to slavishly agree with everything John Calvin says. He calls himself a Calvinist for pragmatic reasons. Most people generally understand what Calvinism entails. White is a Calvinist in that sense. His goal is to be a consistent, biblical Christian, and he thinks Calvinism’s general principles adhere most closely with the Bible. Adhering to the Bible is his ultimate goal, not adhering to the teachings of John Calvin. It seems you are projecting the RC magisterial paradigm onto him.
Second, your point is irrelevant unless I agree that White agrees with your assessment, and I would have to start by assuming that he doesn’t. As I’ve mentioned to you before, I’ve seen him oppose you in a knee jerk, unnecessary fashion before, so I expect him to oppose you almost as a matter of course. The question of whether or not he is consistent means we take on his views in their entirety. Show me that he agrees with you on your assessment and I’ll concede that he’s being inconsistent.
The media lies about and distorts. . . Catholicism. I'm not lying about what White has done.
I’m not talking about incidence where the media lies about Catholicism. I’m talking about when they accurately talk about how the RCC will not permit women to be priests, even though, in my opinion, women are perfectly competent to serve in a priestly role despite what the Bible says. I will not be joining the media in criticizing Rome for this error because as I said this is nothing but a symptom of a more fundamental error. The fundamental error being belief in Christ and his resurrection and in the Bible as the Word of God.
Plenty of Calvinists and other Protestants have reacted to Beckwith without all the vitriol and nonsense, as I documented in my recent post.
I have no problem with that as long as their comments are consistent with their other views. I do have a problem when they fundamentally contradict their core principles. Though I do agree with Jonathan that consistency is not necessarily the most important thing in the world all the time, but as I said I think it is something worth striving for.
White goes beyond that. He has to get into character issues.
Insofar as White goes into character issues, so does the Bible. If you don’t like what White is doing, throw out your Bible. He has backed up his statements with Scripture. If you don’t like what he’s done, take it up with the Apostle Paul.
I’ll tell you about myself over lunch. Too much to cover in a discussion forum. I’m not thrilled with this imperfect medium of communication. The spoken word is so much better. And I’m not blaming you. I know I miss what people try to communicate to me, just as I know readers misunderstand me.
Well, Jonathan, I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree. I do have a measure of respect for those that in their consistency believe what is wrong, and I lose a measure of respect for those that abandon fundamental principles (i.e. abandon consistency) in order to say the PC thing. White could have abandoned principles and said what is a lot more “nice.”
You're acting like there is no difference between fact and opinion. Bowing on principle because of someone else's opinion (the PC thing to do) is contemptible. Bowing on principle because of fact is commendable. If there is a disagreement on the facts, then one is obliged to use objective methods of knowledge to attempt to ascertain what the facts are. "I believe the Bible's authority" is a purely subjective claim; it demonstrates no objective correspondence between one's belief and reality. Therefore, it is a thoroughly inadequate basis for contradicting objective factual knowledge. Refusal to deal with what one ought to know to be facts is the obverse of kow-towing to opinion; neither is rational. In that respect, I suppose there is consistency involved, but the consistency is simply in not treating what would otherwise be considered factual knowledge as such.
And no, I will not be criticizing RC’s for keeping women out of the clergy, because I respect their consistency. They’re wrong about it. But this error is a symptom of another error, and it is that other error that needs to be focused on. You’re wrong about women because you’re wrong about the Bible, and you’re wrong about Jesus’ death and resurrection. So those are the things I will be focusing on.
"Consistency" in this case is simply consistency with one's own definitions, and that doesn't really show anything about the correspondence of the theory to objective reality. It's not quite trivial to maintain conceptual consistency, but it's close, and one's choice among various conceptually consistent systems is pretty much just opinion. Unless the definitions are inherently contradictory, this is unlikely to show anyting. But comments about objective reality ARE lilkely to show something. You're essentially saying what I am: one should focus on matters that deal with fact rather than opinion. Discussion about opinion is generally pointless.
I know your views about women because I know your views about the Bible. So when an incident occurs where you treat women like I don’t think they should be treated, I don’t act all shocked. I don’t get outraged. I already knew this was your attitude before any incident happened. Why act surprised when it does? It is nothing but the logical outgrowth of a more fundamental error.
(cont.)
Where the "logical outgrowth" conflicts with reality, it counts as evidence against the view, regardless of one's reasons for believing the statement. You're essentially advocating a subjective test in which one's reasons for believing something are more important that the correspondence of the theory to reality. I am advocating an objective approach: where factual claims are made, they must be tested to evaulate the reliability of the theory. Francis Beckwith's mental state is not really a matter of opinion; he's here to explain it, and there are no objective indicia that he would lie about it.
Surely you concede that there is a difference between fact and opinion, right? It can't be controversial that we can discern factual claims that can be evaluated for correspondence reality from opinions.
Jon, I just wanted to throw my two cents in. It is not a question of James White being "nice." There is a big difference between saying Dr Beckwith's beliefs are in error and Dr. Beckwith is not interested in the truth. One is consistent with your belief system if that is what you believe and the other is not. From what Dr. Beckwith's own statements on the subject, it is his search of truth that lead him back to the Catholic Church, whether you agree with his conclusions or not. This is my biggest beef with Protestants~rather than trying to show a person where their beliefs are in error, they choose to impugn a convert's decision by claiming that they are not interested in the truth. Example: Rev. Charles Kingsley vs. John Henry Cardinal Newman.
If you really believe in sola scriptura, square what James White did with Mk. 9:38-41. Even though I am a Catholic, I would offer you or James White that cup of water because you both bear the name of Christ despite the fact that your denomination has introduced what we Catholics believe are innovations and man-made traditions. What you have to ask yourself as a Calvinist is would you offer me, a Catholic, that cup for the same reason? James White's answer is no. What is yours? If your answer is no, then you violated the plain teaching of Christ. That is what Dave Armstrong and Mr. Prejean are talking about.
In all of your solas, where does love fit in? St. Paul in I Cor. 13 says it is the greatest of gifts even more so than faith (so much for sola fide) but it is the one that Calvinists in particular are most loathe to extend to others particularly Catholics. Yet, they decry any Catholic lack of charity.
Jesus, himself, challenged the Pharisees on this very point in Matt. 15:1-9. It was not some fabricated corban rule that some Protestant divine made up in the 16th century just so they could attack the Catholic Church with. Jesus held that the teaching of the school of the Pharisees who came to see Jesus that no matter what vows must be kept in accordance with God's commandment found at Num. 30:2 was wrong even though nowhere in the OT could one find that a person was permitted to annul their vow, even a rash one. Even when a vow violated some other of God's commandments, a Jew was expected to keep his vow. Example, Jephthah and sacrificing of his daughter to keep his vow found at Judges 11:29-40. Yet, Jesus called the Pharisees' teaching wrong! Why, because the Pharisees' sola scriptural view of Num. 30:2 was wrong. Commandments kept to the letter of Scripture without regard to the overriding primacy of the Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is what Jesus declaimed. (someday I will get my paper on this subject)
Stop by when you need that cup of water...
God bless!
Paul H - Well said!
Jon - My issue is not so much that James White is being inconsistent in his views on whether or not Catholics accept "truth." You are correct. He is being entirely consistent in this area. However, if we take Mr White as a whole - in the manner by which you claim Geisler is inconsistent, then that very consistency which you applaud breaks down completely.
White frequently complains against those whom he feels has been uncharitable towards him. He also frequently takes people to task for not accomplishing proper research prior to forming and/or publishing an opinion. Finally, he will criticize other for not carefully reading what he has written and, therefore, (incorrectly) responding to a claim which he never truly made.
Yet in this case White has failed on all three of these accounts.
By publicizing Dr Beckwith's return to the RCC - an announcement which should have been Dr Beckwith's priviledge - and making the announcement without knowing it was factual, speculating on the reasoning behind the return as well as whether or not Dr Beckwith would do the "right" thing in regard to his other commitments; White was engaging in what the common person calls "gossip." Note that it is still gossip even if White and Beckwith disagree on what is the "right" thing to do concerning Dr Beckwith's other commitments. Gossip is never charitable and I'm fairly certain that White would have something to say if others were to gossip about him!
White never checked the veracity of his information when he wrote his blog. This is a very basic lack of research - indeed, not even an attempt to research - and White frequenly assails others for the same error.
Finally, when responding to another person's blog, White fails to acknowledge that while she may have used the word "slander," she immediately (either in the very same sentence or the one following!) retracted that usage by saying it was most likely not correct. This demonstrates a failure to carefully read and use context. Another area where White is frequently critical of others.
If we apply the exact same test to James White that you ask us to apply to Geisler, then we must conclude that White is not consistent with his own stated thoughts. Furthermore, when you ignore these other parts of the argument and focus so narrowly as you have, then you become inconsistent.
Furthermore, you allow yourself the priviledge to discredit an underlying reason which supports a conclusion (your example being female clergy), but deny Dave that same priviledge. Dave has stated (a few times now) that he sees some consistency for White in White's own world-view, but is demonstrating how that world-view (underlying assumption) is incorrect. That you allow yourself this basic form of argument, but deny it for others is another inconsistency on your part.
It seems to me that you endorse consistency just for the sake o
(cont)
It seems to me that you endorse consistency just for the sake of it and without substantial reason behind your endorsement. It also seems to me that your definition of the topic changes so as to suit your endorsement. I'm very much in agreement with Jonathan Prejean and Dave on this one.
Angels cap tip to Shawn McElhinney for recently pointing out a quote that is directly on point:
"Definition of a 'barking moonbat': someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency"
-Adriana Cronin-Lukas
That nicely summarizes my point against Jon. Consistency versus idle opinion is great. Consistency against reality is madness.
Jonathan, you're not really sayint anything that I disagree with. Of course White needs to defend his claims with regards to how they correspond to reality. I am not debating that point.
What I'm debating is what White's response should have been given his presumptions from a more realistic perspective. Here is the issue.
White believes the Calvinist gospel, that the Bible (i.e. God) teaches that those that reject the Calvinist gospel don't love the truth and delight in wickedness, and that those that do so were never Christians to begin with and will end up in hell if they don't change their ways before death.
So what should White do? Here is your answer. White should reject the Calvinist gospel, reject all false notions that follow from it, and then return to Mother Church and be a good Catholic.
When White doesn't react to the Beckwith situation in this way, you act surprised. RC's start new threads expressing their outrage that White has not suddenly converted. This is what I'm seeing from you, and it is in my view silly and unrealistic in the extreme.
All I'm saying is 1-I expect White to act in this way, so there is no reason to be surprised 2-I do not presume that he does it because he is a jerk, but in fact does it because he is just following his convictions and 3-I do have a measure of respect for him for saying the uncomfortable thing that his convictions require him to say.
You keep saying that the question of whether or not what he says is in fact true is important, and I don't deny that. I don't see how that changes what I'm saying.
Paul, I'm not sure you can give me that cup of water, because I'm not a Christian. I would give you a cup though, and I would give anyone a cup that needed it, and not just those that belong to Christ.
Jon, I apologize for assuming that you were a Calvinist. I would too offer a cup of water to any who would need it. The reference to the cup of water in the Gospel refers to the fact that people were persecuted for giving aid and comfort to an apostate. Pharisaical Jews as well as the Saducees kept themselves ritually pure by avoiding those who did not share their beliefs to avoid contamination.
When White doesn't react to the Beckwith situation in this way, you act surprised. RC's start new threads expressing their outrage that White has not suddenly converted. This is what I'm seeing from you, and it is in my view silly and unrealistic in the extreme.
Who was surprised? Our point is that White is routinely a jerk where Catholicism is concerned. It's not exceptional outrage. If your point is that we shouldn't be outraged at a person who persists in outrageous behavior, you are barking up the wrong tree. It should always be notable that someone has managed to persist in being outrageous, because eventually, people might actually get tired of it. Do you think Don Imus's last comment was any worse than what he had been saying for years? You have to keep convicting these guys of bad behavior, because one day, the message might get across. Nobody in the world is surprised by this behavior, but the second you kow-tow to the "oh, that's just James White" attitude, THEN you have really given in to political correctness.
I do not presume that he does it because he is a jerk, but in fact does it because he is just following his convictions
Our point is that following one's convictions in the face of actual evidence is being a jerk. You can't say "well, he doesn't think he's being a jerk." Who cares? When there are objective standards of conduct (as there are in matters of objective fact), then it is entirely correct to call someone out for violating them even if he did it out of ignorance, mistake, or foolish consistency with nonsensical principles. Bending on THOSE principles truly is contemptible. You seem to even admire people who violate these principles, simply because they do it, and frankly, that's just crazy. Antisocial deviants are not more "authentic" or "genuine." They are mostly just debasing their own dignity as human beings.
When there are objective standards of conduct (as there are in matters of objective fact), then it is entirely correct to call someone out for violating them even if he did it out of ignorance, mistake, or foolish consistency with nonsensical principles.
I don't disagree with you. Calvinists are bigger jerks than Catholics. They're consistent Bible believers. Defending Numbers 31, where all boys and non-virgin girls are executed while the young virgins are retained for sexual purposes, or defending I Sam 15 where babes at the breast are executed because of the sins of their long dead ancestors requires that your natural sense of morality become convoluted and perverse. James White is quick to (consistently) defend such atrocities. He's quick to commit genetic fallacies and judge the motives of those that leave the faith as his Bible does. I hope you continue to not be a jerk and be inconsistent as a Bible believer, and I hope that allowing that inconsistency informs your worldview and ultimately helps you reject the Bible.
James White is more biblical. And a bigger jerk.
Commenting by HaloScan
