I wonder about the broadness of the topic. If you think about it, it allows people to bring in anything. Mary, indulgences, the crusades, priest abuse, and many more. It could be a long 90 minutes unless the discussion focuses on a few things. Maybe they could tell you waht they plan to focus on. If they think the Catholic position can be exposed as undefendable in some area then allowing you some preparation should just make that more obvious. I just hate to see debates where the protestant throws mud faster than the Catholic can wipe it off. You need to insure you get past that on some topic or other.
Good luck on the debate. What I find most insulting is the comment: ""The Catholic Verses" that Armstrong doesn't have any exegetical ability at all? (Then again, does any conservative Catholic have any?)"
I would consider myself an orthodox (not conservative) Catholic. I am trained as a theologian and scripture scholar. Does this mean that I have no exegetical ability??? Granted, I'm new enough that I haven't published, so I have given no indication that I have any ability (other than the degrees)...I've also given no indication that I haven't. Why must personal attacks be included in these kinds of necessary discussion. Dave, you have a lot tougher skin than I do...I don't think I could do this kind of apologetic work.
Thanks for the kind remarks, Charles! One gets used to the attacks. To me they are just funny. I'm not affected in the slightest by them.
Randy,
Nope, it isn't about "why we disagree with Catholicism" but about what Christianity IS, which is two entirely different things. It's strictly about the definition. I will keep to that and if my opponents do not I will call them on it every time. There would be some visiting of various subjects, true, but not at length; only for clarification; e.g., "if someone denies justification by faith alone and imputed justification, is that a Christian position, and can they still be a Christian?"
------------------
I have added a new #11, moving the old #11 to #12. It merely states my position more forcefully.
------------------
Thus far, no response from any of the four men challenged. I checked the comboxes, the top of the four blogs and my e-mail. But I posted my piece late last night and many of them may not even see it till after work hours today. Check back tonight for further updates.
I've added a few additional clarifying words to #1 and #2 as of 2:22 PM EST, Wednesday 10-24-07.
Dear Dave,
Thanks for the challenge, I'm mulling it over.
I've posted a blog article encouraging my readers (whether they be Catholic or not) to let me know whether they recommend my accepting your offer.
I would probably request, along the lines Randy mentions above, something more concrete.
For example: "The Christian Church today consists (or subsists) in Roman Catholicism" or "The Roman Catholic Church today is not a true church" or "Denial of (or alternatively Affirmation of) Justification of the Impious by Faith Alone is Heresy" or "A Christian is a person who believes _____" (obviously with something in that blank). Those are more concrete resolutions.
-Turretinfan
The insults are already starting to come in:
"Saint and Sinner":
As to DA, he'll definitely write more than you can, and so, he might claim victory just because it will *look* like he refuted you. He is the master of obfuscation.
(10-24-07)
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/
...079244312918154
Carrie:
I didn't check out his challenge, but in general I would vote for "no". I think DA has been trolling around for awhile looking to debate someone on this particular topic and I think he chose you simply b/c you seem willing to debate (due to your debate blog). In other words, I don't think DA is actually interested in debating you, but just looking for online publicity and something to do.
Save yourself the headache.
(10-24-07)
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/
...689336853432764
How about?:
"Resolved: the Catholic Church (led by the pope) is Not Properly Classifiable as Christian."
I would deny and dispute this, of course; my opponent would affirm and defend it. Or:
"Resolved: Only (Some Species of) Protestantism Can Be Properly Regarded as 'Christian'".
I want to see my opponent defend this kind of proposition and to interact with critiques of it. That is what I have never been able to press any anti-Catholic Protestant to do, because all have been unwilling. And with very good reason, of course (as I maintain that it is an utterly indefensible position).
Bridges and "Saint and Sinner" have not given any definite answer at all, as of yet (just mild insults). After a few more days, I shall conclude that they have declined, per my post:
"Lack of any response will be regarded as a 'no' answer: declining the challenge or invitation, and this will be duly noted and documented hereafter on my blog, for the record . . ."
Nor has Cory Tucholski responded. Turretinfan is "mulling it over" with the requested advice of folks on his blog, most of whom are engaging in the usual anti-Catholic insults. At least he has acted in a mature fashion.
Turretin actually likes debates, so this was not an automatic "no" for him. He actually thinks (based on past comments of his about my writing) he could prevail in such a debate, too, which is always good if one likes to debate: a little bit of confidence and assurance.
But he may still decline. He is in the line of a long history of anti-Catholic unwillingness to face foundational issues concerning Catholicism. That would be hard to overcome. Kudos to him if he does. Lots at stake here (which is why, I believe, White and Swan immediately declined: their reputations were on the line and they wanted no part of that).
Opinions of TF's cronies appear to be a big factor there. I would never determine my decision about how I should respond to a debate challenge wholly on others' opinions. I either consider it my intellectual duty or decide that the particular challenge is not worth my time to pursue, for various reasons, none having to do with the opinions of others about strategy and so forth. I might consult others in some cases, but that would be an advisory role only; not the basis of the final determination.
At least this is better than the ridiculous orgy of potshots and insults that occurred when I challenged James White.
Cory has now responded (I neglected to check his regular blog in my last update and looked only at the combox):
http://josiahconcept.org/2007/10...aginably-broad/
He writes, drawing a distinction without a difference:
"I don’t want to be considered a chicken for not accepting the debate. However, as I’ve never said Catholicism isn’t Christian, I’m confused as to why I’m being challenged. What I have said is that certain beliefs and practices within Catholicism have departed from the traditional Christian faith. In other words, people are saved within the Catholic Church in spite of what it it teaches, not because of what it teaches."
This is, of course, classic anti-Catholicism. If one can't be saved by adhering to what the Catholic Church teaches (about Jesus, faith, the way of salvation, the sacraments, etc.), then obviously it isn't Christian. DUH!!!! What is so hard to comprehend about that? That would be Requirement #1 for any claimant of any group or system of theological belief to the term "Christian".
But like most anti-Catholics, for some reason Cory has an irrational hostility to a simple description of what he believes (about Catholicism). He continues:
"This debate topic is too huge to take on in a 90-minute cross-ex format. There are far too many areas to delve into in that time period. You have patristic writings, synods and councils, the ever-popular Marian dogmas, the supposed connection between Augustine and Calvin . . ."
Well, anti-Catholics have to give a solid answer at some point for their ridiculous contentions. I've never seen one do it yet. Even a beginning and partial attempt is better than nothing, and bald assertion with no serious biblical or historical support.
He then appeals to time limitations and states: "I’m going to hold off on making a decision on this for right now." Fair enough.
I appreciate the non-insulting nature of his declining to take up the debate. He gave his reasons, and that is fine. I respect that.
Congrats to Cory on the new addition, too. Parenthood and children are tremendous blessings. I have four children, and finally was blessed by a daughter almost six years ago now, after three boys. We love our boys equally, of course. They're wonderful. It was just nice to experience having a daughter, too, as well as sons.
"TheoJunkie" writes on TF's blog:
--------------------
I note that DA made the statement in his combox that there is "lots at stake here", with reference to the reputations of men... and curiously I find no mention of God in his comments.
Let the reputation of God be first and only.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/
...535889487990669
God isn't mentioned in the book of Esther, either, so we must toss it out of the Bible, as obviously a work that doesn't give due notice to the reputation of God . . .
Here is Turretinfan's post in response to my challenge, also containing a vigorous ongoing discussion. I made several comments there that I haven't posted here:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/...-
armstrong.html
Note Sam Shamoun's fair-minded remarks. What a breath of fresh air.
Gene M. Bridges has replied on Turretinfan's blog (my responses will be bracketed):
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/
...332919770302740
Dave, I don't keep up with your blog or comments that you hide in the comments of other blogs. I come by you when I stumble across you.
[isn't it interesting how simply commenting on other blogs amounts to "hiding" -- these guys never cease to amaze me, the nonsense they come up with]
I have not received a proper request from you for a debate, so don't go running about telling people I have "refused" to debate you about anything. Notice that this is, what, all of one or two days, and already, according to you I've "refused."
[I simply posted the challenge in the highest post at Triablogue at the time (two nights ago) that was authored by Gene M. Bridges. Presumably, he monitors comments under his own posts, but perhaps in his case such an assumption was an unreasonable one (???). Nor did I claim he refused yet. I find it fascinating that Turretinfan received the same challenge in exactly the same fashion, and he was not put off by it at all; he responded intelligently, in a normal fashion, and thanked me. Why, I wonder, the huge difference in response?]
In fact, let's put this in context, the only reason I am aware of your request now is that I saw it here.
[I guess he doesn't read the comments under his own blog posts, then]
It's announcement was not in an email to me (that would be too easy and logical, since my mail is public) but in a link to your blog that you posted one or two days ago, near the end of a comment thread on a prayer request for rain! Since it is presently raining here, I wasn't aware I needed to check it for debate challenges on Catholicism. Sorry,but that tactic earns you an automatic "No," since you lacked the integrity to simply email. You had your chance, and you blew it.
[again, Turretinfan didn't react in this way at all. So the same exact thing is respected by one party and despised by another. Can't please everyone, as Rick Nelson sang in Garden Party. . . This guy is clearly acting like an idiot, so I'm happy he has turned down the challenge. That debate would have no chance to accomplish anything at all with his snotty attitude. Besides, I e-mailed James White and I received an even nastier response than Bridges offered, so the medium makes little difference. The prior hostilities determine the nature of the replies]
This reply is also here, and not on my blog to make that point. I've placed it where I found the challenge, and it's not in my email box.
Further, you are a chronic liar who says that we want monologues with you. As I recall, you are not banned from posting commentary in any article I have written on Catholicism on Tblog, and, since I've written on you recently, as I look around, I've seen my name show up once on your blog. Again, you had your chance then, and you blew it.
[Par for the course. The "liar" charge is old hat from the anti-Catholics, having been made by White, Svendsen, Swan, and Turk at various times, and others as well]
Oh - and since the infallibility of the Pope had not yet been made a de fide object of faith in Rome until the 19th century, what Steve and I have said stands, and, as usual, what you say doesn't begin to touch what we have stated. It suffers from anachronistic reading of texts.
[that isn't, of course, what he stated, which was, rather: "The Pope, of course, was not said to be infallible until the 19th century." And, as usual, there is no attempt to interact with my substantive critique, but only to mock it, Swan and Hays' style]
If you would write something less than the long, incoherent, and rambling posts you write - posts that an English professor would grade "C" at best, I might be willing to do a blog debate. I prefer to respond to other articles or, in your case, to you shoddy, incompetent,and anachronistic exegetical work.
[all the more reason to put me in my place, if this pompous ass feels this way: a point I made earlier. At least Turretinfan had the class to distance himself from the personal attacks in a post just two above Bridges' rant:
"I don't, however, particularly care whether the debate enhances or detracts from Dave's reputation for knowledge, honesty, competence, or what-have-you. As far as I am concerned, if the debate happens, the debate should be about the resolution, not the advocates."
I admire that. Bridges illustrates the usual modus operandi of anti-Catholics: attack the person and ignore the argument. And people wonder why I almost completely ignored them during the years 2005 and 2006?]
I don't use a chat function on my computer-not even for AOL - all chatrooms are blocked-, and I'm not a member of Paltalk, and don't intend to be. I don't even use a soundcard. I also have a real life in the real world, and that includes working as a freelance writer who will be chronically several conferences beginning in November. I also live with terminal illness. I'd rather not waste an over an hour of my already brief life on talking to you. It would be poor stewardship of my time.
[fine. My brother died of leukemia (I was the bone marrow donor and helped him live an extra year). My father has lung cancer. My favorite aunt died of cancer a few years ago. I'm well aware of terminal illness. it is not, however, an excuse to treat others with an inexcusable contempt]
I follow the same policy with you that Steve Hays follows, and since the greater luminaries of the debate world aren't debating you, why should I? You're the one that refuses to debate them in public, and then you have all the courage to issue a debate challenge to me near the end of a comment stream on praying for rain. I learned about it here, and then I had to Google that by first Googling for a debate challenge from you to me, going to your blog, which I don't read already, and then finding the thread on my blog, not in a thread on the topic of Catholicism, but on a prayer request for rain. Why should I honor that, Dave?
[for the same reason Turretinfan is seriously considering it. Ask him. So -- given your animus and hostility, from your own warped perspective -- that you can prove to the world what an idiot I am, etc.]
And here's another reason Dave: Titus 3 says to reject the factious man. You are the epitome of that man. You've demonstrated that several times. Further, this isn't about the truth for you Dave, however defined, it's about stroking your own overbloated ego.
[straight from the James White + Swan Playbook of Put-Downs . . .Bridges could, at least, try something different, for novelty's sake, if nothing else.]
Frankly, after observing your past behavior as well, such as particular artwork that gets posted from time to time, I'm not willing to debate with a person of such obviously low character either.
[right]
You've also taken an oath to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics",
[I did no such thing. I made "resolutions" which are in an entirely different category from oaths and vows, and later changed my mind. I've written publicly many times about my radically mixed feelings in dealing with anti-Catholics. As an apologist, sometimes it is necessary to do so. Personally, I wouldn't at all if I were not an apologist with certain responsibilities]
and yet here you are wanting us to interact with you. I, for one, take the Law on making vows seriously, and I am not going to contribute to you sin before God in violating your word.
[I have not violated any vow, since I never made one (now Bridges switches to "vow"; whereas before he said "oath": and they are two different things. I used neither word in my past statements. And that can be proven in Internet Archive. So I have not broken any sworn vow or oath, but Bridges has lied about me breaking one, and that is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, which is very serious indeed]
But here is something you can do Dave. You can renounce Rome and all her merits. You can cast yourself on Christ and Christ alone, and you can trust in Him and Him onlyfor your eternal salvation.
[I did the latter in 1977, and nothing in Catholic teaching is contrary to that laudable and quite necessary goal]
---------------------------------
Thus ends what has been the usual response to debate challenges from anti-Catholics. Bridges went by the time-worn Playbook, perfected by james white in particular. Turretinfan and Cory Tucholski, to their great credit, have responded with class. The latter declined, and no one saw me putting him down. To the contrary, I replied (you can see it above in this combox):
* * *
He then appeals to time limitations and states: "I’m going to hold off on making a decision on this for right now." Fair enough. I appreciate the non-insulting nature of his declining to take up the debate. He gave his reasons, and that is fine. I respect that. Congrats to Cory on the new addition, too.
* * *
this is the most disorganized non-blog "blog" I've ever seen. btw, I think you should take EgoMakarios up on the original sin debate.
How is it disorganized? Or are you already gone?
EgoMakarios? Huh? Wha?
Turretinfan has a new post about the debate challenge:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/...-
challenge.html
He is inquiring about certain beliefs. Here are my replies:
I wonder whether Dave would be willing to stipulate for the purposes of the debate that Catholicism includes:
- the dogmatic denial that the impious man is justified by faith alone (Based on Trent);
This is true, but must be rightly understood, and that is always the issue with anti-Catholics (and even many ecumenical Protestants), because they automatically falsely assume that denial of faith alone means denial of grace alone (and amounts to Pelagianism). This doesn't follow, and one tires of explaining it over and over and over.
- the dogmatic denial that Scripture is of greater authority than any council or pope (Based on Trent and Vatican I);
This is an inaccurate description of the Catholic conception of authority. But it is a complex discussion, and again, anti-Catholics rarely comprehend our perspective on these matters.
- the dogmatic affirmation that the god of the Muslims is the one true God (Based on Vatican II).
Vatican II did not assert that Allah is the equivalent of Yahweh. It must be rightly understood. It is basically saying in so many words that "Christians and Muslims have in common the belief in monotheism." The same would hold for the Jews. Obviously, this doesn't presuppose that the three beliefs about God are absolutely identical, since Muslims and Jews are not trinitarians. Nor does it presuppose that there
are no differences other than trinitarianism vs. unitarianism. Ecumenical language is often diplomatic, which is often vague and general, and deliberately avoids particulars that will get into differences.
And I wrote again over there:
I should clarify my reply concerning Scripture. One must distinguish between intrinsic ("ontological") authority and delegated (practical) authority; also between inspiration and infallibility.
Only Scripture is inspired revelation. That is a greater characteristic than infallibility, which is a negative protection against error ("x will not fail to do y"), rather than a positive trait of being "God-breathed" ("Scripture consists of God's words which are intrinsically true and infallible and error-free"). In that sense it has an intrinsic authority that can be said to be "higher" than popes and councils (of course).
In a practical sense of having to interpret Scripture (and any Christian view requires that no matter what their view of authority is), Church, tradition, and Scripture are on the same plane insofar as all have authority that is binding on the faithful.
But that immediately gets back to the distinction between infallibility and inspiration. The former is far more limited, and so is inferior in that sense.
That said, we do believe that popes and councils are possessed of infallibility, whereas Protestants deny this and so hold that the only infallible authority in Christianity is Holy Scripture (sola Scriptura).
Gene M. Bridges wrote:
"If you would write something less than the long, incoherent, and rambling posts you write - posts that an English professor would grade 'C' at best, I might be willing to do a blog debate."
Humor Dept.:
Actually, I got an "A" grade in my English Composition course in college, at Wayne State University in Detroit in 1978. I also received "A's" on most of the longer papers I did in college. And that was almost 30 years ago now.
Hey Dave,
It's me Sam Shamoun. I am interested in getting your new book concerning the Fathers' views on sola fide and sola scriptura. I already have the books by Webster and King and want to compare what you have to say with what they have written.
Could you please email me at sam_shmn@hotmail.com with the details of how to go about purchasing your book? Much appreciated.
Sam
"EgoMakarios? Huh? Wha?" He put forth a challenge in the combox of a thread on Turretinfan's blog, challenging Dave to a debate on original sin.
How is this blog disorganized? Have you seen anyone else's blog? They don't look like this! For starters, the main page generally shows the recent blog entries, not a topical index of some sort. There generally aren't all sorts of books for sell on the side, but rather links to the recent blog entries based on dates. This blog is simply not navigable.
So you're saying you are unable to select a topical index page from my chart of 49 selections, in order to go where you want to go?
And you haven't figured out how to scroll down, either?
this blog is just so cluttered and haphazard. i guess its supposed to be a mini model of the RCC. You consciously make this blog cluttered and disorganized because your 'church' is. BTW, why are you ignoring EgoMakarios' debate challenge? Not chicken are you?
Dave,
Again, thanks for the invitation to dialog. In view of what I have seen from your comments over the last few days (and other materials posted on your blog), I will defer participation this particular dialog over whether Catholicism is properly classifiable as Christian until certain matters are resolved from your end, at which point I can either accept or decline.
-Turretinfan
Commenting by HaloScan
