Well, Dave, you did say that Protestants are daunted by the Catholic apologetics revival and are not seriously responding. This is patently not true, and it's thus understandable that James White would take umbrage at such claims. Sure, James can come across as arrogant, but he's a worthy opponent putting forth intelligent and respectable counter-arguments to Catholic apologists. For those of us who have been as fairly as possible following the Prot-Cath apologetics world, James cannot simply be belittled and dismissed.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Greetings,
As a Catholic, I would tend to agree with Kevin here. I think that there are Protestants (including James White) who are not "daunted" by the revival in Catholic apologetics, and are responding to the works of Catholic apologists.
The quality of said work is another question, I suppose... but it is being done.
Be well.
My own record with White is abundantly clear. Anyone can examine it for themselves. The man has been running, evading, mocking, and making a fool of himself for over twelve years.
I don't have time anymore for his nonsense. I've done my duty as an apologist by refuting his facile inanities off and on all those years. Many many papers are posted, and he has never once sustained an intelligent discourse with me without fleeing for the hills long before we actually accomplished anything or descending into imbecilic mockery and insult.
Most critiques I make of his arguments are completely ignored. I've documented this many times. No need to do it again now.
I suggest that he stick to liberals, KJV-only nuts, Mormons, and Muslims, where he does good and very helpful apologetics, and I link to that work and even recommend it. But Catholicism? Nuh-uh. He has shown himself to be in massive error and unwilling to be corrected on anything, time and again.
I never denied that some Protestants are attempting to respond to Catholics. I made it very clear that I was generalizing and that there are exceptions. One wearies of reiterating the obvious and having to explain what was already made quite clear in the interview itself.
But the overall trend is definitely toward dismissing and mocking rather than engaging Catholic apologetics. I've documented this many times, too. I speak from experience, as a veteran of over 400 written debates, and constant apologetic work on the Internet for now 12 years and running (and no end in sight). Many of our Protestant opponents come right out and say this. It's not even speculation. Look at what they say and what they do.
I should add that there is also a distinction between writing something about Catholics as a potshot and being willing to actually interact with them in a back-and-forth fashion (i.e., serious intellectual discussion, where someone is actually challenged and has to defend their POV). I was referring more so (though not totally) to the latter.
It was simply an informal, off the cuff interview. I had no preparation (other than reading the salvation sections of my new book). I didn't know specifically what I was gonna be asked. This is what White loves to attack, because he knows full well that it isn't remotely as precise and prepared as any writing that I do. So he can pick at things and take them out of context. He is a master at that, but it is sophistry.
White himself will write plenty about Catholics, assuredly (filled with personal attacks, as with his recent spate of hit pieces against Steve Ray), but as soon as one of these Catholics responds at length, he will ignore it or mock and dismiss.
That is what I mean. Kevin Johnson is another sterling example of that. He writes plenty about Catholics, but if a Catholic dares to try to interact with him and reason with him and show him where he is in error, it is all mockery and ridicule. And of course I was banned from his site two or three years ago. I guess I asked too many difficult questions.
I was banned from White's chat room after a few appearances recently for no reason other than that I was a wicked Catholic (I was getting along fine with the people who were actually there, except for David T. King: the rudest Christian I have ever met on the Internet).
Because of that I challenged White and his sidekick James Swan to a live chat debate. They both turned me down. I later challenged four other anti-Catholics to the same debate and they all replied similarly (most with insults). I had done the same with another anti-Catholic before that (Matt Slick). That made it seven straight refusals to do a simple chat about the definition of "Christian." Very basic stuff. But these guys are all petrified of discussing it with me "live", with everyone watching.
That doesn't sound like a willingness to interact with Catholics to me: at least not with this Catholic . . . Since the same people, almost to a man, say repeatedly how stupid and dumb and clueless I am, one wonders why they are so reluctant to jump at this golden opportunity to prove that claim to everyone. But I proved that no one was willing to do so. It's all on the record now. That was the last straw for me. Apart from the Luther quote thing that I got into heavily, because I wanted to defend my friend Steve Ray, I decided at that point that these clowns were not worth any more of my time.
White used to allow Catholics in his chat room, and engage in lengthy exchanges with them (several of which are still posted on his site). But I guess he now thinks it is better to ban them. He used to have Catholics in a discussion list about sola Scriptura, that he actually invited me to, way back in 1996, before I even had a website yet. He doesn't do stuff like that anymore.
I can also cite many examples of folks who used to vigorously debate actual Catholic human beings and no longer do. Jason Engwer is one. Eric Svendsen is another. He does it occasionally, but nothing like before.
I've tried to engage Steve Hays, who is intelligent enough, to a sensible exchange, but it is all mockery and foolishness and hee-hawing among his adoring sycophants. Oh well. I did try.
There was another guy who called himself "the Pedantic Protestant" who is now off the Internet, far as I can tell.
There are a number of other nicer Protestants, who weren't anti-Catholics, whom I very much enjoyed dialoguing with in the past (I have two in particular, in mind), but who decided to basically cease dialoguing with Catholics on the usual topics that divide us.
There is Josh Strodtbeck: another sharp tack who is constantly running down the Catholic Church and Catholics; but try to have a serious dialogue with him? Impossible. It's all mockery and ludicrosity. At least with me. And I don't see him doing so with any other Catholic, either. But he is a master of the quick insult and the propagandistic caricature of what he imagines Catholicism to be.
That provides several concrete examples of what I was referring to.
Dave,
Thanks for clarifying your position....
I too have had my problems with the Reformed Catholicism crowd. I also have some trouble with some of the teaching that comes out of James White's ministry. I wasn't trying to insult you...
Have a nice day.
Fair enough. God bless.
Dave,
I did have a question for you regarding a semi-related topic...
I had been following the Steve Ray/James White/Gary Michuta/"Carrie" discussions on St. Augustine, Melito, Trent, etc...
I think that James may have had a point about Steve statements about Jerome's uniqueness in the ancient world regarding his position on the "apocrypha..." I guess I mean that I think Steve could have been more precise in his language.
I wondered about your thoughts on James White's on-going vlog series on the subject (YouTube) and if you think Gary will respond...
Take care,
Chris
Hi Chris,
It's too involved for me to follow. I have too much other work to do. I sure hope Gary will respond if he has a mind to deal with White's merry-go-round, hit-and-run tactics. Gary is "the man" in the Catholic world right now, in terms of defending the Deuterocanonical books.
Personally, I think White should be ignored as a fool and a sophist in catholic matters, but if Gary wants to keep interacting with him, he has to give it 100% There is no in-between with White. If he is thoroughly, soundly refuted, he'll flee for the hills, every time. If he thinks his opponent is weak, however, he'll exploit that with all his powers of sophistry, going after them like animals who attack the sick animal that they want to stalk.
Replies to White, therefore (if one has the infinite patience to make them at all), have to cover every base, and need to be vigorous and decisive. He flees in terror from such responses, and will come back with the same junk that was just refuted.
Protestants often run from or mock Catholic presentations, rather than interact with them; let alone try to refute them.
There appears to be a crisis of confidence in Protestant circles. In the old days, any such Catholic comments would have been vigorously interacted with. Now they are often summarily dismissed and the discussion is shut down. It's a lot like Marxists and feminists and pro-aborts act with opposing viewpoints. They shout them down and ban them.
Apparently, Bishop White follows this approach. He doesn't allow comments on his blog. He doesn't allow wicked scoundrels like myself in his chat rooms; he refuses to reply to lengthy written critiques; he turns down live chat debate challenges. He would never deign to set foot on this defiled, pagan blog (tho he has no aversion to visiting blogs where the person is not a known apologist who can "trade punches" with him, etc.).
It's the mentality of taking shots from the dark, but never interacting seriously with a Catholic opponent (unless -- in his case -- it is a canned, ultra-prepared carnival barker oral debate scenario designed to produce distorted, taken out of context sound-bytes later on, for You Tube: to be recycled for his blog and "yuk yuks" among his fan club).
Dave, would you be willing to correct the misrepresentations in that article (the one at Christian Answers)? I'd personally be interested in your critique. There is a lot of misunderstanding going around, and the more it's corrected the better for everyone.
Btw, Sallie is a great gal, and it's not my intention in any way to bash her. Please keep that in mind when addressing her in any way, okee doke?
Of course, she'll probably want nothing to do with me after this! :-o
I'm trying to get away from replying to anti-Catholics. I've done so much of that, and I am sick of it on a personal level (have been for a long long time), for reasons I have been explaining in this thread. Every error in that piece is addressed somewhere in my writings, you can be assured.
I'm sure Sallie is a wonderful Christian person with the best intentions. She is simply misinformed about Catholicism.
Dave, I understand. If anyone else here would like to address the misunderstandings directly, I'd appreciate it.
I just read all of the above comments and wow, the timing was very interesting!
Dave,
This is your blog and you can choose to link to my blog. It's a free country and I can't stop you. However, I take exception to the way you have characterized me. I highly doubt you spent any time looking at anything else on my blog. I frequently open up posts on my blog that deal with controversial topics. I also frequently end the discussion by closing the topic to comments. I am simply unable to devote hours and hours of time to responding to comments. I am a mother of a toddler, operate a business out of my home with my husband, and take seriously the need to care for my family and home. I would love to have endless hours each day to discuss the finer points of faith and theology, but I do not.
Since you put up the link to my blog to mock me, I would kindly ask that you remove it. I chose to leave Kim's comment up, including the link to your blog, because I try not to censor people on my blog and believe people can make up their own minds about what they believe. Apparently you did not choose to extend the same grace to me.
Sallie
Hi Sallie,
I wasn't trying to mock. I have nothing against you personally. I'm sure you are a fine woman and good Christian. I just saw it as an example of what I was talking about.
But in deference to your wishes and to show that I have no ill will towards you, I'll remove that comment and apologize for any offense.
My wife and I have four demanding children (two of them special needs) and she home schools all of them and also is constantly helping my parents, her mother, and a blind friend, so I know all about busy wives and mothers. I respect that very much.
God bless you.
His Eminence has graced us with yet another sublime reply:
--------------------
Yesterday I reviewed some clips from an interview done by Dave Armstrong. I noted some of his amazing statements, and in particular, I found quite humorous his very inflated sense of importance in basically vanquishing the entire Protestant world from the field of battle. No one can respond to Dave Armstrong! Well, I knew Dave would respond, and respond he did. But he did so in typical Armstrongian fashion:
[cites my words]
But, as all of us who know Armstrong realize, there is no way he is going to limit himself to such a brief reply. His MO is to tell you on his blog that he going to take the "high road" and ignore such things, but, then, all you have to do is go to the combox, and you will find the real replies. And verily and forsooth, that's what we have:
[cites more of my words, and I knew the man would say this, after I simply responded to my blog readers. He's so absolutely predictable. Amazing stuff . . .]
Seems like the grand total there was not overly large, in DA terms: only 1300 words! Excuse me while I "flee" and "run" from DA's overwhelming argumentation. And in my absence, you might search the blog for the name "Armstrong" and see for yourself that DA lives in a fantasy world all his own.
[Right]
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/inde...php?
itemid=2544
I won't bother to mention yet again and document White's numerous claims that he would utterly ignore me, and that everyone else should do so, too. He obviously ain't holding to that resolve very well, is he?
I do appreciate his citing my words for his readership, since no one can comment on his blog and I am banned from his chat rooms. This is the closest I've gotten. He cited my words . . .
Dave,
I clicked on the link you posted and then did the search on his site that he suggested (link below) and read some of the things he had to say about you - one thing that stood out, however, is that I don't think that he's unwilling to debate you, he's just not interested in doing an "online" debate over chat. Sounds like he's totally willing to debate you on any topic you'd like to discuss, so long as it's in a public and you're willing to front the production costs. Go for it dude! You've got a great opportunity to prove your point!
Link to the search result: http://aomin.org/aoblog/
index.ph...query=armstrong
In listening to Mr. White's program for the second (and hopefully the last) time in my life, I am struck by the total vacuity of what is discussed on it. When he is not talking about himself, he spends the rest of his time belittling others. White is narcissism personified.
I'm on record ever since I've been on the Internet, consistently saying that I think these live oral debates between Catholics and anti-Catholics are a farce and grandstanding baloney, for many reasons that I have written about. White knows this full well. I turned him down in 1995 and have several times since.
In 1995 I even suggested that he debate my friend Gary Michuta, as an alternative. But White scorned him and implied that he was no one important, so why should he waste his time, etc.? [I have the documentation in my hard copies of his letters, and it is posted on my site). He wanted me because I had been in Surprised by Truth by that time, and had several published articles in Catholic magazines. Yet by 2004, he changed his mind for some reason and did debate Gary. I guess he figured out that he was "important" enough by then for him to deign to debate in public. And White is saying that I am so supposedly arrogant and self-important?
White is also a writer (author of many books) and does written debates when he thinks it suits his purpose.
I have long contended also that the live chat format is a lot more like oral debate than like standard writing (being in real time, live, and observable by others as it happens, without the ability to research and take time on answers, as with writing).
But that's not good enough for White. I give him extra time and it ain't good enough. I suggested a double cross-examination format because of his oft-stated love for cross-ex. We even did such a (short) debate on 29 December 2000 (its posted on my blog). White did not do all that well. He has consistently run from written exchanges (including our very first one, where he ignored my final 36 pages of critique). he's done this with many other Catholics, not just myself. He has largely ignored, e.g., Paul's Hoffer extremely extensive critique of his methods. He mocked it and dismissed it, just like we saw in his "critique" of my radio interview. This is standard MO for White.
Nothing is sufficient for him. I'm a writer, not one who has cultivated speaking. My dozen or so radio appearances are very conversational; they aren't pre-prepared lectures. That's my method. I am a conversationalist and lover of true dialogue. I love doing radio, but it is not a particular talent I have. I think I do "okay"; no more or no less. I'm not a dazzling speaker. Never claimed to be, couldn't care less if I am or not, and no one would or ever has mistaken me for same.
If I wanted to cultivate speaking and oratory and so forth (and had the temperament for that), I would have done so long since. I could have made a great deal more money than I have with books, on the lecture circuit, like many other apologists. But I've consistently refused to do so, because my calling is primarily as a writer, and I follow that calling, as a matter of stewardship. We all have to do that with what God gave us.
So why would I debate White orally, given my position on oral debates with anti-Catholics and the sophistry and sloganism that is involved, and in light of the fact that I've made no bones about oratory not being my gift at all?
If White was so absolutely dead set against written debate with Catholics, then why would he even bother engaging in a lengthy exchange with me in 1995? He did (IMO) because he thought I was easy to defeat and overwhelm. He was the bigshot. He was gonna make mincemeat out of me. When that didn't happen, he immediately made it personal (though I was not without fault, either, in that regard, in the first exchange, as I later admitted several times).
Then when he found in that first "dialogue" that I was asking difficult questions that he had no good answer to, that got to the heart of the incoherence and implausibility of his position, he chose to ignore the critiques altogether, and that has set the pattern for his replies ever since.
I have less than no intellectual respect for a person who repeatedly, consistently, relentlessly refuses to defend his positions when challenged. Words cannot convey how much I detest and despise such an attitude and the intellectual cowardice involved. I have nothing but contempt for that: not against the person, but this particular attitude in a purported "thinker." I understand that a lot of that flows from his presuppositional Calvinist mentality, but that makes me despise it no less.
White thinks that because he does his blasted oral debates and his endlessly self-promoted webcasts, that this proves he is invulnerable and cannot possibly come out on the short end of any dispute with a Catholic.
If he were actually as super-confident as he makes out, he would have agreed to do the live chat debate with me in a second and put me in my place, shutting me up for good. Nothing would please him more (you can see how much he utterly detests me as a person in his latest hit piece on his show). But he didn't, and that is because there is a lot more here than meets the eye.
I don't expect anyone to understand all that has gone on between White and myself since 1995, but I can document key aspects of it.
Hi Paul,
Indeed. I was also very struck by the fact that White assumed that I was always talking about HIM in every comment that I made, and also that his methods and past responses constitute the sum total of all Protestants, that I was critiquing in a very general sense. He seems truly obsessed with himself and his importance in the apologetic world (precisely what he accuses me of).
The way he characterizes my very casual, unprepared, low-key interview (as mine usually are) is so bizarre and removed from reality that I can't imagine anyone who hadn't already heard some of his 12+ years of lying about me and smearing my name and ridiculing my apologetics across the board as worthless, would ever have gotten the same impression.
I never mentioned him. I don't think I mentioned any Protestant apologist online by name (I mentioned Lewis and Schaeffer as Protestants that I had loved and read when starting into apologetics in the early 80s). The only time I referred to him at all indirectly and not by name, was when I mentioned the two caricatures made of me by his artist. But no one who didn't know who he was (are there any such people still left on the Internet who haven't yet heard of the Great Bishop???!!!) would ever guess it by that reference.
But in White's reply it is always about HIM. He plays a clip and then launches into his inane, tendentious, juvenile schtick, "well HEY, I haven't been doing THAT!...." Etc., etc., as if he is the sum total of all Protestant apologetics on the Internet.
A truly sad and pathetic case . . .
Talked about at the beginning of this thread. The quality of Protestant aplogetics? I don't see it. As soon as I start to read Protestant writers I sense it's the wrong mind. I always think of what my old Irish mother used to say-'they're digging with the wrong foot". simply can't get passed the first papragrah. My fault really.
A play on a pun;
'between a rock and a hard place'
'and on this rock I will buld my church'
Aren't Protstants a in a hard place?
Thanks
> I turned him down in 1995 and have several times since.
Honestly, Dave, that sounds just like when he said that he's turned you down several times on chat debates. It seems like neither of your are "scared" or "running" from the debate, rather you just can't agree on a format. That's cool, I just wish I would have known that from the beginning and not wasted my time trying to confirm that either of you were "unwilling to interact" with the other due to being "unable" to interact. I can't detect either a pride issue, a fear issue, or a "I know I can't win" issue from either side. It's a shame that both you and White implied that.
Just goes to show that when someone accuses someone of something else, an observer would be well-served to check the sources, lest he be misled into an incorrect understanding of the situation..
For the record, a debate over IRC just seems weird to me. The traditional concept of a debate - in person - makes more sense. I'm sorry you think it's a farce.
Steve,
Would you agree that more could possibly be covered in what you consider to be a less "traditional" debate? Written debates are certainly not alien to the history of Western Civilization though, are they? 
What do you think about James White's upcoming debate with Steve Gregg? Does the format both you? Just wondering...
Are you of the opinion that it's possible that the better public speaker could be viewed as the winner in a "traditional" debate even if they didn't actually make many points? Do you think that the time limits might prevent certain points from being made? Just something to think about...
I happen to think that James White is a good debater... I think he has raised some good questions about Steve Ray's statements concerning the "uniqueness" of St. Jerome and the "apocrypha," so.. .this is not an anti-White diatribe... just some questions...
I hope you are well.
Chris
While I personally prefer a live debate, I'd think I could get value from virtually any format. My point was that both sides basically said "fear" was the reason they haven't debated - where the reality is neither side is willing to agree to the other's format preference. That's fine, I just wish that had been made clear from the beginning. Calling an Christian apologist a coward is a pretty dramatic thing to do and it doesn't serve anybody - especially Christ - if it's not true. And it seems to me that both Armstrong and White are guilty of this.
Steve,
Ok... I don't dig the insults either, but... I think it's there is a pretty good chance that James White doesn't consider Dave to be a Christian... nor any Catholic who actually has a decent understanding of what the Church teaches (re: the doctrine of justification) and accept it over and against what the Reformed tradition teaches (re: justification).
You might not consider that an insult, but, as a statement of fact... I am pretty sure Mr. White would see it that way... it sure *feels* like an insult, but, then again... I don't think that what either man states about the other takes into account the other man's feelings if one feels as though they are stating a a "fact."
I think that there are barbs on both sides of this... and I don't personally like to see it all the time either, but it's the reality of the thing...
Chris
I agree that there's no place for personal attacks in this type of discussion. In this case, both sides seem so frustrated with the other that it deteriorated into this. It's a shame.
Steve,
I appreciate your comments, and I think you're right. I would especially exhort Dave, since this is his blog, to refrain from belittling James, calling him a coward, afraid of debating, and so forth.
I would especially note that the recent stuff between James and Steve Ray/Gary Michuta has been a great example of James obviously putting forth the better arguments and evidence, with rather lame and miniscule responses from Steve and Gary. You can say I'm biased or whatever, but I think the evidence is clear: Steve was making completely unsubstantiated claims (based on the work of his friend, Gary, who then supported Steve's claims) about the early fathers and the canon, and James rightly called him out on it.
That James White has refused to have a complete, constructive discussion with me since the end of our first exchange in 1995 is an indisputable fact. It's not even speculation or my opinion. I can't change reality from what it is.
It's a FACT. Anyone who reads our interaction can see that (and I removed several papers that were of a more personal nature some time ago, so I have even less documentation than I did).
This much is absolutely incontestable. White sometimes responds (in some fashion); he insults; he does his cynical, mocking commentaries, as we saw with this webcast. He does his live debates where everything is very carefully controlled (the exact opposite of the format I am calling for). He even sometimes writes series of posts against me.
What he does NOT do is interact in an intelligent, ongoing, comprehensive fashion (as academics do: and he claims to be an academic) with point-by-point opposing viewpoints, laid out in detailed papers. He wants no part of that. He deliberately avoids it. He'd rather ignore, or mock, or dismiss his opponents. He calls them dishonest and liars (as he did in this latest webcast, playing the Three Dog Night song "Liar" and the Billy Joel song "Honesty"). I don't say that about him (never have). I even recommended a lot of his work, when it didn't have to do with Catholicism.
I understand that folks might differ on what to call that. I call it intellectual cowardice, because I strongly believe that any thinker worth his salt ought to be able to defend his opinions against critique, or else modify them in face of the critique.
So to say White is an intellectual coward is simply my (I think, eminently reasonable) description of the indisputable fact of how he has (not) replied to written critiques of his theological opponents. The coward or the bully mentality always runs when confronted directly. And so White does this.
To everyone who is implying that this situation is a sort of "immoral equivalent," with both of us committing the same sin against the other, I'd love to hear you explain what in the world is so objectionable to White about the live chat idea, with a double cross-examination format? The man LOVES cross-examination. I documented how he has praised it to the skies. Yet when I offer it to him, he refuses. WHY? You tell me. He has his own chat rooms, where he does live chat!!! That';s fine as long as someone is his intellectual inferior, or agrees with him. That's fine and dandy. But let someone come in who can match wits with the Bishop, and they get banned. He wants no part of that.
There is a huge difference, too, in the very nature of the charges being levied. White claims that to refuse his oral debates is due to cowardice and "hiding behind your keyboard." He has said this innumerable times. It's his standard MO. His objection is to written debate altogether, as if it is less than a manly thing.
What I have said (apart from my objections to anti-Catholic rhetoric and method, which is a separate issue) is that written debate cannot be so easily dismissed. It's self-evident. I don't have to argue that. I've also contended that White refuses to defend his viewpoints in writing, which is standard practice among intellectuals who write at all. White is an author. He writes quite a bit on his blog (we can safely say). But he refuses to defend himself. That's a separate issue altogether from an oral debate.
He may think there is some sublime principle in doing this. I contend that he is unable and unwilling to do it; hence, that he is an intellectual coward. If someone thinks that is an insult in the sense of it being an untrue accusation, fine. I'm saying that it is simply a straightforward conclusion from the man's documented behavior. it's the statement of a fact: that he DOES NOT and WILL NOT do this.
Now, he can point to countless of his papers (he has already done so). But my complaint isn't complaining that he writes NOTHING, but that what he writes is not an acceptable, proper defense of his positions or a real dialogue and interaction with his opponents.
He can say "hey, I responded to Good ole Dave for 45 minutes on my webcast, and he's saying I don't respond????!!!!!"
Sure, he did that (I freely concede). But what SORT of "response" was it? Does he think this horse manure that he served up on his webcast is actually a serious reply to an opposing position? Any idiot can see that there is a purely personal agenda going on there. What motivated White was his intense dislike of me, personally.
Any serious thinker who has any self-respect at all as an intellectual, would be embarrassed to death to put out such a farcical commentary. The fact that White is not (quite the contrary; he thinks it is great!) reveals all we need to know about the man.
Lastly, note that I have free and open discussions on this blog, including allowing others to criticize me and the positions I take. So here is a plain example of that. Some (several anonymous or semi-anonymous folks) are implying that my criticisms of James White are virtually the equivalent of his extreme criticisms and mockery and ridicule of me, as if there is not a huge essential difference.
But they have the freedom to do that here, and I respond to it. This is what thinkers do. This is normal human discourse. But White doesn't allow comments. He doesn't allow me in his chat room to have a normal conversation with him, as people do. He doesn't talk to people on the phone (as Jimmy Akin has long pointed out). He has refused to have lunch with Steve Ray on several occasions. In some debates, he has even refused to shake his opponents' hand. He turned me down when I suggested we have a normal non-theological conversation to get to know each other, on his webcast.
He'll sit over on his blog and mock me because I actually (GASP!!!) interact with my readers, and claim that I am breaking my word where I said I wasn't gonna reply to his webcast, in so doing. But he won't INTERACT. He won't come here and have a normal discussion with any of us.
And some of you think there is no difference between White and myself in how we think and behave? It's plain as the sun at noon on a clear summer day.
Steve and Kevin are right --
Dave, you need to be willing to debate him just like so many other RCs have and let the chips fall where they may. He has answered more Roman Catholics and your arguments against Protestantism than anyone else.
James White has done at least 25 (as far as I can count; there may even be others) formal debates with many Roman Catholics --
Mattatics (6)
Sungenis (3)
Staples (2)
Father Mitch Pacwa (4)
Stravinskas (1)
Fastigi (3)
Gary Michuta (1)
Patrick Madrid (2)
Bill Rutland ( 1)
James Akin ( 1, on Perserance)
Art Sippo ( 1)
It is almost as if you have not bothered to watch or listen to any of them all the way through.
He fully with substance answered your arguments.
Here is a great summary; the closing statement in his debate wtih Mitch Pacwa on Sola Scriptura.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D...h?
v=D4Sl5uGQSIk
If your arguments on the chair of Peter and Moses and the early church fathers are so great, then you should be willing to do a debate and step up to the plate.
He played the Three Dog Night song, "Liar" as a funny answer to your claim that JW does not interact with any of your books (the same substance of all the other debates he has done).
Further, he interacted a lot with a lot of your stuff over the years.
The second time was in response to Tim Staples who said some good things about exegesis on Luke 2:49; but then violate exegesis when RCs try to explain Luke 1:28. the RCC explanation is pure Eisogesis.
Absolutely irrelevant to what I am saying, Ken. This is just boilerplate sycophant White rhetoric, ignoring what others are saying, as usual. You can do better than that. Surely you can grasp what I am saying and are capable of responding to it with something other than canned, warmed-over White fan club PR and spin.
Let's have a REAL dialogue and conversation.
pure Eisogesis.
The word is eisegesis (as White would be quick to point out if any of us Catholics had ever misspelled it, and would see that as proof that we are clueless about exegesis).
===================
Something else just occurred to me. White actually has posted on his website several examples of spontaneous live chat debates that he has engaged in, from his chatroom or other such places. He used to do this! But now he no longer does, just because "Good Ole Dave", the dumb, clueless idiot is on the other end? Why? Why would he cease doing what he used to do? All you critics of what I am saying, explain that to me.
Here are some:
An In Channel Debate on Purgatory (1-3-02)
http://vintage.aomin.org/ChanDeb1.html
[19:02] unless you looking for an extemporaneous debate? just you and me..no intepolations from the spectators
[19:03] [James White] Fine with me.
[19:03] This coming Thursday, then?
[19:03] time?
[ . . . ]
[19:05] And who will "judge" the debate?
[19:07] don't you have those protocols set up??
[19:07] For discussions in a chat channel? Uh, no. 
[19:07] or do you just declare yourself the winner always??
[19:07] < sigh >
[19:09] Are you interested in discussing that topic this coming Thursday evening or not?
[ . . . ]
[19:17] I defeated Stravinskas in May of 2001 on the subject. To my knowledge, you have never engaged the topic in a meaningful manner. At least I know what Rome teaches on the subject.
[19:18] well your knowledge is about to be expaned...
[19:18] I have a history to point to. I don't believe you do. Hence, to proclaim yourself victor before the debate has begun is foolishness. Be that as it may, when shall we begin?
[19:18] That would be "expanded."
[19:19] just a word of advice though if I may..try not to let your limbic systems take over your proprioceptions..it is not helpful in debates
[19:19] lol
[19:19] What time do you wish to begin?
[19:19] your call
[19:20] What time zone are you in?
[19:21] nope I wish to totally vanquish him..not just slaughter him
[19:21] Suggest a format. Be glad to work it out. What time zone do you live in?
[19:22] I'm in Sydney Australia
[19:23] abut we can set the rules now ok?
[19:23] Gracious. Well, we can begin anywhere from 6-7:30PM MST as far as I'm concerned.
[19:24] or you want only your rules?
[19:24] How about fifteen minutes to present an opening position....you can use prepared statements, but you can't flood (i.e., you need to use a delay in posting). I would suggest a 4000ms delay so that people can keep up with the scrolling text.
[19:25] Then ten minutes to rebut, no scrolled text.
[19:25] done
[19:25] Then fifteen minutes each for cross examination. No grand standing.
[19:26] Then five minute closing statements, no scrolled text.
[19:26] Then open it to the room for discussion.
[19:26] Both participants can post unedited versions on their respective websites.
[19:26] * NA27away hopes everyone is logging this.
[19:26] define cross examination..I suggest we alternate...viz...proposition /response etc
[19:27] Cross-examination in a debate involves one side asking questions of the other; questions only, no rebuttal or comment, just questions.
[19:27] Right, we will moderate the channel so that it will be just you and me.
-----------------------
White had turned down a similar proposal from me a little less than a year earlier (and I gave him the advantage, saying he could question me all night long if he wished, if I just had an hour to ask him anything). So it's okay with this guy but not with me. Perhaps all of White's defenders can explain that to me?
dave,
I understand. I get it. I totally do.
I just don't think you're being completely honest when calling him an intellectual coward. Best as I can tell from reading what's out there, you've both challenged each other to debates, and you've both declined because you can't agree on a format. You could have just left it at that.. and you'd have come out looking like a winner because you responded to his insults with an honest representation of what happened - without insulting him back.
Note too the significant factor that White himself calls this a "debate", whereas on many other occasions he has mocked written exchanges and claimed they were not debates at all (and that only oral debates are that). Just one example of his many double standards and/or self-contradictions and/or vacillations.
ok.
White again called live chat exchanges a "debate" in this statement:
"Mr. Sungenis and I have debated many times in the past, not just in person in formal settings (Boston College, Long Island, Clearwater, Florida), but on line as well . . . as this debate continues, I believe that will become more and more evident . . .
http://vintage.aomin.org/WinSunRep2.html
There is so much history between you guys of getting personal; I don't how you can demand a "real dialogue", etc.
You would need to do a live debate on the terms of those debates, that many others have agree to; it seems; first, in order for repairs to begin.
Also, I think it is pretty clear that he prefers those oral moderated debates and you prefer online typed, written ones; (but yours would seem to go on forever if there was no parameters).
He treats others very well when they are respectful. (see the Mitch Pacwa debates; especially) Have you even watched one or listened to one all the way through?
I know that White gets along with Fr. Pacwa. So what? There are always exceptions to any rule.
I've listened to one White debate. When I saw how he interacted with me in 1995 by mail, I no longer had any interest in listening to any others. I've listened to several of his webcasts though.
White is capable of selective politeness, when it serves his self-interest. But he is extremely insulting and rude to me (and I am the world's greatest expert on his interactions with me).
I had over eight years of acrimonious history with Tim Enloe too, and we reconciled and have talked twice on the phone for about 90 minutes each time, with perfect amiability, and we have both removed materials from our sites that was insulting to the other, so yes, I believe that with Christians and God, all things are possible. Surely, you must agree, as a Baptist pastor, no? Why don't you counsel James to be a good Christian and make even ONE apology for all the lies he has told about me through the years? I've apologized to him at least a dozen times (once right in his chat room, in front of several witnesses), and have commended him for some of his work, made links to it, defended him against unfair attacks, etc.
I offered recently to do the same with materials regarding James Swan (to remove them from my blog), if he would agree to do the same, but he refused. I've removed negative materials about Stephen Hand, a fellow Catholic, with whom I had had some unpleasantness. We talked on the phone and totally reconciled.
I removed all of my responses about the ethics of nuclear warfare, against Catholic Shawn McElhinney, in a unilateral effort at reconciliation, but he refused to reciprocate, and retains massive personal insults against me on his blog.
So as you can see, reconciliation works if it is mutual and both people will apologize and make restitution, but when one party is unwilling, it doesn't work very well, does it?
OK, I mis-spelled eisegesis. this is a combox for crying out loud. we all make lots of spelling errors.
I do know what it is about though.
ex - egesis
from 2 Greek terms, "ek" (from, out from; changes to ex when followed by a vowel letter) and ageomai, to tell, to lead forward, to lead out. To extract out from something that is actually there. to bring out the meaning of the text.
eis = Greek preposition, "into", so eisegesis is to lead into; or to read something into it that is not there.
John 1:18, Jesus "exegeted" the Father for us. "He has explained Him."
Most of RCC exegesis is eisegesis, reading history of tradition and hundreds of years of additions and corruptions of meaning back into the text. That is just wrong, false.
And of course Protestants (much less Bishop White!!!!) never EVER read their many novel, man-made traditions (or just plain old theological biases) into the Bible, do they, Ken? That's strictly an "RCC" shortcoming.
Dave,
I can agree with what you are saying along with agreeing with Steve that some of your replies comes across to some readers who are not familiar with your style as pointed or insulting. However, I have read your blog for four years now in addition to White's writings and responses. I must say that overall you have been much more charitable, grounded, and fair than White. I do not know the man personally, but any man who GIVES himself the title of BISHOP has serious ego problems from the outset. Not to mention the fact that I believe, and I could very well be mistaken, that White's pride will not let him agree to a written live debate even though he has done them, and has a live chat room. By agreeing to the written debate I suspect that it would be giving you what you want, and his dislike for you personally trumps his desire to debate any topic. Regardless, I think that White is a bright, insightful man with much to offer in the apologetics realm, but at the same time he would be the poster child for invincible ignorance regarding the Catholic faith.
In Truth,
Matthew
THANK YOU Matthew, very much.
For Ken:
How about this:
I do hereby cordially invite James White to appear in this combox (which has been dominated as of late by neutral parties or White defenders) and politely yet vigorously discuss things as folks do, and as thinkers do.
Do you think he will accept, Ken? If not, why not? You tell me. You come here (and have said you even enjoy it). Many of my severest critics have commented here, like James Swan and The Anonymous One. I have banned virtually no one over four years. Why won't White do it? He does appear occasionally on other blogs to comment.
Or we can all be pleasantly surprised and see him show up here. There is always a first for everything.
I offered to do similarly on his webcast but he declined, so unless he has changed his mind, I don't expect to see him here. This is a man who has essentially disowned his own sister simply because she became a Catholic. What are the odds that he would want to talk to an apostate unregenerate idolater pagan liar and dumbbell like me?
I commend you, Dave, on all your apologies to your internet opponents that you have listed.
this combox is not a good forum for that, he would probably say. There is too much chance for lack of organization.
A formal, video taped debate though; would allow everything to be controlled. Of course, I don't know beyond guessing.
I cannot speak for JW, but he probably does not think; or would not think this combox format is worth his time. Especially now with his studies in Islam and debates with people like Bart Erhman and Shabir Ally. He has debated the biggest names in the secular/pagan/liberal world -- John Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong, Barry Lynn, etc.
He did not give himself the title "bishop"; that is your appelation; (I am recalling the inter-change you had a long time ago -- but see the further explanation); but we beleive the overseer is the same office as an elder of a local church; and in that explanation, you always make sure to call him "bishop White". From an RCC understanding of "bishop"; it seems arrogant to you; but if you understand that bishops and elders are the same office for a local church; and that they have no authority beyond their local church ( I Timothy 3, Titus 1, I Peter 5, Acts 20:17ff); then it is not claiming anything big over lots of churches or cities like the RCC name means.
I commend you, Dave, on all your apologies to your internet opponents that you have listed.
Thank you, Ken. So you would be willing to urge James to do the same to me and others? If so, when will you do this (just for the record), as one Baptist pastor to a fellow Baptist elder/bishop?
So you're saying that James White cannot come here and simply engage in conversation, like all of us are doing? That is beyond his capacity to do? I ain't talkin' about debate; just normal conversation. We do it, but White is incapable of that?
He did not give himself the title "bishop"; that is your appelation;
He certainly did do so, in writing to me. I was an "eyewitness" of it:
"I am an elder in the church: hence, I am a bishop, overseer, pastor, of a local body of believers"
(10 January 2001)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030...smus/
RAZ486.HTM
If he called himself a bishop, then I certainly can call him one, too. If bishop and elder are the same thing, as you and he claim, in your Reformed Baptist wisdom, then this follows inexorably, by classical logic:
1) Bishop = Elder
2) White is called "Elder White" in his congregation.
3) Therefore, given #1, he can also be called "Bishop White".
I didn't say he was over a city or large area; I am simply calling him Bishop White because that is what he referred to himself as being. Why is this objectionable?
White objected on his webcast (iirc) to my calling him "bishop." By what logic does he make the following argument?:
1) I (White) can say "I am a bishop."
2) But if Good ole Dave dares call me what I called myself, and says "Bishop White," then that is a rank personal insult!
How does this work? It would be like me saying "I am a Catholic apologist." Then White sez "Dave Armstrong, the Catholic apologist" and I get all up in arms that he is insulting me by calling me by my preferred title.
It's ridiculous . . . normally, if people objected to something to this extent they would admit that they misspoke before and that would be the end of it. But White won't do that, because it would be admitting that he made a mistake, and that is a naughty no-no. So I will continue to refer to him in this way. If he doesn't like it, let him renounce his earlier statement, and I'll be glad to comply.
Note the logical absurdity in the following couplet by White:
----------------
1) If Armstrong would take the time to actually study the writings of those he critiques (rather than just proof-texting sources, often from secondary writings), he would know that Reformed Baptists have confessed the elder/bishop interchangeability since their inception . . . the Scriptures likewise use the terms interchangeably. This is not even a debatable topic, to be honest.
[bolding mine; italics his]
2) It is a given, but, clearly, Armstrong is ignorant of the facts of the case. This is why he calls me "Bishop White," though, of course, no one else does. He thinks it is funny, when all he is proving by using the phrase is that he is the one ignorant of the subjects he chooses to pontificate upon in his voluminous writings.
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=2057
See my paper replying to this inanity:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...nomination.html
HUH??!! Can anyone explain this "logic" to me? Is this "Reformed Baptist logic"? Bishop=elder, and one like White can be called Elder White but for some reason not Bishop White, and to do so by utilizing HIS OWN LOGIC is an insult and shows rank ignorance?
Wow . . . someone's being quite illogical here, and I don't think I am the one.
C'mon, Dave, the "Bishop" White appelation is a bit silly. James is making scriptural and etymological points, but when you call him "Bishop," it comes across as claiming him as egotistic, authoritarian, or some such descriptor.
As for the fact that James refuses to do a written exchange with you, it is because he believes you will use it for unending tangential citations and obfuscation -- all of which is much harder to do in the controlled environment of an oral debate. James will on occasion engage in written "chats," but this is largely in the past, as he now finds them as unfruitful (and I have to agree with him) especially depending on the opponent.
Once again, James is not "afraid" of you and your arguments.
Of course not, Kevin. My entire history with him and observing firsthand his evasive tactics is just a "pigment" of my imagination. How silly of me. Facts don't matter. Reasoning, history, documentation matters little when it comes to Bishop White. Sounds a bit like Obama, doesn't it? When someone is put up on such a high pedestal, then his real faults can scarcely be seen at all.
Doesn't change the facts of his approach to me for over a dozen years. I'm as entitled to my opinion as any of you are to yours. But I have given very extensive reasoning on a number of fronts and I have the firsthand experience that you don't have, with a man like White (supposedly an intellectual champion) mocking, ridiculing, slandering you. Most of those disagreeing with me have given bald opinions without back-up.
In any event, I have had enough of White. I say again: I think he is an intellectual coward, who believes in a thing (anti-Catholicism) that I consider intellectual suicide. He is a sophist and a fool too. I make no bones about this, and I believe it wholeheartedly and can give a million examples in his writing of why I think this.
But I still link to his apologetics against Muslims and recommend his work against Mormons and theological liberals and KJV-only fanatics. He will neither link to nor recommend anything of mine (for all of you who claim that we equally insult each other).
No anti-Catholic is willing to have a normal, intelligent conversation about the basic issue here: what a Christian is. Seven straight refusals to do a live chat about that . . .
So let them go jump in the lake. I've done my apologetic duty. Virtually all we get back anymore is hogwash like the absolute idiocy that we saw in White's webcast trashing me for 45 minutes. In fact, this webcast did more to confirm what I said about Protestant reticence towards Catholic apologetics in my radio interview than almost anything else I could imagine.
It was a quintessential case of everything that is wrong with anti-Catholic apologetics (if it can even be given the dignity of the latter description).
I wash my hands of these clowns. I won't claim that I will never ever deal with them, because it is unrealistic to do that when one is an apologist. I may feel it is necessary to intervene at times. And if I make a RESOLUTION these nitwits will claim it was a "VOW" and that I have greatly sinned in breaking a vow. This is a blatant falsehood. I have NEVER made a "vow" in this regard. The word never appeared once. I've only made resolutions.
As expressed, I have utter contempt for anti-Catholic reasoning and how White has behaved, not only towards me, but towards many of my Catholic friends. Most people wouldn't have put up with one-tenth or even one-20th of the horse manure that I have put up with from White and many of his anti-Catholic cronies.
They will likely continue the ridicule even now. If I say I am trying very hard to get away from them, then they might very well step up the smear campaign in an effort to goad me back into interaction with them, so they can then go out and have field day mocking me as a supposed "vow breaker." Mark my words. They love to do this. White even thinks I have nothing to write about if I ignore his inanities and fathomless imbecilities. Right.
For the past several months, White has been relentlessly attacking Steve Ray because he knows full well that Steve usually ignores him. And according to White, Steve MUST be a deceiver and a liar. He can't possibly have a sincere difference of opinion with the great infallible, mind-reading bishop.
Steve has a cute line he always says about White: "you seem to regard me as far more important than I regard you." Another one he says is: "I always feel I have to take a bath after dealing with White." Oh, how I can relate to that!
Ask yourself: Would YOU have the patience to put up with all the rotgut from nitwits who act like that, and to do it for TWELVE years? I highly doubt it.
I'm absolutely through commenting on this thread, just so anyone who comments here will know. If anyone asks me any more questions about this, I won't respond because I am through talking about this for the foreseeable future. You can say all you like. White's defenders can say he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and of course he has not the slightest hesitation to debate me in a chat forum (which is why he never has since his poor performance in 2000).
You're free to criticize me here and to praise my bitterest theological opponent: a man who (there can hardly be any doubt) absolutely despises me. I won't ban you, unless you violate blog rules (and that virtually never happens).
Isn't free speech great?
Hi Kevin, even though Mr. White will probably try to turn this statement of self-expression into debate, I decided to respond anyway.
If Mr. White is not afraid of Dave and his arguments, why engage in the mocking, the ridiculing and bullying tactics? If White's arguments are so insurmountable or unconquerable, there would be no need for them.
The point is that Dave gave an interview in which he answered some general questions about his apologetics work in a general fashion and Mr. White took his interview, parsed it, narcissistically treated it as if Dave was talking about White personally and then mocked and ridiculed Dave on his show using among other things, clips from songs.
It has been my experience that there are only three reasons that people use such tactics: 1) they are mean-spirited (WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT OF HIM) 2) they are uncertain of the own views or 3) they are scared of ever losing because of ego and pride. Not knowing White's heart, I will not speculate between 2 or 3.
I have some familiarity with White's tactics. I have been on the receiving end of them. Some time ago. he feigned outrage on his blog and on his radio show at a comment I made here on Dave's blog because I "judged" his heart. Although he thought my actions offensive, he had no problem judging my heart, falsely attributing reasons for my comments and then used the occasion to calumniate against the Catholic Church.
As far as his radio program goes, from the two programs I have now listened to it seems that it is a staple of White's to spend more time laughing at and mocking others than one finds listening to a Leno or Letterman monologue.
Compare the tenor and spirit of his program to that of a Catholic Answers program or even Dave's interview. You will find no personal invective, no personal insults, no mocking.
If White's is going to do comedy on his show, he should follow the examples of St. John Bosco or Blessed Miguel Pro as opposed to the methods of Our Lord's executioners. (Cf. Lk.22:63-65) His insulting rhetoric fails to impress and is self-defeating. If he is attempting to convert non-Reformed Christians to his views, it fails as such talk hardens hearts, rather than open them.
As far as your comments about debate, Kevin, I respectfully disagree. The only factor controlling a White oral debate is a time clock. There is no judge or arbiter to make sure that the parties stay on topic or ask proper questions of each other. There is no penalty for using plurium interrogationum or mis-quoting an opponent's view. The debaters do not have the right to object to an inappropriate statement or question. Now if White's moderator had some authority, my answer might change.
With a written debate, controls can be placed on the exchange, primarily by word limits. Further, the answers tend to be better thought out. Finally, it is easier to expose improper tactics or misuse of facts.
In short, it is
In short, it is my view that without a moderator who has authority to actually control the debate, a written debate is superior to an oral one.
Just listened to the whole of the James White Reply. Excruciating to listen to. Like a feeling of Hell waiting for it to end. I actually thought 'this is what hell will be like'. His laugh-utterly mirthless.
Ken and Kevin, contrast that with the gentle, dignified way Dave and the interviewers conducted themselves? Do you really want to be on the side of a verbal thug like that? full of bluster and mockery?
In Christ
Dave,
You continue to call him "Bishop" in an insulting manner. As far as I can see, the insults have been running both ways for a long time. I don't know who or what started it or where the greater culpability lay, but I simply exhort you, at least on your end, to refrain from this.
Paul,
I appreciate your thoughts. All I can say is that I find James largely amiable and fair. Of course he is going to be on the defensive when Dave makes the claims that he did in the interview. No, Dave did not mention James in particular, but James is the leading Prot-v-Cath apologist out there. There's scarcely a Catholic topic that James has not dealt with in detail -- the canon, Mary, papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility, justification, and so forth. I don't see evasive and bullying tactics here. Is there some mocking from James in his critique of Dave's interview? Yes, and I would fault him on that, but Dave did make ridiculous claims about Protestant engagement with Catholic apologetics, of which James, once again, has been far and away the leader, especially when it comes to serious engagement with the sources and utilization of academic supplementary material.
In any event, I have had enough of White. I say again: I think he is an intellectual coward, who believes in a thing (anti-Catholicism) that I consider intellectual suicide. He is a sophist and a fool too. I make no bones about this, and I believe it wholeheartedly and can give a million examples in his writing of why I think this.
How can you expect and demand an apology from someone, when you also continue to fill your sentences with ad hominem and personal attacks and name-calling? You have demanded apologies, yet you just called him a coward and a fool (that is very serious Dave, according to Matthew 5:22-25. You are not talking about an issue of doctrine, but actually call the person names.
You call upon me to ask him to apologize, yet you are still calling him names. You are not following Matthew 5:22-25 or Matthew 18:15-20 principles. Everyone knows or should know that the right way to resolve personal difficulties is to only focus on one’s own faults and not say, “but, you also did that or this”.
So let them go jump in the lake. I've done my apologetic duty. Virtually all we get back anymore is hogwash like the absolute idiocy that we saw in White's webcast trashing me for 45 minutes.
He was mostly interacting with your arguments, about Ephesians 2:8-10, exegesis/eisegesis and faith and works, and your bad exegesis of all those passages, including Romans 2:13. Granted he laughs a lot, but that is just his personality. You pretty much seemed to say that we are saved by our works, but then deny that you are Pelagian or semi-Pelagian.
You call them “clowns” and “nitwits”; yet you demand that the other side apologize and follow Matthew 5 and Matthew 18. You have called him a coward and a fool. This just does not make sense. You should call the Dividing Line show and apologize for name calling. The numbers are public and right there at the web-site. You could say, “how can we start over and keep our differences to the issues rather than name-calling?”
It is not my responsibility to get in between the personal stuff. You are demanding a lot and write lots of long articles on personal stuff and style. (Granted you took down some of them; good.) But you cannot solve a personal issue and continue to call someone serious names like "fool" and "coward" and demand apologies for laughing at your exegesis and calling your arguments bad. In order to apologize; one must show only admit their own faults and not even mention the other's faults.
Please don't spend any more time going back over history and documenting everything. Just call his show and seek to stick to the issues rather than the personal name calling.
One excellent point that Dr. White made was the quote from his friend that was beaten and killed for passing out tracts to the LA rioters:
"You go "baa baaa" like a sheep, because you are a sheep; not in order to become a sheep." That is the great difference between RCC doctrine of justification/salvation and Protestantism. That is the point of James 2:14-26 also. The judgment on the last day, Matthew 25 between the sheep and the goats; the point is that true sheep hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27-30) and they will do good works because they have been transformed and changed first into sheep. It is more than just "gratitude" for salvation/justification. A true believer is changed and shows the fruit of the Spirit. (Gal. 5:22-23) the good works are the results of being created anew in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:10, 2 Cor. 5:17).
In order to apologize; one must show only admit their own faults and not even mention the other's faults.
This sentence did not make sense. Maybe this is better:
In order to apologize; one must show their sincerity by only admitting their own faults and not even mention the other's faults.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z...h?
v=ZkUlRR1pIEo
"William and Augustine"
Dr. White provides lots of quotes from Augustine regarding the "worshiping at the footstool" comment and the Eucharist.
Augustine, Tractates on John
50, 92, 102, 118
"Believe, and you have eaten already"
Augustine, Tractate on John 25:12
The first part of Dr. White's presentation was from, Augustine's, Exposition on the Psalms, Psalm 99
Here is some of the last part of that quote: (after the worship at His footstool comments)
". . . But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John vi. 63. Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.
[A clear exposition of the Catholic doctrine against the modern Roman, which was unknown to antiquity. See the treatise of Ratramn. ed. (Lat. and Eng.) Oxford, 1838.—C.]
Difference between "catholic" and "Roman Catholic" -- very important.
Ken,
Can you do me a favor and define Pelagian and semi-Pelagian? I don't think you are defining them in any way that I am used to...
Reformed apologists seem to though those terms around a lot, but I don't see them matching how I have seen them defined in historical theology so...
I am just curious, that's all...
Chris
. . .
For a good summary of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, see R. C. Sproul's Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will, Baker Books, 1997.
The official councils denounced Pelagianism, 431 AD, the Council of Ephesus, and the North African council of 418 AD --
Pelagianism is the idea that one can by his own power and free will, choose God --
This is what Pelagius himself taught -- he was the British monk who reacted to Augustine's prayer:
"O God, command whatever you want and grant (me the grace to obey it) what you will." Confessions 10:29; 10:37
"Give me the grace to do as you command, and command me to do what you will."
Pelagius said that God has already given us the power within ourselves, so that if God commands something, you can actually do it. The Scriptures and the history of the church has said, "no, you cannot obey God in your own power. You need Christ, grace, and the power of the Holy Spirit. You must be born-again.
"
Officially, the RCC denies Pelagianism; but sometimes the emphasis on "free will" in RCC speak seems to say that we of our power can choose God.
Semi-pelagians were John Cassian(360-435 AD) and Faustus of Reiz (died 490); and even Vincent of Lerins -- Vincent made a veiled comment that many take as calling Augustine's doctrine as heresy.
Semi-Pelagianism was condemned by the Council of Orange in 529 AD; but in the opinion of the Reformers, semi-Pelagianism came back into the council of Trent in an official way. The RCC denies this; but it honestly and sincerely seems to teach semi-pelagianism.
That is a rough summary.
So, when emphasizing works so much in order to be saved; that is what the RCC seems to emphasize and teach. (semi-Pelagianism vieled under "cooperation" and "free will") Yet, the Bible says that your will is in bondage until Christ sets it free. John 8:31-34 "He who commits sin is the slave of sin."
Ken,
You wrote:
"Officially, the RCC denies Pelagianism..."
You also wrote:
"Officially, the RCC denies Pelagianism..."
You also wrote:
"...your will is in bondage until Christ sets it free."
The Catholic Church "officially" teaches this as well, no?
So basically you are saying you will continue to charge the "Roman" Catholic Church with this in spite of their "official" denial of these things...
For you anything that isn't Reformed monergism is **at least** semi-Pelagianism, correct?
So you think you are merely following "Rome's" teachings on related matters to their logical conclusions... even in the face of "official" denials? Interesting...
When people charge the Reformed teachings leading to certain logical conclusions (about God being the Author of sin), for instance... you will cry foul and say that you "officially" deny it (maybe by citing WCF passages or some such thing), but it's fine for you to do it...
Got it...
IC XC
Chris
Ken,
As far as the "R"CC's overemphasis on works...
I think you are probably referring the the infamous anathemas issued at Trent, no?
I deny faith alone (as it has been explained to me by every Reformed person I have had the pleasure of speaking with about the subject) because of the lack of emphasis on works that I see in the Bible and historically.
i don't buy the "vindication" argument of chapter 2 of St. James' epistle... I don't buy the Reformed interpretation of St. Paul's doctrine of justification... I don't buy that if you accept the "Roman" view of St. James that you are contradicting St. Paul... you may be contradicting the Reformed understanding of St. Paul... a lot of Reformed exegesis of St. Paul bothers me... I mean... Romans chapter 2 is hard for me to swallow when reading some of the "hypothetical" spins I have seen put on it by some Reformed exegetes...
I think these debates are far too polemical, however, and, I too, have been guilty of this myself...
There are simply things about some incarnations of Reformed theology that I find nauseating.
Must in the same way you find Catholic synergism nauseating, I would guess.
Be well.
Chris
Ken,
I wanted to clarify my that I don't see a lack of emphasis on works in the Bible and in history, but in Reformed theology... and Trent seems to have been reacting to a deemphasis on works from the Reformers...
Sorry...
Chris
Like real alienation. Like laughing when there is nothing to laugh about. Then to switch to being serious and holy.Then the sharp intake of breath before he speaks denoting the tension. And he's so relaxed, rigid.Then more laughing at nothing especially funny. Then more at a chronically unfunny comment.
Oh God help him
In Christ
The Catholic Church "officially" teaches this as well, no?
I don't know, does the RCC teach that our wills in bondage to sin and they are not free to choose good over evil?
That was Luther's debate with Erasmus.
We are only free to choose what we want, according to our desires; and our desires are always evil, at least in motive, until Christ changes us by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Show me where they officially believe in John 8:34 and that the will is in bondage to sin.
Anyway, I wish you peace also. I tried to explain things as best I see it.
"The judgment on the last day, Matthew 25 between the sheep and the goats; the point is that true sheep hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27-30) and they will do good works because they have been transformed and changed first into sheep."
The Goats and Sheep are judged based upon what they did and did not do. If that were a mere attribute of "sheepiness" or "goatiness" they would not be judged by that standard--and no "goat" would be able to claim "but we did feed you when you were hungry and we did visit you when in prison..." Yet, this claim seems to be a major objection of the Reformed to Catholic practice--that we do exactly what a Goat by definition cannot.
We see over and aver again that what we do is a criterion of judgment, not a mere attribute. "Whatsoever you do to the least of these you do unto me. So enter into the home of my Father."
May God have mercy on me on that great and terrible day.
Your bro,
Ken,
Some quotes from your beloved Council of Trent...
"If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema: whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; 'By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.'"
"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
"If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."
"If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema."
"If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema."
You wrote:
"Show me where they officially believe in John 8:34 and that the will is in bondage to sin."
You know that Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Writ is inspired so...
A question on this verse... do you sin? Are you a slave to sin? If so, can you enter the Kingdom of God?
Just asking... I want to see if the correct interpretation of a verse is as important as quoting and quoting them...
Chris
p.s.
You see I have heard some people claim that the elect don't sin... which I think is a bit... I will just lease it at... (cf. I John 1:
Like laughing when there is nothing to laugh about. Then to switch to being serious and holy.Then the sharp intake of breath before he speaks denoting the tension.
So, James, your beef against Dr. White is that he a) has a different sense of humor than you, b) his tone changes during the course of a show, c) you dislike his breathing patterns.
You sound a bit desperate. Perhaps it's you that needs the help.
I meant leave it at that...
Hi Ken, I appreciate that you recognize that Catholics are not Pelagians. In fact, we not semi-
Pelagians, quarter-Pelagians or even nano-Pelagians. As I see it, here is where we disagree:
While both Catholics and Reformed Protestants believe and teach that God freely chooses who He bestows His saving grace and nothing we do could ever earn us the right to receive that grace, we disagree on the point of whether man is capable of rejecting that grace. As St. John Chrysostom said in his Homily on the St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans,"[F]or grace, even though it be grace, saves the willing, not those who are not willing and who turn away from it and who constantly fight against it and oppose themselves to it." You reject the notion that people have free will and are capable of rejecting God's gift of grace.
Matthew Chapter 25 upholds the Catholic viewpoint over the Reformed Protestant one. First, we see in the parable of the talents, all three servants are entrusted with talents (grace). Two wisely take their talents and invest them (making that grace work in their lives). One servant however, fails to use the talent he is given and does not allow it to increase. In short, he is punished for not using the talent to benefit his lord.
We then see Jesus' analogy of the sheep and the goats. Both the goats and the sheep are believers in Christ, they both have faith of a sort because they know who Jesus is. However, only one group gets into heaven, Why? Because the sheep not only believed in Jesus, but they followed Him and living His example. For them, faith is not believing in Christ, but doing His will. For them, faith is not a noun but due to our actions of hope in God and love of neighbor, we make faith an action verb. That is why Christ says that we will be judged on our actions because we can have faith alone and be damned or work our faith with hope and love in our hearts.
So, James, your beef against Dr. White is that he a) has a different sense of humor than you, b) his tone changes during the course of a show, c) you dislike his breathing patterns.
You sound a bit desperate. Perhaps it's you that needs the help.
Dear Anonymous
It isn't a sense of humour, there is no humour in it. There is no true 'spirit of laughter' in it. That's why it sounds so horrible, raucous.
It's the sound of a soul alienated from itself. Yes, I would put it that strongly.
To laugh, to laugh properly one must comfortable with yourself.
How easily someone can switch from the profane to the sacred should give you pause to think.
He cranks up the holy talk when he wants to. Take Sola Scriptura. He's arguing that works essentiely don't matter (really a subject with very little room for humour I would have thought). But he does a special Protestant thing.'No,' he will say; 'No, we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, He has saved us not by any dint of our own merit...' something like that.
This is the cranking up of the holy talk I mentioned earlier. As though we catholics don't believe the same. It's just we have the fuller understand that works matter. Where his position is that they do not. The point I am making is he doesn't deal or address the catholic arguments he just cranks up the holy talk (leaving Christ behing I might say).
But it is ( I am truly sorry to say) a form of bluetr. He uses the Lord for his bluster. Sound Harsh? W