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? Well, Maybe it is, But I think I am right.
Yes, I am deperate, and I do need help. For and from Christ,
James
It's just we have the fuller understand that works matter. Where his position is that they do not.
How does James White handle the Scriptures that Jesus Himself is recorded as saying, that those who do good inherit eternal life, and those who don't receive eternal punishment, as in the dividing of the sheep and goats analogy? Seems you can't ignore those Scriptures and be an honest Bible scholar. That's one thing I find refreshing about Catholicism - they deal with ALL the Scriptures. Somehow, they have to be reconciled.
Chris,
Of course Christians still sin; as you point out, in quoting I John 1:8 -- if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."
John 8:34 is talking about all human wills are in bondage to sin, before God gives grace and frees the will. This verse is meant to convict people of their sin and show them they are sinners by nature. Only Christ and His perfect righteousness can set us free and justify, and the alone instrument of beginning a relationship with God through Christ is trusting Him to do what we could not do. We are justified by faith alone; but that faith does not stay alone, it moves and lives and results in change, godly desires, holiness, confession, hatred of sin, love, joy, fruit, discipline, hunger for the word of God and prayer, etc.
Never heard any such silly teaching that the elect do not sin.
Romans 6 speak of Christ setting us free from the bondage and slavery of sin. We still sin, but we are no longer slaves to sin.
"for he who has died has been freed (justified) from sin."
Romans 6:7
". . . that we should no longer be slaves of sin"
Romans 6:6
"But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." Romans 6:17-18
"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness". Romans 6:20
No, the elect still sin and I don't know anyone who teaches such a goofy doctrine. (even some Pentecostal and holiness and Weslyan groups are very nuanced on the way they explain their "entire sanctification" doctrines.)
No Reformed folks teach that.
Paul,
The goats are not believers in Christ.
They are many who claim to be believers but are not true believers. They had no fruit or good works because they did not have faith in Christ.
"Depart from Me, I never knew you" Matthew 7:21-23
The only way to interpret this properly is to see in light of Matthew 24:14 and the gospel being preached to all nations -- and the gospel is trusting and believing in Christ alone for salvation -- I Cor. 15:1-9; Galatians, whole book, Romans chapters 3, 4, 5; book of John, "he who believes in Me, has passed out of death into life", etc.
"these brothers of Mine" are true disciples. (Matthew 25:40; Matthew 12:48-50; Hebrews 2:11; Matthew 28:10. The judgement is based on how the nations treated other Christians (some from all nations) -- those that received the message of the gospel -- Matthew 24:14 -- those from all nations who have been purchased by the blood of the lamb. (see Revelation 5:9)
To interpret these passages that seem to teach a "works salvation" the way RCC does, as DA did in his recent articles, is to completely ignore the gospel of John, Galatians, and Romans, and Acts.
True faith justifies apart from any merit of works in order to start a relationship with Christ. The works are the results and fruits of real faith. That takes all the bible into account and interprets it properly in its context and in harmony with all the other passages.
I don't disagree with you about faith justifying. But Christ seems to be basing His decision upon the works each person has done. I know people who claim Christ who are not doing good works. Is their claim valid?
Oops! Sorry, Ken. I though you were responding to me.
Kim,
That's OK -- we also believe we are dealing with ALL the Scripture in a consistent way. It is the difference between the purpose of the law and the purpose of grace. The law and doing good works of the law was never meant to save or justify. (Gal. 3:21) The preaching of it is supposed to convict us of our imperfection so we will turn to trust in Christ. That is what Jesus is doing in Matthew 25; to awaken sinners to see that they are not perfect or do good works.
Matthew 24-25 is spoken and revealed in history before Galatians and Romans; you must interpret them all together in a consistent way. Jesus spoke John, which is mostly about "believe in the Son of God", etc. The RCC position seems to contradict Paul in Gal and Rom and water down grace and faith, when passages like matthew 25 are allowed to trump over Gal. and Romans and JOhn.
"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Romans 3:28
Paul's whole point is that IF humans could be perfect and without sin; they would be justified by works -- Romans 2:13, but he goes on to show that no one can do that, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Jesus indeed does say that you will be judged by your works on the day of judgment in Matthew 25. The question is, who is it that does good works, and who is it that does not do good works?The sheep are those that do good works and the goats are those that do not. Since John, Acts, Galatians and Romans all consistency say, "you cannot do good works to merit or earn salvation"; then Jesus is pointing to those who do good works because their nature was changed; and they were changed by the grace of God to become new creatures. "if any one is in Christ, he is a new creature." 2 Cor. 5:17 "My sheep hear My voice, and they follow Me. John 10:27
So the good works are the results of being changed, because without Christ and being born again or changed, you have no hope of going anything good in God's sight. "All our righteous deeds are like filthy rags" Isaiah 64:6
"There is none righteous, no, not even one" Romans 3:9-10
Jesus and the NT writers also use passages like Matthew 25 and others in order to preach "the standard of perfection of God's law"; so that we realize we are sinners and turn to trust Christ alone and His work on the cross as our righteousness, both his passive righteousness and His active obedience. Christ was the only perfect one who fullfilled all the law and never sinned.
Matthew 25 and the emphasis on good works makes us realize we are sinners and to then ask, "then who can be saved?" Then, when we turn to Christ in faith, the preaching of the works of the law, the condemnation of the law, should put pressure on us to lead us to turn to Christ in faith -- Galatians 3:24.
The point of the law and preaching good works (be perfect as your heavenly is perfect=Matthew 5:48. Matthew 25, "For you clothed Me and visited Me and gave me something to eat and drink, etc.) is to show us we cannot do it; we cannot be perfect; God demands perfection and good works; and when we realize we cannot, we should turn to trust Him alone, not our own good works.
Ken, thanks. I'm aware of everything you said. I've been a believing Protestant for over 18 years.
Would you mind telling me your understanding of the 2nd chapter of James? He seems to be speaking to believers. I ask this because I've noticed that Calvinists (don't know if you're one) tend to emphasize faith to the point that even the mere mention of works makes them fearful that someone might actually rely on their works instead of Christ. I have not seen this reliance on works that you're so concerned about. Do you see it?
So far, everything I've seen of the Catholics I've run across online (I know very few in real life) seems to speak loudly that they are clinging to Christ's death on the cross for their salvation. So why assume they rely on works so much? They seem to revere Christ a lot more than many Protestants I know (in real life, as well).
I came to know Christ through the Catholic Church in 2002. Never was I taught nor have I taught that works get us Catholics to Heaven. I have not met any Catholics who believe works get them into Heaven.
The bigotry and animosity toward my Catholic faith is incredible. It is bewildering to have my heart judged by another 'Christian' , to be told over and over that I am " not Christian " by other Christians, to be told over and over that I am going to Hell because I am Catholic.
Kim,
Interesting! Yes, good works are necessary; but they are the necessary results of true faith; not necessary conditions in order to merit or earn salvation. see Romans 4:1-8
James 2:14-26 is basically saying that one cannot claim or say that they are a Christian or have faith; and yet have no works or fruit or change in their lives. It is empty, vain, dead, if there is only a "said faith" rather than a real possession of faith. Profession of faith is not enough; one must have possession of real faith.
Abraham was justified by faith alone (Genesis 15:6; quoted in Romans chapters 3, 4, 5; Galatians chapter 3
The good work that Abraham did in Genesis 22 comes after his faith in chapter 15 (which Paul quotes from to establish the doctrine of justification by faith -- Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6)
James quotes in James 2:23
The good works of Genesis 22 come after the faith in Genesis 15; so good works prove or vindicate that someone really has justifying faith. Good works are the results of true faith. James and Paul are in no way contradictory.
The way James uses "justify" (dikaow) is the same way it is used in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, "wisdom is vindicated by her deeds" or "wisdom is proved right by her deeds" or "wisdom is vindicated by her children";
James 2:19 says that just intellectual assent that there is only one God and that He exists is not justifying or saving faith; because the demons believe God exists and is one and tremble.
One must put their whole hearted trust in Christ and Him alone to save them.
James 2 is saying, "you say" you believe and have faith; but where is the evidence?
Phil --
I don't mean any animosity or bigotry. I do not judge people or consign them to hell, etc. only God can do that.
Just having friendly argumentation about doctrines, and seeking to state the case for the truth of the Scriptures.
If works are not necessary as conditions of merit to get you finally to heaven; then why all the prayers to Mary, asking her for help and prayers and grace and strength?
There is no verse in the Bible that says to ask Mary for help. Jesus Christ is the only mediator. I Timothy 2:5-6
Why did people for centuries crawl upon knees up the steps of St. Peter's to work and do penance? Why kissing of statues and icons and visiting holy places? Why the belief in condign merit? (I forget the difference between condign merit and congruent merit; I may have to review that issue-- I am just quickly typing this out.)
Why indulgences? Works that one has to do to fulfill the requirements of the penance that the priest gives a person.
The Bible speaks of repentance, not penance.
It was a bad Latin translation.
Why penance rather than repentance? Why the emphasis on the physicalness of the Eucharist and laypeople could not even touch the bread or drink the wine at all for a long time? Why does the priest have to put on the tongue of the person? Why the genuflect and bowing down to the host, worshiping it?
Why mortal sin, after one has been justified; believing you can loose your salvation and go to hell? Why do so many rely upon their baptism as what will save them, but many live a life without faith or devotion; just relying upon baby baptism and that they are Roman Catholic by name? (not all do this; but many do; and yes; many in Protestant churches do the same things)
Are these not examples of an emphasis on "faith plus works" in order to get to heaven eventually?
Dave's article was totally devoted to works. Good works are necessary, but they are the necessary result of true faith; not the necessary conditions of earning or meriting one's salvation.
Kim,
I looked at your web-site and noticed you are reading 4 books, 3 seemingly from a Roman Catholic point of view. Are you considering converting to the Roman Catholic church? Just curious; given your statement, “I am a believing Protestant for 18 years”
Three of them are -- One of Dave’s books, “the one minute apologist”; “the Spirit and forms of Protestantism” by Louis Boyer, and “beginning to read the Fathers” by Boniface Ramsay.
You may also want to read:
William Webster's, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History"
And "Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of our faith" by David T. King and William Webster.
And some web-sites
www.christiantruth.com
http://theologica.blogspot.com/
www.monergism.org
www.9marks.org
www.t4g.org
www.aomin.org
www.desiringGod.org (all of John Piper’s sermons available there; and many articles; see whole book of Romans, both audio and manuscripts – 96 sermons on Romans!)
See his articles too. Lots of good stuff there.
others:
Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible. Soli Deo Gloria, edited by Don Kistler
Justification by Faith Alone, Soli Deo Gloria, edited by Don Kistler
Evangelical Answers, by Eric Svendsen
Who is My Mother? By Eric Svendsen
Faith Alone, by R. C. Sproul
Roman Catholicism, Moody Press. John Armstrong, general editor
Upon this Slippery Rock, by Eric Svendsen
''Yes, good works are necessary; but they are the necessary results of true faith; not necessary conditions in order to merit or earn salvation'
So, for salvation, the necessary results are not necessarily necessary?
In Christ
James
That's for Ken
To Ken Temple on 02.24.08 - 10:46 pm,
Your whole argument collapses when you realize that Abraham was justified in Genesis 12:1-4, not just Gen 15:1-6. Galatians 3:8 and Heb 11:8 put Abraham's faith and justification in Genesis 12.
Thus your whole argument that James 2 is teaching good works came "after" his faith in Gen 15 fails because to be consistent you must put Gen 15 in the same category as Gen 22:9-12 (James 2:21-24) because Abraham was justified even before Gen 15.
Hi Ken,
Why the emphasis on the physicalness of the Eucharist and laypeople could not even touch the bread or drink the wine at all for a long time? Why does the priest have to put on the tongue of the person? Why the genuflect and bowing down to the host, worshiping it?
Well, one thing at a time! To begin with though, I would recommend (in addition to Dave’s site), you read Luther’s Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and it Results by Henry O’Connor. 1884. In particular, Luther’s statements on the Eucharist (below) are, IMHO, quite extraordinary.
BTW, it took me months to get this little book through inter-library loan. Seems that when the Houston library first got the book, it had missing pages. And then, so I was told, after they tried to return it to the lending library, said library claimed they never received it. And on and on… Finally, I just re-requested it, and lo and behold, shortly thereafter, like magic – I get an email telling me the book I had requested had arrived. Fancy that! But to preclude similar run-a-rounds in the future, I decided to just scan the whole darn book (which is public domain now and which only took about an hour). And it’s definitely a worthwhile read. And if you would like to see more pages, just say the word; its nothing for me now to post them.
http://books.google.com/books?
id...ents+concerning
http://img84.imageshack.us/
my.ph...mentstituo3.jpg Title page.
http://img134.imageshack.us/
my.p...mentsappuj0.jpg Approbation.
http://img84.imageshack.us/
my.ph...mentspp3dc7.jpg pp 36-37
http://img81.imageshack.us/
my.ph...mentspp3po2.jpg pp 38-39
http://img84.imageshack.us/
my.ph...mentspp4yo3.jpg pp 40-41
Nick,
You make a good point about Genesis 12 and Hebrews 11:8. the Hebrews passage shows that Abraham's obedience in Genesis 12:4 was based on faith first; this is a Protestant prinicple - faith and trust first, then works and obedience as results of real faith. Those verses are true.
The only thing is; the apostle Paul bases his argument for justification by faith and not by works or obeying the law -- he bases everything on the text of Genesis 15:6. We don't have written word of God explaining the exact nature of Abraham's faith in Genesis 12:4. It seems that Abraham was trusting God and trusting His promise to bring a seed through him that would bless all the nations. God reveals more of it in Genesis 15:1-6.
Going back to Genesis 12 does not collapse the argument; and it does not refute the order of James 2; that James is teaching consistently with Paul, that faith is first and works are second, Genesis 15:6 (as is Genesis 12:4) is still before Genesis 22. The point is Paul uses Genesis 15:6 to establish the doctrine of justification in Romans 4 and Galatians 3.
I don't see how this fails; rather both Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 are about faith; and that obedience and works prove that real faith is there; and that is what James is arguing.
You have to contend with Paul in Romans 4 and Gal. 3 in order for your argument to work. James also does not mention Genesis 12, but he does quote Genesis 15:6 and 22.
James,
Nice try. (about necessarily necessary, etc.)
"confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from dead, and you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes and results in righteousness . . . salvation . . . " Romans 10:9-10
Acts 16:31 "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."
Ephesians 2:8-10
8-9 grace and faith first
verse 10 -- good works are the result of one who has truly been created anew in Christ. 2 Cor. 5:17 If any man is in Christ, behold, he is a new creature . . .
Ben M,
Why did the priests not even allow the people to touch the bread? (they put it directly into their mouth) Seems really silly and superstitious and makes RCC look very un-spiritual and more similar to made made religion.
Why did many not even allow the people to drink the wine?
Worshiping the bread and wine after the priests consecrating words seems very superstitious and even pagan. It is not attractive at all.
Luther could not break away emotionally totally from centuries of influence by the transubstantiation doctrines and practices; so the Lutheran's came up with "con-substantiation". And he was very passionate in his Marbury Colliquary (Disputes with Zwingli and Oecolampadius).
Calvin's view seems to be more biblical; "real presence" is Jesus' spiritual presence in communion with Him as true believers confess their sins and make things right (examine themselves and confess their sins and reconcile with anybody if there is sin) and share in the revewed trust in Christ and His work on the cross; the once for all sacrifice. The eating and drinking are action oriented pictures of "I am trusting You, Lord"; "I am trusting in Your death for my forgiveness".
The bread and wine do NOT become Jesus -- that violates the uniqueness of the incarnation.
Dear Ken,
You wote that the 'necessary' results of true faith are good works. I thought the Protestant position was that good works are not 'necessary' for true faith. Are they necessary or not?
It's all in the word necessary.
Please don't quote the Bible. I'm not a Biblical scholar. It's really a doctrinal question so you have no need to quote the Bible.
Thanks for taking the time to reply,
In Christ
James,
"Please don't quote the Bible. I'm not a Biblical scholar. It's really a doctrinal question so you have no need to quote the Bible."
Huh?
You admitted a lot right here!
All doctrine should come from the Bible! Your attitude toward the bible is revealing and contradictory to where we get doctrine from. Without the bible, there is no doctrine!
"We are justified by faith alone; but that faith does not stay alone; it moves and changes us and results in love and fruit and good works."
The "necessary results" are showing that we do not get rid of the passages in the bible that talk about good works. Real faith results in real change. One cannot claim to be a Christian and live like the devil -- Romans 6:1-2
One cannot cling to their baptism or going to church to make them a Christian. You cannot work your way or give money to earn or merit your salvation.
"necessary results" explains the side of the bible passages, like James 2 and Ephesians 2:10 and others that say it is not enough to say or claim you believe; rather there must be evidence of real faith. The fruit (evidence of life) of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, Kindness, goodness, gentleness(or humility), faithfulness, and self-control.
The Roman Catholic emphasis on works, penance, mortal sin, the Eucharist ceremonies, confession to a priest, indulgences, prayers to Mary, kissing things and pilgrimmages -- all of these things work against the gospel that you cannot do anything to merit salvation. RCC emphasizes that you actually can merit your justification and salvation, finally and if you are not a perfect saint, then you must go through purgatory and satis passio (suffering)
"I do not nullify the grace of God; for If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly" see Galatians 2:21
I am amazed that you say, "don't quote the bible" You don't have to be a scholar. Just read it and study it and meditate in it.
Psalm 1
Joshua 1:8
John 15
Read and meditate on the verses -- don't say, "don't quote the Bible". Don't be afraid to read it and mediate on it. The Holy Spirit speaks through His word. Just read Romans chapters 3-6 and the book of Galatians, John, and Acts. Let it sink into your heart and mind.
Ken, I could be wrong, but the impression I got from his request to not quote the Bible wasn't that he didn't value it, just that he was expecting you to do the obvious and probably quote certain Scriptures that have been already quoted ad nauseum on the subject (not that the Bible is unworthy of being quoted. On the contrary.) Perhaps he wanted you to flesh out the Scriptures, i.e. interpret them? Like I said, I could be wrong.
Also, I wanted to say that I do think faith and works are, as I've heard it said, two sides to the same coin. Why go on and on trying to divide them up so much? Do you run into lots of people who put their faith in their works? At what point will you trust that they do not? Must they repeat endlessly for your benefit that it is in Christ alone that they put their faith so as to keep you appeased? It does frustrate me that there is so little trust in
Well, phooey, my comment got published before I was done.
Anywho, it does frustrate me that there is so little trust in others' demonstrations of faith. It seems like it's a battle of words. Say the right words over and over or we won't trust your confession of faith. Phew! Okay, I'm done.
Ken
Paul does not base "everything" on Gen 15:6, Gal 3:8 quotes Gen 12 (and the same if you think Paul wrote Heb11).
The original point still stands: Abraham had to have been justified before Gen 15, if not then he was going around doing things pleasing to God from Gen 12-14 yet was in an unjustified state the whole time.
To say that Gen 12 is still before Gen 22 misses the point. The point is Gen 12 is before Gen 15!
In short, you cant say Gen 22 is about proving "true faith" BECAUSE it comes AFTER Gen 15:6. The reason why you cant argue like that is because Gen 15 comes after Gen 12 where Abraham was justified, thus if you are to stay consistent Gen 15:6 must be as much about demonstrating "true faith" as Gen 22:9-12 because Gen 12 precedes them both.
Ken,
When you read and mediate on the Gospel of John don't forget the phrases, "Unless you are born of the water and the spirit, you will not have eternal life," and "Unless you EAT of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you."
John is more sacramental than most of us care to admit.
Yes, I do know that we have interpretive differences here....that's one of the problems with this debate and (dare I say it), Sola scriptura.
Peace
Dear Ken,
Well, thanks for replying, though to be honest I am still confused.
Just to clariify; of course I think the it worth reading the Bible it's just that many passages of one or two lines are lifted out of context. I thought it was a doctrinal question that could be answered without recourse to the Bible.
On a personal note I did grew up in a stereotypical catholic home where the Bible was hardly read. Then I decided to read it all in one go(at one helping) and consequently it made me sick, it was too much. I am going to read and 'meditate' a little bit every day from now on.
Kim wote; 'I do think faith and works are, as I've heard it said, two sides to the same coin.' Yes, that's what I believe'. Maybe I am wrong,(and I stand to be corrected if this is not the Catholic position) but I think faith and works are one.
God bless Ken.
In Christ
Hi Ken,
Why did the priests not even allow the people to touch the bread? (they put it directly into their mouth) Seems really silly and superstitious and makes RCC look very un-spiritual and more similar to made made religion.
Ken, think about it. If one truly believes that the consecrated Host is the very body and the very blood of Christ, if one really and truly believes that there is no more ‘bread’ but only the appearance of bread, doesn’t it then follow that something so sacred, so unspeakably sacred, should be treated with the greatest possible reverence and awe?
Why did many not even allow the people to drink the wine?
Well, I don’t know if any reason could be given that would satisfy you, especially since you reject the real presence. You may however, wish to consult the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Communion under Both Kinds. In part it reads:
(b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
04175a.htm
But I’m afraid that, as long as you continue to reject even the possibility of the real presence of Lord in this great sacrament, you’ll never reach a point in your spiritual journey where you’ll find yourself properly disposed to understand so great a mystery. I know that for my part, it would be futile for me to even try to understand the great mysteries of our sacred religion without the constant help and guidance of the Church, the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1 Tim. 3:15.
All I can suggest dear friend, is that you pray, and ask the Lord, who is so good, and who longs, indeed, who desires with a heart ablaze with an infinite love for man, to give every one us every good thing - even the gift of his very self - to help you recognize, even as his disciples recognized so long ago, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the “breaking of the bread.”
And they told what things were done in the way: and how they knew him in the breaking of bread. Lk. 24:35.
They knew him in the “breaking of the bread.” Imagine. The Lord willed to be know at this particular moment and in this particular way - “in the breaking of the bread.”
Think about that, Ken. Is that not a tremendous statement?
And remember too, that here, in the “breaking of the bread,” the Lord was indeed, truly present. Just as he was present at the miracle of the loaves and fishes. And again, at the Last Supper.
cont:
Furthermore, in all these instances of the “breaking of the bread,” it is a priest who presides. That fact alone suffices to imbue all those actions with certain sacrificial overtones. And since the good Lord was truly present at the Last supper, by so being, He provided a scriptural model for all subsequent Eucharistic celebrations. Think about that, my friend.
Now consider the sacraments in general, as they relate to the physical life we lead here below. To help you see more clearly (from the Catholic perspective) this relationship between the physical life and the sacraments, I scanned a couple of pages from The Means of Grace by Rev. Leon A. McNeill, 1937.
http://img84.imageshack.us/
my.ph...race0001eh4.jpg pp 30-31
http://img89.imageshack.us/
my.ph...race0002jv0.jpg pp 32-33
http://books.google.com/books?id...22&lr=&
as_brr=0
Worshiping the bread and wine after the priests consecrating words seems very superstitious and even pagan. It is not attractive at all.
Pagan? Not if the “bread and wine” are no longer what they appear to be, but instead are in fact what the Church teaches they are viz, the body and blood of the Savior!
You know, Ken, I could give many personal reasons for my belief in the real presence. But I’ll just give this one.
Several years ago (c 1994), while visiting my father at a Catholic retirement community, I stopped in the chapel. I walked around the chapel to get some familiarity with it. I must tell you that I was not in the least impressed with the place. A bit too modern for my taste I suppose. Here, in case you are interested, is a picture of it.
http://www.stdominicvillage.org/
...arrenchapel.php
cont:
Anyway, as I milled around the chapel, I remember feeling anything but the presence of God. But at one point, I stopped. I was at a point just off to the side of the altar. Not sure why I stopped, but it wasn’t long thereafter that the though began occurring to me that perhaps I had misjudged the little chapel, for suddenly and I had become distinctly aware of how peaceful this little chapel really was. As the moments passed, I began becoming even more aware of how truly peaceful, how unusually peaceful this little unattractive chapel actually was. And I recognized that peace. To be sure, it was far less intense, but nevertheless, just as real as that which I had experienced years earlier in a time of great personal crisis. And the sense of peace began to suddenly and, as it were, deliberately, impress itself upon me. Deep, deep peace. His peace. But so suddenly. And then I turned, and looked up. Directly in front of me was the monstrance. Of course! Of course! I saw, I knew, I understood immediately! You see, I was standing but a mere couple of feet away from the Monstrance where the consecrated Host’s were kept. And He was there! Oh yes, dear Ken, He was there. I had recognized him, as it were, in the “breaking of the bread.” He had manifested himself to me to me in a way that I have never forgotten, nor will I ever forget. Nor was this first, nor would it be the last such experience. For even today, whenever I go into my own parish Church, Holy Rosary, almost immediately, do I sense His presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Imagine! Me, as sinful as I am! As unworthy! And yet, I suppose this should speak to the goodness of God and his great love for sinners!
I remember telling Fr. Victor Brown, who was at the time pastor at Holy Rosary, as well as my friend and confessor, how it had taken me years, but that I had finally come to see and understand with great certitude, the centrality of the Eucharist. Interestingly, Fr. Brown later made mention of my remarks during one of his evening weekday mass sermons. But lest you think, dear Ken, that I speak merely from an overactive imagination, let say that, I have discovered that everything in Christian history tends toward confirming the Lords real presences in the Eucharist: the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctors, the Saints, my own experiences. All tend toward one conclusion: that the Lord is most assuredly with us in the Eucharist. Even Luther, afflicted as he was with so virulent hatred of the papacy, could not bring himself to deny the force of our Most Blessed Lords words: This IS my body.
so Ken, I do hope you’ll at least give what I’ve said, though from so unworthy a brother, some serious thought.
I do not separate faith and works completely, or in the wrong way; as several of you suggested; but it is obvious that God separates them when humans try to use works as conditions for obtaining justification and salvation.
There is a right way to separate them and there is a wrong way to separate them.
Paul separates works from faith as the instrumental cause of justification; he separates works from faith as merit, or earning or conditions for God to accept you or love you.
But he does not separate works from faith as the natural, immediate, inherent, and necessary results of true faith.
"We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Romans 3:28
The Greek preposition here, "apart from" does indeed speak of separation for justification. But it does not separate works from faith as the natural results of faith; only from justification, the point of establishing a relationship with God.
The Greek word, “Xoris” actually denotes “separation”, “without relation to”; “separately, by itself”
Jesus uses the same Greek word in John 15:5, “for apart from Me, you can do nothing”.
They are separated by God in terms of merit that opens the door or introduces us into salvation. God separates all merit, earning, condition, working for my salvation out from faith.
The Luke 24 passage means, "they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread" -- it does not mean a mystical union of knowing Him; rather they were telling the story that they recognized that it was Jesus when He broke the bread in the same way that He did in the upper room.
The statues in the chapel are just "creepy" -- sorry. The box you keep the bread in, believing that is literally Jesus is just "creepy" -- I cannot relate to it nor your experiences.
They are symbols of His once for all death on the cross; but when we believe in Him and His work and His resurrection and pray and worship and confess our sins; then we have spiritual communion with Christ. The real presence is spiritual presence, not physical. There is only one incarnation. Jesus does not become flesh again over and over. Your transubstantiation is really a strange doctrine. I appreciate all the time you spend trying to explain it; etc. but it just has no attraction, because of the superstitious and pagan nature of it.
Ken,
The Luke 24 passage means, "they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread" -- it does not mean a mystical union of knowing Him; rather they were telling the story that they recognized that it was Jesus when He broke the bread in the same way that He did in the upper room.
Ken, read Luke 24:15-35 again.
“As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.” Lk. 14-15.
If you read the rest of the passage, you’ll see that, despite Christ’s very presence with his disciples and his direct interaction with them, they nevertheless failed to recognize him! It was only later, at the “breaking of the bread,” that they finally came to recognize him. Notice too the circumstances by which the disciples recognized him: not by the reading of scripture, nor even by the Lord’s personal instruction from scripture, but only in the “breaking of the bread.”
Significant, is this not?
The statues in the chapel are just "creepy" -- sorry. The box you keep the bread in, believing that is literally Jesus is just "creepy" -- I cannot relate to it nor your experiences.
Creepy? Well, I’m not sure I see why. But tell me, do you not consider the slitting the throat of an innocent lamb and having its blood gush out, as was the practice in the OT, a bit “creepy?” Yet God commanded it.
Or what about stories such as the Sacrifice of Isaac, or of the Brazen Serpent, which, as you will recall, was an “image set up by Moses … said to have healed those who looked upon it?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bin...inding_of_Isaac
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.co...er=B&
artid=1425
God certainly commanded these.
And what about Christ himself, when he spoke these words to his disciples, Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.? Surely you wouldn't dare to characterize those sacred words as “creepy”? Yet the Jews were scandalized by them, even as Protestants are today.
I think you get my point.
Cont…
There is only one incarnation. Jesus does not become flesh again over and over. Your transubstantiation is really a strange doctrine.
Well, first of all, it is quite true that Jesus does not become flesh “over and over” again each time the host is consecrated. Nor has the Church never taught such a thing. It seems to me that you are confusing two different concepts, i. e. you are somehow equating John’s words, where he says, the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14), with the miracle of transubstantiation. http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...%22&
version=nkj
These concepts, however similar they may appear on the surface, are in fact two distinct concepts! I repeat: the Incarnation is not transubstantiation and vice versa.
Once you have a better understanding of the difference between the two concepts, I think some of your theological difficulties - with transubstantiation at least - will disappear.
Now, very briefly, the difference is this:
Whereas,
a) ‘The doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ is the belief that the second person in the Christian Godhead, also known as the Son or the Logos (Word), “became flesh, "’
b) “Transubstantiation … is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ…,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inc...Christianity%
29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tra...nsubstantiation
See the difference?
In short:
The Incarnation = Christ becoming flesh (a one time event).
Transubstantiation = Bread and Wine becoming Christ's flesh and blood (each time the priest performs the consecration).
You see, it is the bread and wine which are changed into Christ, not Christ changed into the bread and wine!
CHRIST DOES NOT CHANGE!!!
However, I can see why confusion can occur regarding these concepts, because we all tend (myself included) to use language imprecisely. The following search results should illustrate what I mean.
1 “Jesus becomes bread” http://www.google.com/search?as_...ts=&
safe=images
2 "bread becomes Jesus" http://www.google.com/search?as_...ts=&
safe=images
I think you would agree that the above highlight the importance of using precise language ( to the extent possible) when discussing theological differences.
So anyway, I hope this has helped a bit.
Take care.
Ben M,
I see the distinction you are making between Jesus becoming bread and the bread and wine becoming Jesus; but it is a distinction without Scriptural warrant or basis; illogical; and just weird. The whole doctrine is weird and the bread and wine are obviously symbols of Christ's once for all sacrificial atonement and death on the cross.
Jesus is standing (maybe He stood up to focus on the bread and wine) or reclining (Luke 22:14)there physically and historically in His flesh when He takes the bread and cup and is making the statement as He holds up the bread and wine "this is My body"; and "this is My blood in the new covenant". Luke 22:14-23; Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-26. By this your doctrine fails, because you would have to have 2 Jesus' at the same time, historically, physically; and sacrament- ally, etc. There are not two incarnations. (despite your objections to my imprecise language.)
the drinking and eating are action oriented verbs, illustrations of action oriented faith -- John 6.
Amazing all the centuries of adding so much to these simple yet profound truths.
The bread and the wine do not change into Jesus. There is nothing about changing into Jesus in the NT. believe in Christ and His atonement. Real presence is the spiritual communion and fellowship that believers experience when they walk with Him in the light and confess their sins and abide in Him. I John 1:5-10; John 15:1-16
I agree that the bloody sacrifices in the OT and commands by God are frightening and serious -- they were meant to show and teach how awful sin is and the holiness of God bring the justice of execution and death, etc.
by the statues being "creepy" I mean the idolatrous nature of stone and wooden figures of human beings, like Mary, being promoted at the front of a church in a worship context. I and many other protestants find this one of the most distasteful things about the RCC.
I visited a Roman Catholic church in Istanbul years ago (1987) (connected to the French Embassy) with a Turkish Muslim friend of mine. He just could not get over the idolatrous nature and appearance of idolatry of the wax or wood or stone figures of Mary and many other saints in clear glass boxes -- they were lying down like they are dead in a coffin. Truly creepy and a bad testimony to the Muslim world. Surah 5:116
I had to repudiate the bad history of the church and point him to the pure truth in the gospel, the Scriptures, and repudiate statues and the Marian dogmas.
Idolatry or the appearance of idolatry is creepy; and it is not commanded as the OT sacrifices were.
I don't see how it's relevant that a person can make his Turkish Muslim friend happier about Christianity by 'repudiating the Marian Dogmas'. Why not make him really happy and repudiate the Trinity? The fact that something in our faith is unnacceptable to Muslims should carry exactly zero weight.
Dear Ken,
Is Michaelangelo's Pieta 'creepy'? Is the Sistine chapel creepy? Are all the triptychs created by the Flemish masters 'creepy"? Is all the greatest art ever produced creepy? Is the rose window of Chartres cathedral creepy? The whole of baroque statuary? The Gothic period? The Romanesque?
Everything's creepy because it's catholic. Catholics are creepy aren't they really ? Yes, we're creepy catholics that creep around trying to ensnare people in our creepy religion.
Sorry
James White used the same word not long ago about the webcam at JP11 tomb. Please I hate that word.
In Christ
Ken,
First, just to clarify; I meant to say tabernacle, not monstrance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Chu...urch_tabernacle
HE, is equally present in either!
by the statues being "creepy" I mean the idolatrous nature of stone and wooden figures of human beings, like Mary, being promoted at the front of a church in a worship context.
Ken, I’m not sure what you mean by terms “creepy” and “promoted,’ but it might be well for you to look at how the OT Temple was adorned.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/icVQrI5B.jpg
The Temple, Rose Publishing, 2005. (this is a Protestant publication btw). http://www.echurchdepot.com/
prod...roducts_id=4454 ISBN 1596360011
Do you think your terms would apply to that temple as well?
RE: Islam and the blessed virgin.
This is from an article entitled Islam and the Virgin Mother by Fr. Abd-El-Jalil, The Marian Era,(1961), vol. 2, p. 81.
But first, a brief bio of the author.
“The Rev. John M. Abd-El-Jalil [Jean-Mohammed Abd-el-Jalil] O.F.M. was born of Moslem parents at Fez in Morocco in 1905. As a boy, he made a pilgrimage with them to Mecca. He made his studies at Algiers, Fez, Rabat, and Paris. In 1929 he became a Catholic and entered he Franciscan Order. He was ordained a priest in 1935. Since 1936 he is a professor at the Catholic University of Paris. An authority on Islam, he is the author of many learned articles and books, including a volume entitled Marie et L’Islam [Marie and Islam] (Paris, 1950), which has also appeared in a German translation. The article he has written in French for the Marian Era is a summary of the latter work; and it was translated into English by Robert J. Cunningham.” - The Marian Era, vol. 2. p. 80.
http://books.google.com/books?id...%99Islam%22&
lr=
St. Anne continues to speak of God in the Koran (3,34); "And I place her, as well as her descendants, under your protection, safe from Satan, the stoned one" (Koran 3,34). This text is not very explicit. But tradition speaks of an extraordinary privilege granted to Mary and her Son; the privilege that both of them and only these two individuals - should be preserved from all contact with Satan. Here is the most common version of this tradition: "Every child of Adam who comes into the world is touched by Satan; the only exception is for Mary and her Son." This text is undisputed in every orthodox form of Islam and in the whole history of Moslem thought and re1igious life. "Rationalists" who sought to render this privilege void of content have been bitterly opposed by other Moslem theologians, commentators, or historians. This tradition is regarded as one of the most venerable of all Islam; it is among those traditions that enjoy the most authority.
What does this privilege consist of? We should not seek to find in it the dogmas of Mary's Immaculate Conception or of Christ's absolute sanctity. Islam, which defends with the greatest vigor this privilege of Mary, at the same time denies - at least under the form in which it conceives of this privilege - the Christian dogmas of the Incarnation, original sin, and the Redemption. Hence, we are not dealing here with the Immaculate Conception. We can state, however, that to most Moslem's the Marian privilege consists in her being preserved from every impurity, both in the real and figurative sense; and it embraces the body, mind, and soul of Mary.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/Ku0DmYzz.jpg contents.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/Vk1c0rEB.jpg p. 81.
Commenting by HaloScan
