James White has written two more posts in the continuing discussion.
YOU CAN READ THE FIRST ONE HERE.
My response is in the below-the-fold section for those who are interested.
(Frankly, I’m sick of this myself, though I feel a fiduciary responsibility to have one more post on this aspect of the discussion.)
(Also, in view of my lengthy response below, this was the only post I had the chance to write last night.)
Dear James,
I called The Dividing Line program the other day, as I indicated, because I wanted to call your attention to THIS POST OF MINE, in case you wished to reformulate THIS RESPONSE OF YOURS in light of it. A previous attempt to contact you by the contact form of your site (your e-mail address doesn’t seem to be available) apparently failed, and I didn’t want to prolong our discussion unnecessarily–though that seems now certain to happen since you are largely offline at present and I will be largely offline next week as I’m planning to put my computer in the shop.
It seems that you misunderstood and thought that I was asking you to respond to THIS POST, which you have now done.
Since the post to which you responded was one of reproof, it is not concerned with the theological point at issue, so I will continue to keep that separate.
I’m not going to attempt to respond to all the problematic points in your posts (e.g., the way you issue a "correction" to my use of the word "interaction" at the top of your first post). That would be tedious, unnecessary, and spiritually counter-productive, but here are a few observations that I hope may move the discussion forward.
1) You are flat wrong in saying that I was responding to you in MY INITIAL POST.
As explained previously, it is a regular practice of mine to set aside parts of a question that I am not familiar with and then try to respond to the underlying issue the listener or reader is asking about.
The reason for this is simple: I’m trying to help people. If I can’t help them with every aspect of their question, I try to help them with those aspects I can.
Since I didn’t know what of your writing the reader was referring to, and since I didn’t have time to do a bunch of research to find out what your current formulation of the korban issue was, I set you aside and responded to how the subject is commonly handled in Protestant anti-Catholic apologetics.
This was on the assumption that the reader was more interested in the relationship between the korban passage and sola scriptura than in specifically why "James White make[s] such a big deal about it." If he was really interested in the latter question then he should have been asking you rather than me, since you have a better knowledge of your motives than I do. The fact he asked me I took as a signal that he was more interested in the issue in general than in you specifically.
Part of your misperception of what I was talking about may stem from a difference in our approaches. My approach is to try to help people as much as I can and to note for them what I can’t help them on (e.g., "I haven’t read or heard specifically what James White may have been doing with this passage"–the only thing I said about you in the whole post).
Your approach seems to view the apologetic endeavor in terms of debates. From the perspective of a debater it is, of course, crucial to have closely studied what one’s opponent has said before one comments on an issue. That’s why I said:
Momma Akin didn’t raise any children dumb enough to critique
another person’s position without having locked-down, verified,
verbatim quotations of recent origin.
You can be certain that if I ever again accept a debate with you, I would research your position prior to the debate very carefully. This has been my practice in the past, as when you and I debated the subject of perseverance. I read your writings on the subject, prepared responses to the verses you used in them, and quoted your own words back to you. If people want to see the extensive notes I prepared for this debate, they are online.
If you have met other debaters who have not taken the trouble to read your writings on a subject before they debate it with you, that is a misfortune for them and for the audience, for it will hinder the search for truth that is central to the task of debating.
(Your comments to the effect "Hey, no sweat if people don’t read my writings first, it just makes my job in debates easier" suggest that you do not view debates principally as getting to the truth but as principally about winning arguments.)
While I do very careful preparation for debates (one of the reasons I have debated so infrequently is the work that I put into preparing for them), it would be simply impossible for me to do that level of research before answering a question on my blog or on the radio show. There aren’t enough hours in the day.
Consequently, in these situations I offer what help I can to a questioner without doing extensive research first. I’ll tell him what parts of his question I can’t help him with–as I did here–and then offer what help I can.
That way more people get helped, which is what I consider my purpose as an apologist to be: helping people rather than debating people. Debates are only a small, subsidiary part of the overall apologetic endeavor, and it is a mistake to view everything said or written by an apologist through the lens of debates.
2) Your accusation that I am being "dishonest" in saying that I was not responding to you is also flatly false.
The fact that you would make this accusation shows the kind of basic lack of trust and ill will that makes it hard for me to debate or otherwise interact with you.
I don’t want to engage someone who can’t even take a man at his word when he says "I wasn’t talking about you" and the words of his text back him up–as illustrated by the fact that except for the one clause quoted above, your name and pronouns referring to you occur nowhere else in what I wrote (and the fact that I titled the post "Korban & Sola Scriptura" rather than "James White On Korban & Sola Scriptura").
3) I did not call you an anti-Catholic.
What I said was that the korban argument is "a staple of Protestant anti-Catholic apologetics," which means (since you professed uncertainty about the meaning of this phrase) that the korban passage is commonly used by Protestants when they are arguing against Catholicism.
Though I did not call you an anti-Catholic in that post, I certainly could have, for you are an anti-Catholic, and in two senses: (1) You frequently argue against Catholicism, meaning that you are engaging in anti-Catholic apologetics and (2) you view Catholicism as such an evil/bad/defective/whatever system that it prevents those who sincerely believe it from being Christians.
Now, in saying that you are an anti-Catholic, I do not deny that you are also an anti-Mormon, an anti-JW, an anti-Muslim and similar things.
Nor do I deny that I am anti- those things. I also acknowledge that, when I am arguing against–say–Calvinism that I am doing anti-Calvinist apologetics. But I am not an anti-Calvinist in the second sense named above since I do not believe that Calvinism is so evil/bad/defective/whatever that it prevents Calvinists from being Christians.
I am perfectly happy to acknowledge Calvinists as brothers in Christ, even if I disagree with certain points of their theological system. You don’t do that. Your level of "againstness" toward Catholicism is such that you think it deprives a person of the status of Christian if they really believe what the Church teaches, and that represents a more fundamental level of opposition to Catholicism than I have toward any form of Protestantism.
4) You seem to have the idea that at Catholic Answers the apologists are like a bunch of academics sitting up in an ivory tower all day smoking their pipes with nothing more pressing to do than search out the most academic arguments recently posed against the Catholic faith. This is false.
We don’t have an ivory tower; since it’s California, we’re in a non-smoking building; and then there’s the little matter of the going on 20,000 questions a year that my department answers.
The fact that we are trying to help people–as opposed to doing an academic exercise–means that we do not have much time for academic exercises. They have their place, and we do them on occasion, but helping people where they’re at takes priority.
If I had the budget to hire half a dozen more apologists, the pastoral needs out there would still be such that it would be foolish to assign any one of them to become a professional James White rebutter.
If someone at the ministry happens to be preparing a response to you or preparing to debate you then I would insist that that person (myself included) closely research what you have to say on the topic at hand, but when such things are not in the works, there simply is no obligation to rush off to read the latest writing or listen to the latest webcast by James White.
Your own arguments for why you in particular are so important that Catholic Answers staffers are delinquent if they don’t closely study your writings and debates are perhaps most charitably described as counterproductive to your cause.
People either recognize you as having a particular level of importance with corresponding claims on their time or they don’t. Protesting that you deserve more attention, when you have no idea what the other competing demands on their time are (and it’s a FAR wider range of subjects than you suggest), comes across as "Don’t you know who I am? I’m CHARLES FOSTER KANE!"
And while we’re on the subject of Catholic Answers . . .
5) You also seem to have the impression that Catholic Answers is such a monolithic entity that it forms a virtual hive-mind, like the Borg. This too is false.
Catholic Answers allows its apologists, and the non-staffers who write for its publications, to have a diversity of opinions.
The articles published in This Rock–most of which are not authored by Catholic Answers staffers–are not position papers of the ministry. They represent the opinions of the individual authors. While Catholic Answers intends that all articles be within the range of permitted Catholic opinion, and while it thought the substance of the article was of sufficient quality to make it publishable, the ministry does not treat each statement made in an article as the official position of the ministry.
Thus if Dave Palm–or anyone else–writes an article in which he poses several arguments regarding sola scriptura, fine. Those are his arguments, and they may be fairly critiqued and interacted with by you or anyone else. But that does not mean that I or any other individual at Catholic Answers is required to endorse them as his own, and consequently I am not personally invested in them to the point that I have a compelling reason to read rebuttals of them on the Internet.
Unless, of course, I’m preparing to debate the author of those rebuttals and need to see what he said on the subject to better discern the shape of his thought.
Oh, and the fact we aren’t a hive-mind at Catholic Answers also means that if you say something to Mark or Pat in 1991 that it won’t go into the Borg database and be automatically downloaded into my mind years later.
That would be absurd.
6) On the subject of ad hominems, you accurately characterize what an ad hominem argument is, but this is not the only use of the term.
The phrase ad hominem is simply Latin for "to the man" (technically, "to the person" or "to the human") and any remark directed to the man rather than to his arguments is an ad hominem remark, as in:
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made [SOURCE.]
or
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem
was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed,
not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to
the listener’s emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans’ evocation of pity for the small farmer
struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes.
This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel
finds this sentence
acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the
failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one’s opponent are a tried-and-true
strategy for people who have a case that is weak.
Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The
expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal
attack,
whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn’t in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of
the Panel.
·Ad hominem
has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks,
as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and
Panetta can work
together” (Washington Post).
This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining
ground in journalistic style [SOURCE].
If you can’t be troubled to do your homework on the different senses of ad hominem and are thus a number of years behind in recognizing the usages it has, that is your concern.
It does, however, reveal that your assertion that "Evidently, for Mr. Akin, if he doesn’t like what someone says, or
disagrees with what someone says, then they are guilty of ad-hominem
argumentation" is simply fatuous.
People who I disagree with aren’t ad homineming me if they address the merits of my arguments. They are only making ad hominem remarks if they comment on me or my readers.
Consequently, there is no double standard involved in my posts on this point. I recognize when a statement is directed to the man or to the argument, and what’s more, I recognize when I am directing a statement to the man rather than to his arguments.
Criticizing a person’s behavior is a perfectly legitimate thing to do when the situation calls for it. Jesus was known to do it.
I knew that in my first post responding to you I would be critiquing your behavior (pointing out why you can’t get certain people to engage you) that I would be directing my remarks ad hominem, which is why I kept them in a separate post from the one where I addressed the substance of your argument.
That was the whole point.
I didn’t want my criticism of your behavior to be entangled with a serious reply to your arguments, and so I did two posts that kept the two separate. If you read the second post, you will note that I do not criticize your behavior; I only critique your argument.
7) You also need to read more carefully.
Of course, this whole exchange was prompted because you didn’t read my initial post carefully and decided I was critiquing you when I wasn’t, but in your latest post you fault my pointing out your use of "ad hominems, insults, and jabs" on the grounds that words and phrases I hi-lighted weren’t all ad hominem arguments.
No, but they were ad hominem remarks and insults (a species of ad hominem remark) and jabs.
8) In your recent posts, you refer more than once to the idea that I don’t want my readers to read both sides. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe firmly in people reading both sides, which is why in each one of my posts I have linked to the various posts of yours that I was discussing. In fact, I link them as soon as I mention them so that people can read them immediately. (Thus note that I linked both of your recent posts at the top of this one before saying anything about them.)
I would note that this is a practice you have not followed with any consistency, either in our exchange or in another recent one, where you dismissed as a desire for "free advertising" the request that you link to the other side of an argument you were critiquing and filed the piece in your "Simply Silly" category.
If readers read the other side of what I write (as I hope they do) and end up disagreeing with me then I also am not afraid to be cross-examined by readers–including readers of your blog–which is why I have open comboxes and allow people to critique my posts. Rule #1 on my blog is that people can disagree with me as long as they are polite about it.
I notice that these features are notable for their absence on your blog, and I can understand why. The obnoxious way in which you address your opponents is such that you would have to spend more time than you are willing to in dealing with outraged comboxers.
I also frequently allow those who disagree with me to have their say without me feeling the need to follow it up and have the last word. I allow the reader to decide whether they or I am correct, without adding dramatic-sounding non-commentaries to what they have said like, "Amazing. Simply amazing. I’ll let the reader decide between me and Mr. So-and-so, but I think that I have demonstrated a clear difference in our approaches."
9) In your recent posts you also refer to an incident two years ago where you pointed out an error I made in Greek in 1996, before I had studied the language, and it’s good that you did, because this illustrates something important.
In particular: It illustrates that I (a) learn with time and (b) am able to admit my mistakes.
Unfortunately, you didn’t link to the page where I retracted my erroneous claim, with the result that the readers won’t know specifically what I said.
I hope folks’ll read it so that they can see that I can admit when I am wrong, and I hope they will also take note of the last section of the page, where it is revealed that I am not the only person who can make mistakes in Greek, James.
I have yet to hear you make any public admission of errors on your part, though, whether regarding Greek or anything else. My experience is that, when confronted with an obvious error on your part, you simply stop making the erroneous claim with no admission of error (or you silently delete it from your web site) or (more often) you simply stick to your guns and refuse to acknowledge any error on your part, no matter how blinding the error is.
In discussing my 1996 Greek error, you also complain about having had to correct it "for years" before I retracted it. As I pointed out at the time of the retraction, you never contacted me about it. While I’m happy to admit mistakes on my part, I can’t have much sympathy for a person who complains about all the work he has had to do correcting them if he doesn’t take the simple step of e-mailing me and alerting me to the problem.
My e-mail address, after all, is clearly posted on my web site.
10) I’m too sick of this aspect of the discussion to continue this post beyond noting two practical consequences:
a) I could have saved myself a lot of trouble by simply deleting your name from the question I was asked (e.g., "Why do some Protestant apologists make such a big deal about it").
I’ll have to bear that in mind in the future,
and
b) In view of your attitude, you aren’t getting any kind of debate with me–in San Diego or anywhere else–until you demonstrate that you can behave in a more mature manner than you have in this exchange. I simply do not have time for future iterations of this kind of who-is-snarkier-than-whom fest.
(BTW, if you are serious about wanting a debate then, in addition to getting over yourself and learning some manners, you should also read my own published philosophy regarding the kinds of debates I accept. It’ll spare you issuing some pointless challenges.)
Jimmy, I know this may be asking a bit much, but I know I’d really appreciate an answer to that old John 6:44 passage you made the Greek mistake on, it would help me a lot, if possible. Of course I understand given the current situation this may not be currently possible.
God bless
I’m proud of you, Jimmy.
this is issue when i know it isd rong..we argu fore the sak of argu why? Christ never said fore we to be mean to say u rre rong? no, sola scriptira not n issu for the church u can disgre but stl be christian
Good response Jimmy. Now back slowly away and recall why by reading chapter two of Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. 🙂
You know, I am really trying to give James White a fair shake. I read his posts with as much open-mindedness as I could muster and I still came away thinking that he doth protest too much. Perhaps, just perhaps, James W uses such disrespect towards catholics only to cover his own latent fear of being drawn towards catholicism?
Well said Jimmy, said with such respect and grace. I have nothing against Mr. White. When I was a calvinist I used read him. Now, I am tired of watching him toot his own horn when it comes to apologetics
Perhaps it’d be educational for all involved parties if you researched White’s arguments regarding the Korban rule. If they’re as good as White seems to think they are, then we’ll have learned about strong sola scriptura arguments that need to be refuted. I’d hate to lose an opportunity to learn something on account of the chip on White’s shoulder.
Truly you have a dizzying intellect! Well done Jimmy! I am always impressed by your clarity and your class and I hope a little rubs off on me by daily reading this blog.
Hello Mr. Akin,
Excellent posting!
I have read many of James’ White posted materials, and I have read the counter argumentations made by others.
I can honestly say that even though James White has brought up points that may seem troublesome to Catholicism, they have been refuted.
But James White always sells his views as if they are iron clad and inescapable and that his exegesis is infallible. I find neither to be true.
I am not a theologian nor can I read Greek. But I can read James White exegesis of a passage and I can read another’s exegesis of a passage. No matter what Dr. White states, his views have been refuted.
Now I believe Dr. White has done very good work in regards to JW’s and Mormons and Islam, but whenever I read his work in regards to Roman Catholicism he seems to become irrational. There is never any charity in his works in regards to RC.
I have not checked to see if James White has yet responded to this your latest post, but I am sure I will see his usual comments that he is the one being attacked and that you are just afraid to debate him because his argumentation is irrefutable. It is funny because he still will not debate Dr. Robert Sungenis stating that Sungenis’s work is no longer along the main RC lines. But I believe the truth is that he knows that Dr. Sungenis always has refuted his work, just as you have.
I believe that the difference in substance of Catholic and Protestant apologetics highlights the johnny-come-lately nature of Protestantism.
Whereas the primary concern of Catholic apologetics is pastoral, Protestant apologists seem to need to justify their position through an endless round of argument and debate. It’s as if by prevailing in a debate with a Catholic apologist, they can obliterate the eternal Truths of Catholic doctrine.
Well said MaryC.
There is really nothing new that Protestant apologists have been saying. At this point, knowing that the Roman Cathoic Church contains the fullness of the truth, I do not need to spend anymore time studying all of the arguments against Catholism (but it is a knowledge all Catholics need).
The greatest beauty now is to center on Jesus in the Eucharist and growing our prayer lives! Reading scripture along with some great spiritual masters like St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa and St. Francis and the many others
is much more beautiful than spending time on the same old and tired arguments that James White continues to make.
Jimmy, I read the original pair of posts (your reply to a reader and White’s response to that).
White inaccurately attributed the phrase “why does White such a big deal about (the corban rule)” to you instead of the writer of the question.
Towards the end of White’s response, he asks, “Why doesn’t Akin address my statement on __” Well, the reason was because you were responding to the writer about the corban question in general. You were not responding to anything White said which you stated clearly early in your post.
Whatever White is responding to, it wasn’t your June 8 post.
Oops. I didn’t read the rest of your post, where you already said that and did so eloquently.
Shane, Jimmy linked to his post on the John 6 issue in this very post.
You probably didn’t have any fun writing this, but I’ve had fun reading it.
Jimmy, I am confused about this now:
Jimmy wrote: “I called The Dividing Line program the other day, as I indicated, because I wanted to call your attention to THIS POST OF MINE, in case you wished to reformulate THIS RESPONSE OF YOURS in light of it. ”
I thought you called in about the “You’re So Vain” post too. That’s what you discussed on the show…”pop culture reference” and whatnot.
Great response, Jimmy. It’s actually rather sad to see Mr. White putting up post after post based on the assumption that your first post was intended to be a reply to his specific arguments — when it was obvious from the get-go that this was not your intent. For some reason, he just can’t seem to let go of his initial misconception about the intent of your original post. 🙁
I think that the “THIS POST OF MINE” link above is supposed to link to the “You’re So Vain…” post.
No, it’s not.
I can’t get to the audio of the show, but if you can and you listen to it, you’ll hear me call his attention to the one linked as “THIS POST OF MINE.”
That one refers to “You’re So Vain,” but that wasn’t what I was calling and asking him to respond to.
I was trying to make him aware of “THIS POST OF MINE” (aka “James White Responds”) to see if he wanted to revise his argument before I responded to it. Note that “James White Responds” contains not only a reference to “You’re So Vain” but also a sketch of the structure of my substantive argument, both of which I hoped could clear away some of White’s confusion and focus the argument in a more constructive direction.
Obviously I was wrong.
Hi Mr. Akins,
James White is always stating that his exegesis of Scripture is the correct one.
My question is: does Scripture itself teach how one should exegete scripture?
I myself have never seen this taught in scripture, so I am wondering what James White is basing his exegesis styly to and why he is always stating that Roman Catholic apologists don’t know how to properly exegete Scripture.
Mr. Akin, will there ever be another debate between you and Mr. Akin?
Ha ha ha ha! I meant to write “between you and Dr. White”. Ha ha ha ha!
Glad this is over. Now you can talk about other exciting things like new Mass translations!
Quote: I was trying to make him aware of “THIS POST OF MINE” (aka “James White Responds”) to see if he wanted to revise his argument before I responded to it. Note that “James White Responds” contains not only a reference to “You’re So Vain” but also a sketch of the structure of my substantive argument, both of which I hoped could clear away some of White’s confusion and focus the argument in a more constructive direction.
Jimmy,
You are correct as usual. 🙂 I have followed the entire exchange, but I still managed to get confused with all the ins and outs of who posted what when. Thanks for the clarification. 🙂
Jimmy,
The tone of your article came off as similar to the way in which an adult will carefully explain something to a child. James White distorted your last posts, and you corrected him. He will probably distort them again. Its sad to see a man like this engaging in such low-life behavior. Congratulations for your civlity and class.
Also, I just want to re-iterate an idea that I mentioned in comments to an earlier post, even though this echoes what Jimmy said in point #1 above:
Jimmy seems to be concerned primarily with answering questions & concerns from people who contact him through his blog or through Catholic Answers. James White, on the other hand, seems concerned primarily with debates. And all of Mr. White’s posts seem to stem from an inability or unwillingness to understand that Jimmy’s priorities might legitimately be different than his own.
Well, I’d say this completes the “meltdown” of Dr. James White. To the readers who read “both sides”, there surely is a clear contrast in styles. Compare the well-thought, reasoned, and patient approach of Jimmy to the hasty, rash, and frantic nature of White’s posts. Maybe White should have just taken that vacation.
Now that would be an interesting debate. I wonder who would win.
“And all of Mr. White’s posts seem to stem from an inability or unwillingness to understand that Jimmy’s priorities might legitimately be different than his own.”
That is exactly it, but what makes it so cynical is that of course Dr. White recognizes the difference. That is what worries me, I thought that White could just be genuinely confused (and maybe that is still so), but how could a scholar of White’s caliber have such a distorted conception of people or simply a profession where one automatically superimposes all of their own biases and presuppositions on that person? This stems, I am confident, from White’s error-prone notions of communication and debate. It is truly unfortunate to see all that hard work and research go to waste.
Drat! I quoted St. Pio’s line above: “Mr Akin, will there ever be another debate between you and Mr Akin?” Why didn’t it show?
Mary,
Now that I understand what you were referring to in your previous comment, I agree — that would be an interesting debate!
By the way, I have been referring to James White as “Mr. White”. But I see that some others have referred to him as “Dr. White”. I was not aware of his doctorate, and I meant no offense by referring to him as “Mr.”.
Yes, Paul that stray remark of mine must have looked as though I was losing my marbles along with my hearing.
Hi Paul,
Dr. White’s PhD has been questioned by many. Some claim that his doctorate comes from a school that is not accredited. I am not sure of the validity of this.
Regardless of that point, James White claims that he has indeed obtained his Doctorate and therefore I take the position that we should honor him at his word and give him the title of Doctor, even though many would disagree.
ADD A ‘COMMENTS’ FEATURE TO YOUR WEBSITE MR. WHITE!
I find it very frustrating when one is unable to respond, reply, or interact on a blog or website that offers opinions, teachings or any thoughts for that matter.
It says to me, “This is what I have to say and I don’t care what you have to say.”
Interaction; this is what the internet and blogs are all about.
Mr. White, as he has demonstrated time and time again, uses those individuals who use the comments feature as fodder in his argumentation.
Mr. White if you are truly open to others thoughts and points of view…
ADD A ‘COMMENTS’ FEATURE TO YOUR WEBSITE MR. WHITE!
Mr. White claims to be open to ‘Today’s’ arguments and thoughts
Well then….
ADD A ‘COMMENTS’ FEATURE TO YOUR WEBSITE MR. WHITE!
I’ve been told that one can reply to Mr. White through some third party blog….
Not good enough.
ADD A ‘COMMENTS’ FEATURE TO YOUR WEBSITE MR. WHITE!
Well Mr. White, how about it?
Tim +<><
ADD A ‘COMMENTS’ FEATURE TO YOUR WEBSITE MR. WHITE!
I find it very frustrating when one is unable to respond, reply, or interact on a blog or website that offers opinions, teachings or any thoughts for that matter.
It says to me, “This is what I have to say and I don’t care what you have to say.”
Interaction; this is what the internet and blogs are all about.
Mr. White, as he has demonstrated time and time again, uses those individuals who use the comments feature as fodder in his argumentation.
Mr. White if you are truly open to others thoughts and points of view…
ADD A ‘COMMENTS’ FEATURE TO YOUR WEBSITE MR. WHITE!
Mr. White claims to be open to ‘Today’s’ arguments and thoughts
Well then….
ADD A ‘COMMENTS’ FEATURE TO YOUR WEBSITE MR. WHITE!
I’ve been told that one can reply to Mr. White through some third party blog….
Not good enough.
ADD A ‘COMMENTS’ FEATURE TO YOUR WEBSITE MR. WHITE!
Well Mr. White, how about it?
Tim +<><
Anybody interested in the opinion of a non-Christian that has read both sides of this debate? You may ask, why would a non-Christian waste his time? I don’t know. I must be crazy.
All just my opinion and I’m open to correction, but this is my first blush reaction to what I’ve read.
WHERE JAMES WHITE IS CORRECT:
James White is correct to expect Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers to be familiar with his arguments. Not because it’s all about ME ME ME, James White. This is not about him being braggadocios. The reality is, he is the most prominent voice that refutes RC claims. Why do you not know his arguments in and out? If I were him I might think it is because he really has the upper hand here and people just don’t want to have to deal with him.
He’s also right to be annoyed about the initial response from Jimmy Akin. I understand that Jimmy did specifically say that he hadn’t read White’s argument and wasn’t responding to it specifically because he wasn’t specifically familiar with it. Specifically. So he responds to an argument about Korban. It is obvious that a reader could come away with the impression that probably James White has a similar argument that can be similarly dismissed. If I’m James White I’m thinking “dang it!! If these people would just do what they ought to be doing they’d represent my argument accurately and reply to IT instead of a misrepresentation of it.” It’s frustrating to think that someone COULD VERY EASILY come away with a mistaken understanding of my argument, and similarly have a mistaken view that my argument has been refuted. I know you didn’t say you were responding to James White, but you need to do better than that. You need to be vigilant and protect against your readers even having a mistaken view of his arguments.
WHERE JIMMY AKIN IS CORRECT
James White has engaged in ad hominem and it does make him unpleasant to deal with (and justifies Akin’s attitude of not wanting to debate White publicly or otherwise). White says that he did not argue in the form “Jimmy Akin is stupid, therefore Jimmy Akin is wrong.” But of course nobody but an idiot would put forward an ad hominem argument in the textbook form, and James White is not an idiot. You can’t spell the logic out because doing so would lay bare the logical underpinnings of the argument and would be counterproductive. All ad hominem is subtle and relies on the reader to draw out the illogical conclusions. White now argues that because he didn’t spell the logic out explicitly he has not engaged in ad hominem. But again, nobody engaged in ad hominem would draw out the conclusions explicitly. If they did it wouldn’t work.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Under normal conditions Akin in his role should feel free to respond as he did to the reader. The reader says “So and so makes a big deal out of the Korban thing.” Akin responds “I don’t know so and so or his argument, so I’ll just respond to the Korban argument as I’ve often heard it from Protestants and respond generally.” Fine. But when the subject person is none other than the most prominent opponent to RC theology you have to do better than that. Akin now says that in the future he may re-phrase the questions to say “Some Protestants make a big deal of Korban” in the event the “Protestant” is James White. Actually, I think that is a very good idea. You may think it’s odd that someone is so petty as to require that, but I don’t think so. Few things are more irritating than having people have a misunderstanding of your argument. Again, I know Akin explicitly said he’s not responding to White’s argument, but it would be very easy to come away with the impression that his presentation is a fair presentation of White.
On the other hand White should be more gracious and recognize that Akin did not intend his readers to have the wrong impression of White’s argument. White should recognize that Akin is probably swamped (or lazy, but I suspect it’s not laziness) so the result is not with malicious intent. Also Akin is to be given credit for the grace he has shown in his responses.
So there are mistakes on both sides, and it would be great if there were grace on both sides. Grace to Akin. He should know White’s arguments and in so doing will avoid any misunderstandings. Grace to White. Perhaps he’s overreacted to a mistake by Akin, but understand that while the offense isn’t huge it is irritating.
That’s my opinion, and of course I’m not right just because I disagree with both RC’s and Prots, but for what it’s worth.
Hey Jon,
I very much appreciate your perspective, as a somewhat neutral party. I think that you make some good points, and you also make some points that I disagree with. The biggest thing where I disagree with you, and which shapes part of your perceptions on this, is the following:
“James White is correct to expect Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers to be familiar with his arguments. . . . The reality is, he is the most prominent voice that refutes RC claims.”
Is he? I find that hard to believe, though I suppose that perhaps I’m just not “in the know” on who the prominent anti-Catholic apologists are. And I guess maybe it depends on how you define the word “prominent”, but I wouldn’t have characterized James White in that way.
Now if you replaced the word “prominent” with the word “obnoxious”, then maybe you would be on to something… 😉
Following up on my previous comment, I would argue that Jack Chick is a much more “prominent” anti-Catholic apologist than James White, as just one example. White’s arguments are likely much more sophisticated than Chick’s, but I bet that a lot more people have read Chick’s work than have read White’s.
And I think that that’s where Jimmy is coming from here: Catholic Answers’ mission is not to be a “think tank” spending all their time publishing scholarly papers refuting the best that Protestant apologetics has to offer. No — their mission is to answer questions that people have about the Catholic faith, and to respond to those objections to the Catholic faith that people are commonly exposed to. Thus (for example), Catholic Answers recently published a refutation of Dan Brown’s historical claims in “The Da Vinci Code”, because so many people have read that book — even though the level of scholarship behind Dan Brown’s claims is laughable. But they haven’t published anything recently about James White that I’m aware of, because unlike Dan Brown, Dr. White doesn’t have tens of millions of people buying his books.
And I think that Jimmy has much the same philosophy regarding his blog. As I seem to recall Jimmy saying in a previous post, apologetics is a supply-and-demand endeavor, and there just ain’t that much demand for answers to White’s arguments.
It may be that I just don’t really understand the underlying debate, but it honestly seemed to me that the point Dr. White was making is good and valid, but simply doesn’t refute the Catholic view of the relevant passage. It looks to me like White is trying to direct our attention to the fact that the korban tradition was considered a divine tradition by [at least some of] the first-centruy Pharisees, and so this shows that it’s not just *human* traditions that we have to compare to Scripture– as a matter of fact, White says, this is the only way we know whether a tradition is divine (and therefore authoritative) or human (and therefore not authoritative and possibly even sinful).
While Catholics might differ with the formulation of that last point, there really doesn’t seem to be much of a controversy here. As Jimmy said (I’m paraphrasing here), ‘all [Dr. White’s argument] shows is that a tradition can be erroneously regarded as divine. So what?’ That shouldn’t be news to any Catholic. The only way White’s argument would have any effect, it seems to me, is if there are Catholics out there who believe their Church’s teachings contradict Scripture and don’t care.
At least that’s my take on it. It’s open to correction. I hope it doesn’t get me a spot on White’s list of “Akin’s idiot posters.”
SDG – I know Jimmy linked to that post; I’d known about it for a long time. However, in that post, he never explained what the proper answer to the claim of a Calvninist’s interpretation would be, he just explained that he was wrong. I have been hoping for a long time he would answer the objection with a correct answer at some point. 🙂
“That is what worries me, I thought that White could just be genuinely confused (and maybe that is still so), but how could a scholar of White’s caliber have such a distorted conception of people or simply a profession where one automatically superimposes all of their own biases and presuppositions on that person?”
The answer to your question is quite simple: White isn’t a scholar. The sorts of things you describe are quite common among laymen with inadequate training in how to structure arguments, use sources, and the like. These can be learned even in a suitable undergraduate program (I’m sure Jimmy’s philosophical training at a well-regarded research university was plenty) and even through self-training, although I have met few autodidacts in that regard who didn’t actually end up with an apporpriate degree from a real school. But when you don’t ever learn them, you see the results. They invariably come off as boors to those who know better, simply because they routinely break rules of respectable scholarship and argumentation of which they aren’t even aware. And this is why such people (like Jimmy) will eventually stop wasting their time with them, which is precisely what Catholic Answers has done by consensus. You can’t really talk to someone who not only has no idea about the subject but doesn’t even realize that he doesn’t know anything about the subject.
And incidentally, I believe he claims a Th.D., not a Ph.D.
“such people” in my previous posts referring to “those who know better.” I’m certainly not lumping Jimmy in with James White!
Thanks Jon for your input.
I wish I could respond in kind at Mr. Whites blog site….
….but I can’t!
ADD A ‘COMMENTS’ FEATURE TO YOUR WEBSITE MR. WHITE!
tim +<><
I don’t think James White is “the most prominent voice that refutes RC claims”, but I could be wrong. Other than that, I think Jon’s assessment pretty well represents how I feel about the exchange.
In reviewing this thread and the comment about where does Scripture indicate how we should exegete a passage, this discussion does touch on a very important aspect of Protestant belief~ that the Bible is basically perspicuous (able to be clearly understood) in and of itself, without the absolute necessity for theological teaching, scholarly interpretation, and the authority of the Church. See, e.g. Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” (from translation of Henry Cole) Baker Book House (1976) at pgs. 25-29. If the Bible is so clear, why do we need to learn to read it in koine Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew? I can understand why a Catholic or Orthodox Christian might wish to do this because our traditions do not teach this doctrine. But, if Dr. White is a Four-Square Calvinist, why does he? Can’t he discern the fullness of truth of Scripture without the need to engage in theological or scholarly research? If he believes in this doctrine, I would like to know which translation of the Bible he uses so we can all have the same benefit of clearness that he has. Or better yet, since he has such insight, it would be most Christian of him to share it with all of us and write a translation of the Bible as he sees it so that we all may be able to able to perceive the truth as he sees it.
If you reduce this doctrine to its most basic proposition, being a Calvinist apologist is an oxymoron. Implicitly, the need for a Calvinist to be an apologist means that person doesn’t believe that others are able to clearly understand what the Scriptures from reading it for themselves unless the apologist is there to help them. Since a Calvinist does not believe in the teaching authority of the Church, the individual must decide on what one teaches is sound Christian teaching. Apologetics becomes a cult of personality, susceptible to prideful and haughty I-know-better-than-you attitudes. While St. Paul was righteous, he was not self-righteous. He, was for the most part, as humble as what his name means.
This thread also demonstrates something else. From my comments in one of the earlier threads, I commented on what I had learned from researching the interplay between the Torah and the Mishna~that the Mishna originally was the oral tradition given to Moses and then passed on through the ages so that the written Torah could be properly interpreted. From what I learned about Korban was that there were many different uses of Korban based on both written OT Scripture and the oral tradition contained in the Mishna. What Jesus attacked was what one particular school of Pharisees was teaching that was contrary to the teachings of both the written Torah and the oral Mishna and incidently what other schools of Pharisees were teaching at the time. When the Mishna was finally put into written form, it clearly taught that the particular use of Korban that Jesus condemned as wrongful and could be voided as an improper vow.
While we know what Jesus said on this particular usage of Korban, what we don’t know is whether this “tradition” was actually taught in the Mishna or was merely being taught by the school of Pharisees that confronted Jesus, whether all schools of the Pharisees believed in this understanding of that “tradition” or was it in dispute as some of the materials I read indicated, or if Dr. White’s interpretation of the events is accurate. I guess what I am saying is that the obvious message that one should follow the spirit of the commandments rather than using them in a hyper legal way that actually causes one to sin. But it is not so clear whether Jesus was attacking an authoritative tradition that the Jews actually believed was divinely inspired or merely a tradition of man that was being taught by one particular school of Pharisees in substitution of the written Torah and oral Mishna. Can anyone point to a particular passage in OT Scriptures as what the Mishna actually said on this particular use of Korban so we can decide whether Jimmy Akins is right or Dr. White?
This highlights the last point. In case of a dispute between apologists, or between any two Christians for that matter, who decides whether Scriptures actually stands for the proposition what they are saying that it stands for. Catholics have an answer. They look to what the Fathers taught and what the Church teaches. For a Protestant, where do they go? Especially when Dr. White (hopefully not for a long time) is no longer with us.
~The Other Paul H.
Well, I guess prominent is a subjective thing. You think Chick is more prominent? That’s pretty sad. How about the most prominent CREDIBLE voice?
“You think Chick is more prominent? That’s pretty sad.”
I just think that more people are exposed to Chick’s work than are exposed to White’s. I may be wrong. And I agree that it’s sad.
The James White debate format, and also that of W.L. Craig, is an inferior form of intellectual exchanges than a writing format. (I know Mr. White has had exchanges in written format, which I think is better). Most scholars would agree on this.
Now, a more superior format is what Robert P. George has asked Peter Singer to participate in. That is, a graduate seminar. Now, THAT is good. To say, “Well, I have debated Fr. Pacwa on the priesthood on 200?” and we are supposed to judge what is true on that performance is plain stupid. That is why as I think of it now, the whole Svendsen vs. Matatics debate was dumb. I don’t think Svendsen’s thesis on heos hou can last in a graduate seminar. I really don’t. Or, have Svendsen and say, Allison (just thinking up names here) in a seminar and look at the issue on heos hou. It just won’t last. I also think that if Mr. White and a Catholic apologist have a seminar on the role of Scripture, one can disect and refute Mr. White’s arguments easily. This does not mean that there are not some good points he makes, but one can easily show the logical fallacies he makes or the assumptions he makes.
I don’t know. Maybe the academia has influenced me. But I do see great benefits in that type of format rather than the show-debate formats White endorses.
The reality is, he is the most prominent voice that refutes RC claims.
You are going to have to provide at least credentials to make such a claim.
Better yet, provide some evidence. Prominence can be judged by taking a look around and seeing what you can see, by just about anyone. And the Catholic Answers people, having a sampling of questions that people ask, probably have a better location to look from than most.
[i]You are going to have to provide at least credentials to make such a claim.[/i]
Credentials, huh. Well, I don’t know exactly what you’re looking for. When I was a Christian I was deeply immersed in the Protestant/RC debate. I bought books from Protestants of course. Salmon’s book was the best I ever found. As far as modern writers White was the best source I was aware of. If not him then who?
This website (sorry I don’t know how to make it clickable):
http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/WhiteThD.html
says that James White received a ThD from an unaccredited correspondence school and says it has correspondence regarding the degree.
Interesting, it also says that James White said that one of this critics engaged in ad hominem attacks.
Deja vu?
Letters at the end of one’s name don’t impress me.
The Truth is the Truth.
God uses whomever he chooses as His instrument.
Moses proclaimed he was not a grand orator. That’s why Aaron accompanied him.
The Scribes and Pharisees claimed to have all the knowledge…until Jesus set them straight. Imagine Jesus claiming authority because of some letters behind his name?
Jesus Christ PH.D, ThD
Ridiculous
Many of the Saints were not highly educated men and women.
Don’t get me wrong, I love and value education. I’m working on a degree myself. One should strive to expand one’s knowledge in all things.
I love the way we all can share our ideas, Catholic & Protestant alike, on blogs such as this one.
I only wish those who claim others are afraid to debate them would open their blogs to everyone (COMMENT Feature), to have that interaction you find here.
I find it ironic that certain individuals have to come to this website to claim that Jimmy is afraid to interact (debate).
Open-up a COMMENT feature Mr. White.
Don’t hide behind that “DIVIDING LINE” where it’s safe.
tim
Letters at the end of one’s name don’t impress me.
The Truth is the Truth.
God uses whomever he chooses as His instrument.
Moses proclaimed he was not a grand orator. That’s why Aaron accompanied him.
The Scribes and Pharisees claimed to have all the knowledge…until Jesus set them straight. Imagine Jesus claiming authority because of some letters behind his name?
Jesus Christ PH.D, ThD
Ridiculous
Many of the Saints were not highly educated men and women.
Don’t get me wrong, I love and value education. I’m working on a degree myself. One should strive to expand one’s knowledge in all things.
I love the way we all can share our ideas, Catholic & Protestant alike, on blogs such as this one.
I only wish those who claim others are afraid to debate them would open their blogs to everyone (COMMENT Feature), to have that interaction you find here.
I find it ironic that certain individuals have to come to this website to claim that Jimmy is afraid to interact (debate).
Open-up a COMMENT feature Mr. White.
Don’t hide behind that “DIVIDING LINE” where it’s safe.
tim
Jon wrote: “When I was a Christian I was deeply immersed in the Protestant/RC debate. I bought books from Protestants of course. Salmon’s book was the best I ever found. As far as modern writers White was the best source I was aware of. If not him then who?”
You may be right about White’s prominence, Jon. My initial challenge to your assertion was based on the fact that while I have heard of White several times over the years through his debates and other challenges to Catholic apologists, I have never (as far as I can remember) heard him mentioned or quoted by various Protestants with whom I have had doctrinal discussions. Nor have I ever heard him mentioned by Catholics, outside of the context of him debating or challenging Catholic apologists. Therefore, I assumed that he wasn’t really all that prominent — but that he just likes to debate people. But my assumption is based on my own limited experience, and the experience of others, including your own, might be very different.
I do appreciate you sharing your point of view.
By the way, when you were a Christian, were you a Catholic or a Protestant, and why are you no longer a Christian? Obviously you don’t have to answer that, but I’m just curious.
Paul
Hey Paul,
I was a Protestant. What changed my mind was inerrancy. Believe it or not it was in a large part a result of my correspondence with RC’s that helped me realize the Bible wasn’t inerrant. Some RC’s I knew made some pretty good arguments. I realized that when it came to problems with my view any possible explanation around the problem was good enough. For instance Jesus teaching (often through parables) that a person could lose his salvation. But when it came to problems I’d point out with RC’s (for instance Paul’s teaching that salvation is by grace through faith alone) I wasn’t satisfied when they gave me possible explanations for how it could be. I expected them to give plausible explanations. One standard for you guys, another for me. I started to apply the standard consistently. Inerrancy was forced to go. And I couldn’t sustain my faith without inerrancy. Some people think you can, but I disagree.
I’ve seen it before countless times; nothing good comes from addressing James White, his followers or anything he believes unless you count fruitless, and contentious never ending aerguments as good.
Thanks for your response Jon! I’ve been hoping to see someone other than Jimmy Akin fans, of which I am one, hop in on the discussion. I think you’ve made a “fair and balanced” assessment of the situation and contributed greatly to the discussion. NICE WORK!
Now I’d love to hear from someone on White’s side if they happen to read these discussions.
I guess that’s why St. Paul left his discussions with the Athenians (Epicureans and Stoics) at the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:18-34).
All they were interested in doing was debating for the sake of debating.
tim
Hi Jon,
Thanks for sharing your journey, though it makes me especially sad to hear that it was Catholic apologists who pushed you away from Christianity. As I’m sure you know, Catholics do believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and if the apologists you talked with didn’t have convincing answers for you, perhaps others would. Catholic apologists are not omniscient, as again, I’m sure you know. 🙂
I have heard Jimmy address the issue of seeming contradictions in the Bible by using the phrase of “keeping truths in tension”. This means that when there are two seemingly opposed quotes in the Bible, Catholic teaching tries to bridge the gap by showing how both are actually true, even if they seem (on the surface) to conflict. But I’m probably going over arguments you have heard before, so I won’t belabor the point.
If you would be interested in having a private discussion on this issue, just click on my name below and send me an e-mail.
Thanks Jimi and Paul,
I might take you up on that Paul. I love discussing the topic. You won’t change my opinion and I suppose I probably won’t change yours, but I love discussing the topic and you can certainly gain insight into the type of things that move people in my direction.
Don’t feel bad about the RC apologists. They made good arguments. What else can they do? If they weren’t good they wouldn’t have affected me. Though I was miserable early on (because losing my faith was very painful) I’m grateful now because I think I’m now closer to the truth than I ever was as a Christian.
Jon was on one of James’s Whites Dividing Line broadcasts a while back. He gave an argument against inerrancy based on something Jesus said about the coming of the kingdom (cant remember exactly where it was in the bible and I am too lazy to look it up).
James White gave an argument that went along these lines: “the coming” was a reference to the transfiguration, which occurs in the very next chapter. Now, I think that is a very unconvincing explanation. I would rather just go ahead and say that the “kingdom of God” refers to the church which began at Pentecost (Jesus says that “the kingdom of God is within you” somewhere). So it is more of a spiritual reality than a literal physical one.
Catholics historically are more big on emphasising the underlying meaning of the Gospel, “the spiritual meaning”, than the literal one. This goes back all the way to the early church, where you have many people interpreting the scripture in many non-literal senses and not getting that worked up about it.
Of course, when you interpret the bible literalistically, you are going to wind up with problems of consistency and science. Jaroslav Pelikan points out in a recent book (Whose Bible Is It?) the irony that the new literalist methodology of interpretation that began at the Reformation actually was less harmonious with the new scientific discoveries than the older “metaphorical” methods of interpretation. In a way, Protestantism set itself up to be defeated, because of its emphasis on the literal aspect of scripture. As the critical findings of exegesis slowly undermined the belief in the bible’s inerrancy, Protestantism was left defenseless because of its emphasis on Sola Scriptura rather than the “living tradition” of Catholicism.
Jon, you make some good points. Please continue to post here; you’ll keep us on our toes.
I just want to point out one thing: St. Paul never, in any of his letters, wrote that we are justified by faith alone. He wrote that we are justified by faith (or grace–he seemed to use the two words to mean the same thing). He was contrasting faith through the works of the Jewish Law. The only time in the entire New Testament the words “faith alone” or “faith only” (depending on the translation) occur in the letter of James, 2:24, where the doctrine of “faith alone” is condemned.
Jon,
Thanks for the reply, and I’ll watch for your e-mail in case you do decide to contact me. By the way, you said that I won’t change your opinion, but don’t forget that your opinion was changed once already, so you never know. 🙂 However, I agree that it is unlikely that your opinion will change, especially since I probably won’t tell you anything you haven’t heard already. I’d still be happy to discuss the issues though — we probably both would benefit in one way or another.
Paul
Jon,
I would also be open to debate on the topic of Paul and justification. I think that for centuries Protestants have misunderstood the decrees of Trent because they do not have a proper acquaintance with scholastic theology. In order to understand Trent, you must understand scholastic theology. And once you understand Trent and scholastic theology, you will find that Catholics have never taught salvation by works. There are very few polemicists who have an adequate grasp of this theology, Catholics included.
“I just want to point out one thing: St. Paul never, in any of his letters, wrote that we are justified by faith alone. He wrote that we are justified by faith (or grace–he seemed to use the two words to mean the same thing). He was contrasting faith through the works of the Jewish Law. The only time in the entire New Testament the words “faith alone” or “faith only” (depending on the translation) occur in the letter of James, 2:24, where the doctrine of “faith alone” is condemned. ”
Bill, I personally find this mode of Catholic apologetics insufficient. I think it would be better to simply take the lead of NT Wright and the New Perspective, and simply say that Paul’s doctrine of justification has been missed entirely throughout the Catholic/ Protestant debate.
Tim, I was reply to Dave’s 9:36 post where he said he was unsure of the validity of the claims about White’s doctorate. I was simply providing factual information. In that light your “Jesus Christ PhD, ThD” was uncalled for and missed the point of my post.
As for the topic in general of having letters after one’s name, their importance depends on the situation. I’ll agree with you that they are unnecessary for comments in comboxes.
Jon sez: You won’t change my opinion…
It appears that you have switched the inerrancy of the Bible for the inerrancy of your current opinion then.
Not to mock you, but to nudge you, because to declare that one’s current beliefs can never be changed qualifies one as theologically brain-dead.
Paul, It may be helpful if Jon links to the MANY discussions he had a while back at Crowhill’s message board.
Jonathan,
Your point is well-taken. I always try to give one the benefit of the doubt (unlike Dr. White), but one often suspects from reading White’s innately uncharitable responses that he is more often a vicious idealogue than anything closely related to a scholar. Being very knowledegable in a field doesn’t make one a scholar nor an expert and that is White’s mistake. Now, I realize this is a harsh judgement and not to be assigned hastily (again, perhaps contrary to White’s methods), but the kind of rhetoric that he employs is so base and crass that it borders on the obscene. I speak in such unequivocal terms only because one would expect more from a “scholar”, a published author, a Christian, and a public debator — assuming these are genuine indicators of professional and gentlemanly conduct and behavior (which I think the should be).
I am not as optimistic as Jimmy that White’s position and ad-hominem rhetoric can be so easily separated, but I applaud him for trying.
I just realized the biggest problem with Mr. White’s criticism of Jimmy. He contends that Jimmy, because of his specilization in the field of Catholic apologetics, ought to know the arguements that a particular apologist has been using for ten years.
However, on several occasions, such as this one and his characterization of satispassio in his 1992 Mass debate with Mr. Matatics, Mr. White has shown himself to be ignorant of Catholic teaching, teaching which has been availible for hundreds of years.
How can Mr. White reasonably criticize Jimmy for failing to be familiar with the decade old arguements of a particular apologist in a field of his concern when he himself has been proven unfamiliar with centuries’ old teachings of the Church in a field of his concern?
James White commented on his lack of comboxes and it is quite revealing:
“Now, I noted numerous complaints that I do not allow comments on this blog. Why? For the same reason we do not have a web-board. It would mean the end of writing books, chapters, articles, or anything else, as well as the end of debate preparation, research, etc. If someone wants to read the wide variety of opinions on theology and apologetics held by those who frequent the Internet, there are tens of thousands of sites that will allow you to do so.”
Now, Jimmy has comboxes and he still manages to write books and articles. Perhaps it is because Jimmy doesn’t feel the need to respond to every little thing.
To expand on the great point made by an anonymous poster above, I’d like to compare the following quotes:
First, from Jimmy’s post above:
“I notice that these features [comboxes] are notable for their absence on your blog, and I can understand why. The obnoxious way in which you address your opponents is such that you would have to spend more time than you are willing to in dealing with outraged comboxers.”
From James White’s latest post (at http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1402):
“Now, I noted numerous complaints that I do not allow comments on this blog. Why? For the same reason we do not have a web-board. It would mean the end of writing books, chapters, articles, or anything else, as well as the end of debate preparation, research, etc.”
I’m not sure if it was Dr. White’s intent, but it sure sounds to me like he is in 100% agreement with Jimmy here! 🙂
(But having said all that, I will also say that I think that Dr. White is perfectly within his rights to publish a blog with no comments feature, and I won’t be jumping on the bandwagon of people asking him to add such a feature. However, I personally find blogs with no comments much less interesting to read, and I avoid them as a general rule.)
“But having said all that, I will also say that I think that Dr. White is perfectly within his rights to publish a blog with no comments feature, and I won’t be jumping on the bandwagon of people asking him to add such a feature. However, I personally find blogs with no comments much less interesting to read, and I avoid them as a general rule.”
While I certainly agree that Mr. White has the right to run whatever type of blog he wants, it would seem to reduce his credibility by refusing to conform to the norm where people are allowed to comment on his own commentary. It seems like Mr. White is a bit of control freak, as evidenced by the fact that he seems to want to get in the last word on everything.
Boy Charlie, you’re definetly on the ball. Yeah, I called in once. He is very good. I had my wife listen to it and she says, “He got the better of you.” When your adoring wife can’t say something more positive than that you know you had problems.
You know, faith alone is really not my best example of where I think RC’s have problems. I have Akin’s book and I admitted at the time that I didn’t think his view of justification was crazy. I didn’t buy it. But I could sort of see how a rational person might agree with it. Where the real problems start to come in is with regards to infallibility. Here the tortured logic really starts to manifest itself. The RC apologist that truly wants to be informed needs to read Salmon’s book (which I have saved on my computer and can send to any that would be interested.) In my opinion, if you are honest, you will be reeling. You will look for answers and you will find Dave Armstrong and Phil Porvaznik saying that he has been answered by B.C. Butler (another book I own). Not the case. I asked Phil based upon his claim that Salmon had been answered if he had actually read Salmon. He had not. I don’t know if Armstrong has read him, but I doubt it.
The explanations just aren’t rational. As I would press RC’s on points related to this, some of them would turn the tables on me and ask questions like “If you don’t buy our explanation with regards to Galileo, perhaps you could explain to me how Judas died? Did he fall headlong and have his guts burst (as in Acts) or did he hang himself (as in Mt).” Now it was my turn to engage in tortured logic. And I did. And they’d say, if it’s OK for you, why do you have a problem with my explanation with regards to Galileo? And I can see their point.
To Joy:
It’s not that I’m unwilling to change my opinion. It’s just that I’m being realistic. Don’t expect to change my view and I won’t expect to change yours. We apologists don’t change our minds too often. Could happen though. I’m open minded.
To Jon and All,
I think the one thing that we should always keep in mind is that when it comes to God, there is always going to be ‘mystery.’
Please don’t dismiss what I am saying right away. Also, please don’t think that I am saying that we should just blindly believe. I applaud your search for truth, and since you are still searching, you really cannot say where you are going to finish, which I pray is back in the arms of Jesus.
But again, how can we expect to truly comprehend the Trinity? How can we expect to truly comprehend that God Himself would empty Himself and become a man? No matter how much we try to discuss it and meditate on it, we will never be able to fully know.
Jesus told us the the Spirit would come and lead us into all truth. Now, there is no new revelation, but is our understanding of what has already been revealed complete? What may seem to be innerrency in the Bible may not be. Because we don’t know how to answer it now does not mean there is not an answer (I know that is not a sufficient answer).
Perhaps you are being led through the dessert right now. Have you ever read St. John of the Cross? Perhaps God is trying to make the roots of your faith travel deeper into your soul. I am not sure. Again, there is mystery.
Therefore, don’t throw away your Christianity yet. I am sure that you haved prayed much, but perhaps you are being called to pray even more.
Let God Himself reveal the mysteries that are in Scripture to you in His time and be patient. And don’t forgot that there is always going to be mystery.
Charlie said:
“As the critical findings of exegesis slowly undermined the belief in the bible’s inerrancy, Protestantism was left defenseless because of its emphasis on Sola Scriptura rather than the “living tradition” of Catholicism.”
Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you’re saying here, but it sounds like you believe it is ok for the Catholic to believe the Scriptures may contain error. And that it is ok for the Bible to have errors because we have Sacred Tradition to correct them. Please tell me I am wrong in my interpretation! I believe the Church teaches that this view comes close to heresy.
>However, on several occasions, such as this one and his characterization of satispassio in his 1992 Mass debate with Mr. Matatics, Mr. White has shown himself to be ignorant of Catholic teaching, teaching which has been availible for hundreds of years.
I reply: As far as White is concerned he is more qualified to understand satispassio then those of us who are actually Catholic.
“…it sounds like you believe it is ok for the Catholic to believe the Scriptures may contain error. And that it is ok for the Bible to have errors because we have Sacred Tradition to correct them. Please tell me I am wrong in my interpretation! I believe the Church teaches that this view comes close to heresy.”
My thoughts also. The problem is a lack of understanding of the culture and literary forms of the biblical authors.
The Bible IS inerrant and infallible, but only if you understand properly what the author is really asserting. For instance, a first century Jewish audience was more concerned with the substance and meaning of events, and less concerned with details like location and exact chronology.
So, if one gospel puts Jesus on amountain for a particular sermon, and one puts him on a plain, this can hardly be called a mistake -just a bit of (Holy Spirit inspired) artistic license.
Same with the way Jesus’ teachings are edited and grouped. We can’t reasonably expect that the Gospels would be a verbatim transcript of every word Jesus uttered, in the order he spoke them, but for all that, the Church maintains that the gospels are an innerrant and infallible record of what Jesus really said and did. Always has.
I think the problem comes with approaching the scriptures with the wrong expectations. Hyper-literalism leads to errant theologies, which in turn lead to either schism or a crisis of faith, in the end.
For what it’s worth, Jon, you might want to read a couple of posts I put together about looking at the gospels from the perspective of an artist (I’m a painter). Doubtless others can point you to better and more helpful reading, but this is my view.
Here are the URLs-
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/10/hysterical_crit.html
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/10/hysterical_crit_1.html
God Bless-
“While no end of interesting illustrations could be mined from continuing to review Jimmy Akin’s desperate attempt to avoid admitting he simply doesn’t care to keep abreast with developments in his area of self-professed expertise…” 6/16
This is a little ironic since any reasonable person could tell that in fact the exact opposite is going on — White is making every desperate attempt possible to avoid being held responsible for his rash behavior and unjustified, savage attack. No, there is no sense of desperation in Jimmy’s posts and for quite a simple reason — he is right!
Salmon has been long answered by Newman & the Irish Eccesiastical Record.
Salmon’s tries to argue the Catholic position requres us to believe that we must have infallible authorities to the Nth degree. Or as Dr. Ron Rosenblat once put it “You need an Infallible Church to tell us what is Infallible Scripture but then you would need an Infallible Church to the Second Power to testify to the Authority of the Church of the First Power and then you would need a third power church etc…then a fourth power church. We Protestants avoid that trap by not starting that argument in the first place. (I paraphraise him from memory).”
Well that is wrong headed. Catholic believe before you can get to Infallibility at some point you MUST start with reason & from there you can come to reasonable probable certainty about certain truths.
Catholic can threw reason show the existence of Jesus & that he gave authority to an entity known as the Church. But you cannot threw reason allow figure out the Canon of the Bible or even the divine inspiration of all the writtings of the Bible.
I reply: As far as White is concerned he is more qualified to understand satispassio then those of us who are actually Catholic.
He was flat wrong. He said that Purgatory is where people make atonement for their sins apart from the grace of Christ.
“Same with the way Jesus’ teachings are edited and grouped. We can’t reasonably expect that the Gospels would be a verbatim transcript of every word Jesus uttered, in the order he spoke them, but for all that, the Church maintains that the gospels are an innerrant and infallible record of what Jesus really said and did. Always has.
I think the problem comes with approaching the scriptures with the wrong expectations. Hyper-literalism leads to errant theologies, which in turn lead to either schism or a crisis of faith, in the end.”
Tim, I believe this is dangerous theology and I would be surprised if there were any evidence from the Church Fathers, the magesterium or the Popes to back it up. I believe Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote down the exact words the Holy Spirit inspired them to write, including the verbatim words of our Lord. If the Gospels were some sort of paraphrase, the Protestants would have a good case against the Catholic interpretation of John chapter 6. I believe the exact words Jesus uses in this chapter are critical to our understanding of the Eucharist.
Dan,
I think all he means is that the words recorded are actual words Jesus spoke, but the Holy Spirit took them from various points in Christ’s ministry. In other words, why does Luke record Jesus’ teaching on divorce slightly differently from Matthew’s? Because one gospel records what He said at one time, and another gospel records what He said another time. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Shane-
The apostles were with Jesus for about 3-4 years, and for that reason probably heard parts of his teaching several times, at least. If anyone was in a position to give an accurate paraphrase, it would be them, especially given that any paraphrasing they did would be under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I do believe that the Holy Spirit gave the gospel writers the gift of recalling Jesus words and teachings with great precision.
Certainly there are passages that are rendered verbatim (and the more singular the teaching, the more likely that would be, for instance at the Last Supper) but we needn’t insist that every passge is.
Is it accurate? Inerrant? Infallible? Absolutely. Does that mean “literal” in all cases? I don’t think that is necessary.
I got one word for Mr. Akin: gentleman. At the end of the day, I think you will, perhaps, foster more conversions through your respectful nature than by your words, although, both are powerful.
Thanks for your hard work.
Hey! How ’bout we start promoting the idea of a debate between James White and Father John Corapi?! I’d pay big bucks to see that one. (Anyone know if Fr. Corapi ever debates?)
Whatever Father Corapi is doing, God is using him in a powerful way.
I wouldn’t change a thing. As fun as it would be to watch, I don’t think it would be that productive. The benefits of direct personal debate are, well, debatable.
And, Dan, I am not an apologist, a theologian or a bible scholar by any means. I’m sure open to correction regarding my thoughts on all of Jesus words being verbatim in the bible texts.
One additional objection I might have to that, though, is that it would throw the reliability of any translation into doubt. I don’t think there can ever really be such a thing as a verbatim translation. Languages don’t work that way.
>He was flat wrong. He said that Purgatory is where people make atonement for their sins apart from the grace of Christ.
I reply: It is part of his “any soterology outside of Calvinism is plagian or semi-plagian” mime.
I reply: It is part of his “any soterology outside of Calvinism is plagian or semi-plagian” mime.
That may be true, but saying that purgatory constitutes atonement is flat wrong. There’s no way around that. Purgatory is satisfaction, which is also something that disagrees with his Calvanism. It’s one thing to say satisfaction is Pelagian, it’s another to say Catholicism teaches that Purgatory is atonement. Saying Purgatory is atonement isn’t just saying it’s Pelagian, it’s saying the Church teaches something she doesn’t.
Jimmy,
I think you should refuse to exchange any communications with Mr. White until he is less boastful about his own prowess in debate, and more grown into the stature of Christ Jesus. Besides, you should work on converting Hank Hanegraaff. I hear he’s personally against artificial contraception and has nine kids. He’d make a good Catholic. He’s already a holy and just man. How does the “Catholic Bible Answers Man” sound?
Jon,
Go ahead and email me a copy of Salmon’s book. I don’t think that it will change my mind, but I will read it anyways (and maybe post a couple of blog posts dealing with some of its arguments).
“You know, faith alone is really not my best example of where I think RC’s have problems. I have Akin’s book and I admitted at the time that I didn’t think his view of justification was crazy. I didn’t buy it. But I could sort of see how a rational person might agree with it. ”
In my opinion, the Scholastic formulations of justification are only used by Catholics when they are in their “apologetic” mode. When we aren’t doing polemics with Protestants, we tend to speak of salvation more in terms of the eastern “theosis” approach. That is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to understand Catholic doctrine when you are just arguing against it.
“Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you’re saying here, but it sounds like you believe it is ok for the Catholic to believe the Scriptures may contain error. And that it is ok for the Bible to have errors because we have Sacred Tradition to correct them. Please tell me I am wrong in my interpretation! I believe the Church teaches that this view comes close to heresy.”
I would say that if you always read the Scriptures looking for a surface-level meaning, then you are going to have a lot of problems with consistency and science. However, I do believe that the Scriptures *are* inerrant when you probe into the more “hidden” spiritual meaning of the text. I also would lean more to Jimmy Akin’s description of “truths in tension” rather than a flat out naturalistic reading of the scriptures. Don’t take what I say too seriously though; I haven’t studied the issues that much.
“Besides, you should work on converting Hank Hanegraaff. I hear he’s personally against artificial contraception and has nine kids. He’d make a good Catholic. He’s already a holy and just man. How does the “Catholic Bible Answers Man” sound?”
holy and just?
huh?
http://cultlink.com/ar/darlenemartin.htm
So Hannegraff wants to go after the falsehoods wherever they are and isn’t going to ignore something just because it’s called Christian – what’s wrong with that>
Oh, and the fact we aren’t a hive-mind at Catholic Answers also means that if you say something to Mark or Pat in 1991 that it won’t go into the Borg database and be automatically downloaded into my mind years later.
ROFL
You’re too funny, Jimmy.
“…I do believe that the Scriptures *are* inerrant when you probe into the more “hidden” spiritual meaning of the text.”
Careful, there. While I believe that many passages of scripture contain layers of meaning, none of it is “hidden”, except from the proud.
Gnosticism always overlooks the trees in the never ending search for the forest.
Jon, Ben Y.,
Re: infallibility,
There are two kinds of arguments against ecclesial infallibility, as I understand it. The first is a priori and bases its case on the very problem of infinite recursion noted above. That is, one cannot have a truly infallible authority without it being infallibly recognised and declared to be so, which must be done by another authority to avoid begging the question, but this second authority has the same need for yet another infallible authority to certify it, and so on ad infinitum. (Obviously this is an argument against all claims to infallibility, including that for Scripture.) The second argument against ecclesial infallibility is a posteriori and bases its case on demonstrations of erroneous statements by purportedly infallible Church authorities, e.g., the RCC’s former condemnationn of Galileo’s heliocentricism.
The problem with the first argument is that it confuses certainty with certitude. Certainty involves the objective, guaranteed truthfulness of a proposition or belief. Certitude involves the subjective apprehension of certainty by the rational mind. An authority could have its truthfulness or protection from error guaranteed by God, there is nothing intrinsically impossible in this. However, the human being assessing any such claim for infallibility will, at some point, have to do so with fallible mental processes using evidence and reasons not assuming an infallible authority to begin with. Therefore, all assessment of infallibility is fallible, so that the person’s certitude will be based on “moral certainty” rather than “absolute” certainty. Nevertheless, this does not prove that the authority so assessed does not have objective infallibility, as this is an ontological matter, whereas recognition of infallibility by human agents is an epistemological matter. The secondary argument that since infallibility can not be recognised with absolute confidence, it would be useless, and so God would not have bothered granting it to anything or anybody, is unreasonable. Again, we do not live any part of our lives on 100% certitude, nor do we need to, so the morally certain recognition of infallible authority based on converging lines of evidence is sufficient.
The problem with the second type of argument is that it does not always distinguish properly between what is genuinely infallible and what is not. And, to be fair, even the Church’s theologians have sometimes misidentified as infallible statements which do not infact satisfy the criteria. The cynic could easily reply, “Ah yes, it is infallible till somebody shows its wrong, then we go back and ‘find’ that it was never infallible in the first place. Very convenient!” But the fact is that there have always been a variety of fallible opinions on which Church teachings were completely and finally authoritative, so it is not dishonest revisionism to review positions on what makes the grade as dogma.
As for the Galileo case, there were two inter-related scientific hypotheses condemned: that the Sun is immobile and the centre of the Cosmos and that the Earth moves and rotates. It is fascinating to me that only the first was said to be formally heretical and definitely opposed to Scripture as interpreted by the Fathers. The second was said to be erroneous theologically and philosophically. The reason I find this fascinating is that the first proposition is in fact false. The Sun is not the centre of the Cosmos, but only of our Solar System, and it does move. It orbits within the galaxy. Of course, neither Galileo nor the Holy Office knew this. But it is interesting. Anyway, I doubt that anything coming out of these proceedings could be realistically claimed to have satisfied criteria for infallibility, whether RC or Eastern Orthodox or whatever.
I note that both St. Augustine and St. Jerome believed that Genesis did not describe creation literally but figuratively.
It’s not like we’re pulling this rabbit out of our hats now.
Wow. James White: pwned.
I think Mr White’s problem is that he is the sort of person who cannot concieve of anybody with a brain in their head having a different opinion to him. This is of course consistant with his belief in the perspicuity of scripture. If the meaning of a passage is so obvious, but you have a different interpretation of it, you must either be a moron, or evilly deliberately twisting it to your own end. Not that this attitude is limited to his brand of Calvinist protestant, they exist in every group. Just like how Catholics encouter that kind of radical traditionalist that cannot concieve that any orthodox Catholic could even possibly think about attending a non-latin mass.
This inability to step into anyone else’s shoes I think is a severe disability in these kind of intellectual exchanges, Mr White, on the other hand, seems to think it is some kind of advantage.
Funny, I just heard Acts 8:30-31 today;
“Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “HOW CAN I,” he said, “UNLESS SOMEONE EXPLAINS IT TO ME?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”.
So, is this in the Bible accidentally? If the scriptures are self-interpreting, why did this Ethiopian need help to understand it?
Again, if the scriptures are self-interpreting, why do so many people get their meaning so WRONG? From David Koresh to J.D. Crossan… there are 1000 ways to go wrong, and somewhere, right now, someone is inventing a new religion based on their understanding of the BIBLE ALONE.
Shouldn’t Mr. White be heeding St.Paul’s words to Timothy : “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth…” (2 Tim 2:23-25).
I’m not saying that Jimmy’s arguments are foolish or stupid, but if Mr. White believes they are, then– as a firm believer in the principle of Sola Scriptura-, he should not be addressing them in the first place!
(Of course, as Catholics, we have a a long tradition of arguing apologetically, so that’s OK 🙂 )
If he thinks the arguments have some merit but somehow misleading, he should still try to ‘be kind’, ‘gently instruct’ and not be ‘resentful’. That has not been seen in any of his posts.
So bizarre…
“See, if the Catholics put out a claim or argument, it is our job to obtain their materials and respond thereto. If we refute their claims, we are supposed to call them at home to do their research for them. Just amazing.”
Um, no. It isn’t White’s “job” to obtain CA materials and respond to them, unless he considers their arguments sufficiently representative and valid to justify a response. That’s what’s so odd about this whole thing. CA obviously doesn’t consider White’s arguments even a blip on the radar, and they are acting like it. Indeed, it seems to me that early in the ministry, CA almost exclusive focused on people who presented ridiculous arguments with a veneer of respectability. I would think that most people would take this as a sign that they ought to improve the quality of their own presentation to the level that it would be seen as something other than comical, which is precisely how all of the online Catholics of my acquaintance view White. If your goal is to present yourself as an adversary to an organization, and the entire organization considers you so laughable as to be beneath their notice, then that doesn’t sound like one’s arguments are actually hitting home.
I wish you had time to put out books (perhaps collections of articles?) on all the things you touch on here, in the magazine, and on the program. I’ve read two books of yours and your clarity is appreciated.
The latest installment from James White in this never-ending saga can be found here:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1404
Here’s one sentence that caught my eye:
“Every time Jimmy Akin and I trade blog articles I throw my hands up in frustration before long realizing that there is nothing that can be said that cannot be parsed into oblivion if someone is willing to go to such lengths.”
Is Dr. White talking about Jimmy parsing his (Dr. White’s) quotes into oblivion, or about Dr. White parsing Jimmy’s quotes into oblivion? This quote could be taken either way. 🙂
“Every time Jimmy Akin and I trade blog articles I throw my hands up in frustration before long realizing that there is nothing that can be said that cannot be parsed into oblivion if someone is willing to go to such lengths.”
Is Dr. White talking about Jimmy parsing his (Dr. White’s) quotes into oblivion, or about Dr. White parsing Jimmy’s quotes into oblivion? This quote could be taken either way. 🙂
That quote caught my eye as well, but I beg to differ Paul H., with you and Dr. White. To take White first, it’s entirely the purpose of “parsing a quote” to make clear the message conveyed in said quote. Doing biblical exegesis invovles lots of parsing of the scriptures. And if you’re actually parsing a sentence correctly, it’s silly to say it can be parsed into oblivion. Jimmy has successfully, it appears to me, parsed James Whites statements — making plain the subtle and unsavory tactics White (perhaps even unintentionally) uses in dialogue.
James White, on the other hand, has too often failed to parse Jimmy’s statements. He’s even, repeatedly, expressed confusion and incredulity at a number of Jimmy’s comments, as well as downright refusing to accept direct, painfully clear statements at their word (i,e., “my first post wasn’t a response to you” kinda statements). James has done not nearly enough parsing in this series of exchanges.
“parse into oblivion” … just sounds like a complete oxymoron to me.
Hi Adam,
I actually agree to a very large extent with what you said above, so no need to beg to differ with me. 🙂
Dear Jimmy,
I been engaging in a public discourse with Laurence O’ Donnell III at laurenceo.com regarding John Chapter 6
He is running fast and hard. He does like quote James White.
I have attached my blogging because he will not publish my responses. I have engaged a few of his buddies
Catholic Joe
Dear Reformed Blogger,
Your blogging-mate laurenceo.com (the Lo-down) Laurence O’ Donnell III does not have the stomach for a real public debate over the Gospel of St. John. He has run as fast as Barry Bonds from a steroid test. I have attached our entire conversation
Laurence talks big publicly, with phrases like:
• Dr. James White is correct: Christians who take a bold stand against Roman Catholicism’s heresies are ostracized by evangelicals who have seemed to embrace Catholics as true brothers in Christ. And Dr. White seems to be one of the few Christians who will stand against Roman Catholicism in the public forum:
• Let’s be real clear here. Al Mohler was right in 2000. Rome is a false church.
• When will more Christian leaders stand up for truth and boldly proclaim God’s Word in love to Roman Catholics, who if they believe their own doctrinal statements, they do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Two big insults to 1.1 billion people, then a big chest thumping statement about boldly proclaiming Christ’s love for all mankind. I begged to differ with Laurence O’ Donnell III in a debate about his positions, he then responded in half truths. Then Laurence O’ Donnell III refuses to publicly to back up his statements of half truths. Laurence O’Donnell III hides behind this line, “I tried to email you privately….” What about boldly proclaiming God’s Word in love to Roman Catholics? Is Laurence O’ Donnell III scared of the Gospel? Here is your big chance!
So Reformed Blogger, encourage ol’ “Spaghetti Leg’s” O’Donnell get his back off the mat and get back into the fight! Help him out, send him some powerful testimony by old baldy himself Dr. James White or pour through all your books, to help Laurence O’Donnell III be able to go to sleep to night.
Define, defend, explain and boldly proclaim Christ’s own words in St. John’s Gospel Chapter 6.
Catholic Joe
Can’t Christians Clearly Call Roman Catholicism a False Gospel?
laurenceo.com
By Laurence O’ Donnell III
With all of the hubbub around the old Pope’s death and the new Pope’s installment, it seems like many “Christians” (whatever that means today) are falling prey to the lies of universalism and plurality that are devouring our postmodern age.
Dr. James White is correct: Christians who take a bold stand against Roman Catholicism’s heresies are ostracized by evangelicals who have seemed to embrace Catholics as true brothers in Christ. And Dr. White seems to be one of the few Christians who will stand against Roman Catholicism in the public forum:
Let’s be real clear here. Al Mohler was right in 2000. Rome is a false church. Why? Because Christ’s Church is subject to Christ’s Word, and Rome is not. Because Christ’s Church presents Christ’s gospel, and Rome does not. And Rome’s gospel cannot save because it tears the very heart out of the gospel and replaces it with a semi-Pelagian treadmill of sacramental forgiveness—or, in lots of places in the world today, has dumped that for an inclusivistic/universalistic mishmash of New Age philosophy and post-modernism that would make Pope Pius IX spit nails. In any case, the gospel of grace has been anathematized by Rome—and thrown under the bus by pseudo-evangelicals, but it remains the only power of God unto salvation.
Speaking of Dr. Al Mohler (another of the few Christian leaders who stand against Rome’s gospel), he has recently pointed out that the strange, new situation true Christians now find themselves in is that they have more in common with the new Pope on many social and theological issues than they do with liberal evangelicals (i.e. Rome’s stand on homosexuality vs. the Episcopalian stand, etc.):
One of the strange dimensions of this entire picture is the fact that evangelicals, concerned with the preservation of biblical truth and determined to defend biblical morality, will share much common ground with this new pope.
When will more Christian leaders stand up for truth and boldly proclaim God’s Word in love to Roman Catholics, who if they believe their own doctrinal statements, they do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. (1 Corinthians 15:1-10 ESV)
________________________________________
4 Responses to “Can’t Christians Clearly Call Roman Catholicism a False Gospel?”
Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
1. 1 Catholic Joe Jun 16th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
The Truth is Laurence, Catholics wrote the Gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They canonized it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they published it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they spread it upon the behalf of the Holy Spirit, they preached it under the direction of the Holy Spirit. and they live it under the authority of the Holy Spirit.
Laurence how could it be that Holy Spirit would allow a church to exist and grow and evangalize the world, since Jesus instituted the Catholic Church at Pentacost some 2,000 years ago, if it was a false church until the 16th -17 th Century Reformation? Tell me then why the churches(Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and the assortment of Calvinist movements) started by the reformers, continue to shrivel on the vine and spiral into theolological and moral maddness of 33,000 versions(current number of protestant denominations) of what the Gospel is supposed to mean?
So Laurence, I am asking you as a Christian to take Jesus into your body and soul, live out His plan for you. Join the The Holy Roman Catholic Church and see what John Chapter 6 is all about and “Live”
God bless you
Catholic Joe
2. 2 Laurence O Jun 17th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Hi Joe,
Again, thank you for sharing your perspective. It is nice to know there are some readers of this blog outside of my own tradition.
The Truth is Laurence, Catholics wrote the Gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They canonized it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they published it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they spread it upon the behalf of the Holy Spirit, they preached it under the direction of the Holy Spirit. and they live it under the authority of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps you would be surprised at how much I would agree with your summation of church history, though I would add at least one thought: To use the phrase “Catholics wrote the Gospel” can be somewhat misleading to modern readers who do not realize that there was no Catholic/Protestant distinction in the early centuries of the church. Without this understanding, modern readers can be misled to think that the modern day Roman Catholic church is the same as the first century church, which is a conclusion no one could swallow (not even honest Roman Catholics) without denying the last 2,000 of developments in both Roman Catholic and Protestant church histories.
Laurence how could it be that Holy Spirit would allow a church to exist and grow and evangalize the world, since Jesus instituted the Catholic Church at Pentacost some 2,000 years ago, if it was a false church until the 16th -17 th Century Reformation? Tell me then why the churches(Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and the assortment of Calvinist movements) started by the reformers, continue to shrivel on the vine and spiral into theolological and moral maddness of 33,000 versions(current number of protestant denominations) of what the Gospel is supposed to mean?
To follow this argument I would have to grant that the “Catholic Church” has not undergone any changes since Pentecost. Isn’t the whole point of the Protestant Reformation that the RCC “crossed the line,” so to speak, from what the Scriptures actually taught (i.e. selling forgiveness of sins through indulgences, etc.)?
Even if you disagree with the Reformation, you still would have to admit that the RCC today is not the same as it was at Pentecost. It has undergone 2,000 years worth of its own sects, theological developments, changes in polity, etc. For example, what about all the changes instituted by church councils (i.e. Vatican I and Vatican II and all the councils before). What of the split between Rome and Constantinople? What about all of the variations withing Catholicism today (i.e. charismatic Catholics believe very differently than non-charismatic, some Catholics call themselves “Reformed Catholics,” etc.).
Moreover, to make an argument that God would not allow His true church to apostatize has two additional difficulties.
First, such an argument ignores multiple passages in the Scriptures which warn the church strongly about turning from the Gospel. Take the book of Hebrews as a whole, for example, or just focus on its specific warning passages (in chs. 6 and 10, for example). Look at St. John’s words to the 7 churches at the beginning of the book of Revelation. And what of the constant call of God in the Old Testament for Israel to not turn away from following the Lord? Read the prophet Micah, for example, or any of the works of Moses, or the opening of the book of Joshua. I could go on and on with examples (i.e. what about Jesus’ warnings about false teachers in the church who would operate like wolves in sheep’s clothing). Even the Scriptures as a whole operate as a constant call to God’s people to realign themselves with the truth and to flee error.
Second, such an argument misappropriates God’s providence by supposing that God does not allow theological error to happen. You mention 33,000 “versions” of Protestants (though that point could be strongly debated) but fail to mention all of the sects within Catholicism. Also you are not allowing the the possibility that among these 33,000 “versions,” some have strayed from the Gospel of Christ.
So Laurence, I am asking you as a Christian to take Jesus into your body and soul, live out His plan for you. Join the The Holy Roman Catholic Church and see what John Chapter 6 is all about and “Live”
From this statement here and your other comment it appears your linchpin is the bread of life passage in John 6. So Joe, I will ask you, like you asked me, to “take Jesus into your body and soul” in the manner He so intended: Spiritual union with Christ. If Jesus intended his disciples to physically eat his flesh, He himself would be violating the law of God (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26-27; Leviticus 17:10-14; Deuteronomy 12:23-24). If Jesus intended literal eating of His flesh, why would He not be consistent and require the same thing in other passages where He talks about His union with His people, such as the vine and branches in John 15? Why would the Apostle Paul describe the mystical union with Christ as even beyond the union between a husband and a wife in Ephesians 5:32?
So, my friend, I ask you to read afresh God’s Word and see the divine union with Christ (Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 1:3-14) by which God brings salvation to His people through Jesus Christ.
3. 3 Catholic Joe Jun 17th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Laurence, do you realize for whom you are named after? St. Laurence the Deacon of Rome. I suggest that you do a little research on St. Laurence and find out how a Catholic Christian lived and died in the early church.
Laurence you made a very bold and prideful statement lacking in Christian charity,
“Al Mohler was right in 2000. Rome is a false church. Why? Because Christ’s Church is subject to Christ’s Word, and Rome is not. Because Christ’s Church presents Christ’s gospel, and Rome does not.”
So I ask you again how does again, ” How does the “False Church” continue in existence after 2,000 years If the Holy Spirit is not in support of it? The number of baptized Catholics in 1979 was around 750 million, last count taken in 2004 that number grew to 1.1 billion. So in 25 years the Church grew by 350 million members! So by your conclusion 350 million people were seduced into apostasy? Come on! You are really stretching it Laurence.
You make the claim that Catholic Church has changed therefore is untrustworthy. Need I remind you of Peter’s walk with Christ that grew in love for the Lord? Was he not a Christian when first called by Christ? Or was he an apostate (backslider) because he was not born again? Ok so to follow your logic. The endless revisions of doctrine within the Calvinistic Churches are to be trusted, and the one version anyone should listen to is Laurence’s version right? So I say to you, “By what authority!” Are you now the self-appointed Pope of the Church of Laurence? You would say something like, “By the word (bible) of God!”, I say back, “How can that be since the False Catholic Church gave you the book!”
You say because of different movements within the Church, you proclaim it as sign of apostasy, yet Jesus Christ selected his twelve apostles, each one with a different talents, strengths, personalities and weaknesses yet they were all at the “Lords Table”. But soon after calls St. Paul to be His next Apostle and take the Catholic Church around the world!
Laurence, what denomination do you belong to? Tell me when it was first created and whom was it started by? Why was it started in the first place? What new denominations have split away from it and why did they split? Where any of them accused of being “False”? And if none of them were false then why did they break away in the first place. But then again if you are a member of a non-denominational evangelical “health and wealth” one location church then that is a completely different story.
“The Bread of Life Discourse” From the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 6 35-66
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.” The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.
You say that John Chapter 6 is the linchpin to my argument. I say “John Chapter 6 is the linchpin to Christ argument!
Here is an excerpt for you to rest your heart on
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
Become subject to Christ Word, Laurence.
Pretty clear if you ask me? So how does a “Sola Scriptura” fundamental Christian reconcile this statement of Christ? By the way, no where in the bible does it say by scripture alone. How do you live out this passage? Or is it false or maybe a metaphor?”
In the Catholic Scripture Group I attend 75% are former Protestants. This is always the reason they point to for becoming Catholics, the Body and Blood of Christ.
Catholic Joe
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
4. 4 Catholic Joe Jun 17th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Round Two
Laurence,
Your reference regarding “the blood” in your Old Testament references are a good try, however fall short of the truth. You are basically saying that Christ should be compared to a strangled animal. (Acts 15: 20, 29)
However why don’t we look at Hebrews 9: 5- 14
“how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.”
Sounds pretty Catholic to me Laurence.
Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the place of expiation. Now is not the time to speak of these in detail. With these arrangements for worship, the priests, in performing their service, go into the outer tabernacle repeatedly, but the high priest alone goes into the inner one once a year, not without blood that he offers for himself and for the sins of the people. In this way the holy Spirit shows that the way into the sanctuary had not yet been revealed while the outer tabernacle still had its place. This is a symbol of the present time, in which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the worshiper in conscience but only in matters of food and drink and various ritual washings: regulations concerning the flesh, imposed until the time of the new order. But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer’s ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.
Your comments regarding the “True Vine” are a absolutely perfect point to reference. I could not agree with you more. In order to attach to the vine so to say, you must partake of the Eucharist. In Marks “Last Supper” account or should I say Mass. Sheds significant Light on the importance of the “Bread of Life Discourse”.
Mark 14:25 25
Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Your reference to Ephesians 5:32 I’ll add 5:31
“For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.
You have stumbled upon a great truth regarding the Catholic Church. The Church identifies itself as the “Bride of Christ” completely intertwined with each other.
Amen brother, everyday! (Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 1:3-14)
Laurence you said,
“Isn’t the whole point of the Protestant Reformation that the RCC “crossed the line,” so to speak, from what the Scriptures actually taught (i.e. selling forgiveness of sins through indulgences, etc.)?”
You mean to tell me that the reformation started because of indulgences? Do you know what an indulgence is? Most likely not.
The short course on indulgences.
Pope Paul VI said: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints”
Or more simply as, “An indulgence is what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal (lasting only for a short time) penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven.”
Were is that in scripture?
“Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool” (Is. 1:18). This idea of guilt clinging to our souls appears in texts that picture forgiveness as a cleansing or washing and the state of our forgiven souls as clean and white (Ps. 51:4, 9).
“I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless” (Is. 13:11). Judgment pertains even to the smallest sins: “For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Eccl. 12:14). When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:
“Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’” (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)
Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.
Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains. after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).
From Catholic Answer’s
The heart of the protestant reformation is politics, without politics Henry VIII, Luther and Calvin: would just be just another English monarch, a forgotten Catholic Priest and a disgruntled former Catholic Seminarian. The Catholic Church currently has more members attending Mass than the Anglican’s attending Sunday Church services in Great Britain, Where are the Presbyterians in Europe? The Lutheran Church in Germany is on life support. So much for the “European Christian Protestant Enlightenment!”
Orthodox and Catholic Reunification is a work in progress, currently the Latin Church has reunified with 24 separate eastern Churches which are now in union with the Holy Father in Rome.
Laurence in regards to your list of scripture passages regarding the “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothes” I could use every one of them in reverse, “Like a thief in the night”, comes to mind.
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
John 6:60-67
As you can see in Christ own words the Eucharist is not for everybody.
I will leave you with this prayer.
Soul of Christ (Anima Christi)
Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me.
Within Thy wounds hide me.
Separated from Thee let me never be.
From the malignant enemy, defend me.
At the hour of death, call me.
And close to Thee bid me.
That with Thy saints I may be
Praising Thee, forever and ever. Amen.
St. Ignatius of Loyola
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
5. 5 Laurence O Jun 19th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Dear “Joe,”
Thank you for your two followup comments. I tried to e-mail you at the e-mail address you provided, but it bounced back with an error.
Please use the “contact me” form to shoot me an e-mail, and I’ll forward you my reply.
sincerely,
LO
“Dr. James White is correct: Christians who take a bold stand against Roman Catholicism’s heresies are ostracized by evangelicals who have seemed to embrace Catholics as true brothers in Christ.”
And he is equally wrong about the reason for such ostracism, which is primarily that they know the subject matter a great deal better than he. At least those evangelicals have the grace to admit where the historical record has proved them wrong.
Catholic Joe,
Here is another Protestant’s view of John 6 with some views you may not have read before.
John, the arguements on that site are very weak and extremely problematic. One of the strongest arguements Catholics present for the Eucharist is that in John chapter 6, Christ does not correct his desciples when they interpret Him to be speaking literally. The arguement against it is relies on two errors: it is a circular arguement, and it is an arguement made from silence. The author says that the people could not have been walking away for fear He was speaking literally because He was not speaking literally; that is circular. He then says that if He had been, He would have eased their fears by saying something else; this is an arguement from silence.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize not only that Jesus did not correct the desciples, but that after they voice their concerns, He uses an even stronger word for eating than He had before, switching from phago, which could be interpreted symbolically, to trogo which literally means ‘chew.’ The page fails to address this.
The author also claims that there was no concern at the Last Supper that any piece should fall to the ground, however this too is an arguement from silence. He says this pratice developed in later times. However, Tertullian wrote shortly after 200 that this was in practice. This is the third generation after Christ, and the second after the apostles. If in fact this practice developed mistakenly, it developed at most two generations after the apostles themselves. This would mean that the apostles taught one generation that the communion wsa symbolic, then these people taught another set of people, and then by the time they taught the next set of people, the belief had completely been reversed and the Eucharist was believed to be Christ’s Body. This is historically absurd.
Shane,
You honestly believe that they walked away because they believed Jesus wanted them to literally start chewing on Him and drinking His blood? Has anyone ever done what you are suggesting they believed Jesus was telling them to do? The answer from history is a resounding no. Even you wouldn’t do what you believe they were imagining. No Catholic ever has.
Shane! James White’s just challenged you on his blog, to phone in to his webcast Thursday.
Note on the Dividing Line / Liberty Debate Issues
It must be because you’ve taken up the gauntlet thrown by Brian to offer specific (though maybe not as specific as Brian was asking for, judging from his last post) criticisms of White’s public debates. Quoteth White: “I especially liked the one about how I allegedly try to make Roman Catholic apologists look bad by pronouncing Greek words differently than they do. I had not heard
that one before.”
So, eh … what do you make of that?
I’d say someone should call on his DL just to tell him to shut up. Likewise, I exhort all the readers from White’s site to tell him to get a hold of it. How facetious is it for White to write endless posts about how “fed up” he is only to then invite all of Jimmy’s readers to call in to his show! What is worse, it is not even a genuine invitation!
The contrast in styles and approaches at this point could not be any clearer. While White continues to force the issue about how much he is wasting his time, Jimmy has no need to address these customary rants from White (perhaps this is indicative of the tacit sense of insecurity that the reader detects in White). For me, this has been a timely lesson in good taste and why White, among other things, has none.
Here is a brief capsule of what this “debate” has been about, the model of which is provided by White himself in his citation of the definition of Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html):
Jimmy: “I believe that the example of the Korban Rule does not exclude the possibility of divine, authoritative tradition.”
James: “Bah! Of course you would say that, you’re a Catholic Answers apologist.”
Jimmy: “Wait – what happened to my reader? I wasn’t even talking to you, but ok, what about the arguments I have to support my position?”
James: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a Catholic Answers apologist so you have to say that about the Korban Rule. By nature, Catholic Answers apologists don’t read and listen to every word that comes from my mouth and therefore they are both wrong and ignorant. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”
Unfortunately Mr. White took the one section of my post that could be taken out of context and cited it in his post.
<<>>
In that case, you should have no problem affirming that Mary is in fact a god, and not only that, but also Queen of the gods!
Gojira.
“we tend to speak of salvation more in terms of the eastern “theosis” approach.”
In that case, you should have no problem affirming that Mary is in fact a god, and not only that, but also Queen of the gods!
Gojira, LOL!(You were *intending* to be humerous, right?)
White’s challenge to Shane brings up another point I wanted to make. Some here think his lack of a comments section on his blog shows that he is unwilling to interact and defend his claims. But how can that be when he does a web radio show that anybody can call? And you can totally ambush him. He doesn’t know what you’re going to say, so he’s really putting himself at a disadvantage. I think you have to give him credit for that.
Of course I also give Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin credit as well because they do the same thing.
So give him a call. That’s what I do. I called him about inerrancy. He took my call and even allowed the show to run long so I could express myself a little more. You can hardly complain about that. Give him a call. What’s the worst that could happen?
Mr Akin; It’s no wonder you don’t want to debate White, He won’t let you get away with the kind of cheap shots while pretending to take the high road.
“I could have saved myself a lot of trouble by simply deleting your name from the question I was asked (e.g., “Why do some Protestant apologists make such a big deal about it”).”
Exactly; but you didn’t did you? If you were answering a question like that in a live format your qualifier would have had more force, but in answering it the way you did, with no preasure or time constraints, you had the resonsibility to do the reaserch or do what you freely admit would have been easy for you to do; answer a question that was not being asked. Your current responses look like damage control. You are as guilty as the ones you complain about in using ad hominem. dividing your posts does nothing to aleviate, or somehow excuse you for that. You should stop obfuscating and just debate White. You look like you’re afraid to.
“Your current responses look like damage control. You are as guilty as the ones you complain about in using ad hominem. dividing your posts does nothing to aleviate, or somehow excuse you for that. You should stop obfuscating and just debate White. You look like you’re afraid to.”
Amazing. Simply amazing.
😉
Darn, my “Amazing” statement above was supposed to have HTML-like “sarcasm” tags around it, but they got stripped out. Let’s try this again, with square brackets instead of triangle brackets:
“Your current responses look like damage control. You are as guilty as the ones you complain about in using ad hominem. dividing your posts does nothing to aleviate, or somehow excuse you for that. You should stop obfuscating and just debate White. You look like you’re afraid to.”
[sarcasm]
Amazing. Simply amazing.
[/sarcasm]
😉
So you agree then Paul
So how does devoting an entire post to ad hominem not make Jimmy a hypocrite for complaining about it in others?
The main reason Mr Akin will not debate Mr White is his supposed use of ad hominem, but then he does the very same thing so I suppose Mr Akin should not expect any one to take him seriously.
GregMcR: You posted 4 times, accusing Jimmy of being a hypocrite, yet failed to offer even one example of same. If you are going to make accusations, you should cite some evidence.
So how does devoting an entire post to ad hominem not make Jimmy a hypocrite for complaining about it in others?
It’s really quite simple, Greg. In a conversation about manners and etiquette, especially in a direct rebuke to someone, you are necessarily talking ‘ad hominem’ or ‘to the person.’ It is thus not a detracting tactic, in addressing someobody and criticizing their manners, to make your comments about that person. It’s necessary, as the person is the very subject of duscussion.
But the term ‘ad hominem’ isn’t used in this sense. It’s used when references ‘to the person’ are a distraction from the actual subject under discussion. In his discussion of Korban and Sola Scriptura, Jimmy used no ad hominem (distracting, belittling references to his opponent, as opposed to his opponent’s argument).
James White’s discussion of Korban and Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, involve constant reference to Jimmy, i.e., putting Jimmy in a bad light as an inept apologist, when the subject at hand was Jimmy’s arguments — not his apologetical professionalism.
This is why, in this series of exchanges, Jimmy has not been hipocritical. His discussion of James White and his behavior was a distinct discussion altogether from the other. And it was not a “hit piece” as James White calls it. It reads to me, rather, much more like an invitation to re-appraise his (White’s) arguing style so that any further interaction on the subject of Korban and Sola Scriptura may be more profitable and polite for everyone concerned. James White turned down this offer.
It seems clear enough. When you accuse someone of ad hominem and then devote an entire post to doing just that, then that is hypocritical. Mr Akin accused Mr White of using ad hominem argumentation and when it was clearly demonstrated that Mr White did no such thing; then Mr Akin broadened the definition of ad hominem so he would not appear to have egg on his face by having to admit he was confused about what constitutes an ad hominem argument. Only problem with doing that is that it also clearly places the majority of Mr Akin’s personal observations about Mr White in the same category. So…… Which is it going to be???? Either Mr Akin owes Mr White an apology for misrepresenting and falsely accusing him; or he owes the world an apology for being hypocritical.
Greg, you are just mistaken about what constitutes ad hominem, It is a tactic to distract from a subject. Jimmy used a post to chastise Jame White. That’s not ad hominem. It is a discussion ‘to the person’ but not a discussion distracting from something else … the subject at hand was the person — James White. So it can’t be called a distracting, ad hominem argument. It can be called uncomfortable, mean-spirited, or any number of things (I happen to think it was a well done, gentemanly rebuke, that unfortunately used a few unnecessarily strong words) but it can’t be called ‘ad hominem.’ It just doesn’t fit in the category.
And then, seperately, Jimmy addressed White’s Arguments. That discussion gave White’s arguments all their due credit by not introducing any argument about White’s character. Thus, there was no ‘ad hominem’ distracting going on.
Did you read my first response?
Your first response was very clear, Adam. You explained things very well.
“Gojira, LOL!(You were *intending* to be humerous, right?)”
Then you either disagree with “theosis” or you have no problem calling Mary what Theosis teaches. But no, I was not trying to be humorous in light of the fact that Theosis is taught even within the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So I ask again, inlight of Theosis, you should have no problem at all calling Mary a god or even queen of the gods. Or would you say that the Catechism is wrong?
I can’t seem to find the word “Theosis” in my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Perhaps you could point to a paragraph or two which mention the term.
“Greg, you are just mistaken about what constitutes ad hominem, It is a tactic to distract from a subject”
I don’t think you are correctly defining ad hominem. I see no mention of distraction in the definition cited below. It is simply a logically fallacious argument and one that has not been demonstrated by either you or Mr Akin that James White has used. Separating the two posts as Mr Akin did does nothing to alleviate the fact that if Mr Akin applies his own standards to himself he fails.
“An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).” http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Either show us where Mr White used this style of argumentation or else hold your friend to the same standard he uses for others. That’s not too hard is it?
Adam, you were clear. You already offered the evidence he is asking for. He just refuses to see it.
Gojira,
Then I guess Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, was worshipping Mary as a god when she hailed her as the ‘mother of my Lord’, right?
Non-Catholics should stop trying to use the Church’s own teachs against Her, Because it will only blow up in their faces.
Bill, thanks for the support. But I’ll still take up this further challenge from Greg, though.
Greg, a book definition doesn’t have to use the word “distracting” for that still to be an accurate descriptor. In fact, it’s a fine description for an ad hominem argument. Just re-read the definition you provided:
First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
That sounds an awful lot to me like providing a distraction.
But the bigger issue is this (and your post here echoes James White’s retort to Jimmy and his offering of a definition of ‘ad-hominem’). You’ve provided a definition that’s part of what appears to be a page devoted to formal logic. While formal logic is great, we simply aren’t here exercising such a rigorous exercise as to limit ourselves to the strict rules and definitions of formal logic and its strict definitions of terms.
We’re just using plain language. In that respect, Jimmy very sensibly linked to a definition from Webster’s. The definition found therein, as Jimmy already discussed well enough, gives the plain language usage of ad hominem that he, and I and most other people use in our everyday speaking — if the word’s part of our vocabularies.
Above, you referenced Jimmy’s definition saying “Mr Akin broadened the definition of ad hominem so he would not appear to have egg on his face by having to admit he was confused about what constitutes an ad hominem argument.”
But from where do you get the idea that he broadened his understanding of the word? It’s a respectible dictionary’s definition of a word! It’s more likely to me (as it’s the case with myself) that Jimmy actually uses the term in the way that he finds it defined in Webster’s. There’s no need to attribute any strange motivations here. We (Jimmy and I both) are just using a reputable dictionary’s plain-language definion of a word.
In this light, with this understanding of ‘ad hominem’ everthing else I posted in response to you stands.
Mary is Theotokos …. that appears in the Catechism.
Theosis does not. It’s more of a theology developed in the eastern Churches, as noted above, though not foreign in substance to teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Theosis is a theology that I wish the Roman Catholic Church would formally embrace and elaborate on, if only because it can be a bit of a fumbling mess for a layman to try to describe and defend. Plus I’ve never seen a formulation of what it is all about that left me confident in what it was saying, why it was saying it, and how it said it. Though I love Athanasius’s quote: “The Son of God became man, that we might become God.”
I think one thing that Gojira is confusing though in teachings surrounding theosis is that the substance of the teaching is unity with God in purpose/intent/energy … not some kind of assumption of our substance into the Godhead (that would be contradictory to the basic Christian definition of God – that God is one and whole and perfect). It’s one of those things you have a definite feel for once you accept the notion of Sacraments and infused grace but has always been difficult for me, personally, to elaborate upon when talking strictly about theosis.
RE: Shane and James White
Today, White wrote the following:
“Then, in response to the invitation/challenge I posted last night, “Shane,” who had posted a number of things about me on Jimmy Akin’s blog, had the courage to call in, so we talked the last twenty some odd minutes of the program.”
Typical of White. Colorful descriptions are included in his writings to disparage those of whom he speaks. Here, Shane finally had the “courage” to call White’s program — a whole day after White issued his challenge! Oh, the bravery…
Or to quote Paul H’s plagiarism of White: Amazing. Simply Amazing.
😉
“When you accuse someone of ad hominem and then devote an entire post to doing just that, then that is hypocritical.”
Take a logic class. When you use irrelevant ad hominem to obfuscate the subject, that’s an entirely different thing from the subject of the discussion actually being the person’s conduct. Jimmy’s position was entirely consistent. Jimmy wrote a substantive response; White introduced irrelevant responses ad hominem; Jimmy then responded separately to them in order to avoid the confusion that White himself created. Now it’s somehow Jimmy’s fault because White created the confusion in the first place?
How unsurprising! A White sycophant employs the same techniques of obfuscation. You’ve learned well from the master, Greg, which is to say that you are just as poor a logician as he is.
“Mr Akin broadened the definition of ad hominem so he would not appear to have egg on his face by having to admit he was confused about what constitutes an ad hominem argument.”
His definition was entirely valid. White was the one trying to dance around the issue that he had first introduced the ad hominem line for no reason whatsoever; he was the one misrepresenting the situation in order to avoid having to admit his fault. No reasonable person could take Jimmy’s direct statement that he NOT addressing James White’s arguments directly as anything other than honest. That’s why Jimmy shouldn’t have needed to remove White’s name, but that would assume that White is reasonable, which he obviously isn’t.
Nor are you reasonable. You are entirely incapable of seeing that White is blatantly wrong here and that he is putting on a show for sycophants like yourself who haven’t the motivation to evaluate him critically. You must have quite a taste for snake oil, because you sure can swallow a lot of it.
Does calling me names make you feel like a big man JP?
Quit making an “ass” of your self Greg. You’re only digging yourself in deeper.
One poster wants me to avoid the use of formal logic the other tells me I should “take a logic class” where I would no doubt learn that ad hominem argumentation has a technical definition.
Is this one of those good cop bad cop things?
More name calling. Wow you guys are true ambassadors of Catholicism.
Explain to me how what you just described is ad homenem argumentation, and then I might accept it as valid.
More name calling. Wow you guys are true ambassadors of Catholicism.
There you go again, playing the victim card.
Adam. You and I use plain language but scholars and professors use technical language especially when addressing one another. Mr Akin can’t have it both ways. Either he uses the technically definition of Ad Hominem argumentation in which case he was wrong and needs to apologize. Or he used a much looser definition of Ad Hominem argumentation which turns out to be self incriminating. Mr Akin seems to think that dividing his personal attacks on Mr White from his other response somehow makes it OK to engage in the same tactics he finds so objectionable in Mr White.
Thanks for being the good cop Adam.
Please don’t feed trolls and flamers.
I’m not clear exactly what you mean Inquisitor. You will have to ask Mr Akin for his definition of ad hominem. I was simply giving a sarcastic response to the personal remarks made to me and about me, my character, and motivations by individuals who do not know me.
It’s time for bed. Say good night John Boy.
For Bill912
“I can’t seem to find the word “Theosis” in my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Perhaps you could point to a paragraph or two which mention the term.”
460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:”For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
Gojira
“Then I guess Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, was worshipping Mary as a god when she hailed her as the ‘mother of my Lord’, right?”
If the teachings of the CCC are accurate, you should have no problem affirming that, at least in part.
Gojira
Gojira, the Catechism is quoting from 2 Peter 1:4
“Gojira, the Catechism is quoting from 2 Peter 1:4”
Yes, I am very much aware of what scriptures are used to support theosis.
I am also aware that you should have no problem affirming this about Mary. After all, the Catechism does state: “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
All of this being the case, you should have no trouble at all affirming that Mary is both a god and Queen of the gods. That would, of course, come under the definition of theosis.
Or would you say that the Cathchism is wrong?
Greg,
When you call some of us ‘bad cops’, it sounds like you yourself are engaging in name-calling.
Gojira,
You have to understand that in the Catechism, as in the Bible, when it is mentioned that God wills that we should become like Him, it means to become perfect as He is perfect, not to become ‘gods’.
Greg, I’m sorry about the name calling. About playing the good cop, you’re welcome. I wish we’d all play good cop. This is, anyhow, my last post to you. This thread is getting so long!
Greg, maybe you just haven’t studied much formal logic. All of us use logic, and I use logic and so does Jonathan Prejean (as well as he uses some name-calling — which is uncommon for his posts. You musta’ really irked him, Greg). But none of us are speaking in formal logic. It entals formulating all of one’s statements into syllogisms … really mechanical stuff and nearly unreadable to most people, when it gets very sophisticated. There’s no contradiction between accepting, and even favoring plain language (used logically) over formal logic.
So we can too have it both ways. We’re not talking in formal logic, Jimmy appropriately works from a plain-language definition of ‘ad hominem’ and it probably would be good for you to take a course in logic.
Gojira,
Is your name the original name of Godzilla?
Paragraph #460 of the CCC links to #1265, #1391 and #1988 for clarification.
Also paragraph 654 gives a nice summary: The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God’s grace, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”526 Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace.527 It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ’s brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: “Go and tell my brethren.”528 We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.
Because the Church is the Bride of Christ and the two have become one flesh we are members of the Mystical Body of Christ and partakers in the divine nature.
And you of course have no problem calling our Blessed Mother, as the Bible confirms, Blessed Mary right?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“as well as he uses some name-calling — which is uncommon for his posts. You musta’ really irked him, Greg”
What irks me is that it has extended to flat-out lying about Jimmy. I do not take kindly to the slander of decent men. You can say whatever nasty thing you like about this sinner, but I don’t have any qualms about calling out people who lie about others. Also, I don’t consider the use of the term “sycophant” to be “name-calling;” it is simply the correct term for someone who is obsequious to the point of lying for them. This is simply my own extended statement of why no one should bother feeding this dishonest little troll. Someone who stoops that low does not deserve the conversation of rational men.
Hi Shane,
I had to go back and read the arguments used by the author of that communion article to see what you were talking about.
“John, the arguements on that site are very weak and extremely problematic.”
Not a logically convincing refutation.
“One of the strongest arguements Catholics present for the Eucharist is that in John chapter 6, Christ does not correct his desciples when they interpret Him to be speaking literally. The arguement against it is relies on two errors: it is a circular arguement, and it is an arguement made from silence. The author says that the people could not have been walking away for fear He was speaking literally because He was not speaking literally; that is circular.”
True, that would be circular reasoning if he actually used that arguement, but that isn’t the arguement he gives. He shows that the Catholic interpretation actually proves too much, more that any Catholic accepts.
“He then says that if He had been [speaking literally], He would have eased their fears by saying something else; this is an arguement from silence.”
Now you’re coloring what the author wrote. He didn’t say anything about easing their “fears,” but rather correcting them so they would understand Jesus’ words the way others, or anybody, understands His words. If they understood Jesus to be saying what you believe, then they held neither the Catholic nor the Protestant view of Jesus’ sermon. They were walking away because they embraced an interpretation of Jesus’ words which no Christians, Catholic or Protestant, have ever embraced.
“Catholics, on the other hand, recognize not only that Jesus did not correct the desciples, but that after they voice their concerns, He uses an even stronger word for eating than He had before, switching from phago, which could be interpreted symbolically, to trogo which literally means ‘chew.’ The page fails to address this.”
Probably because Protestants accept this as well. We just don’t find the Catholic interpretation credible.
“The author also claims that there was no concern at the Last Supper that any piece should fall to the ground, however this too is an arguement from silence.”
Excellent point. The assumption seems to be that either the Scriptures say the communion is symbolic and there shouldn’t be any concern, or the Scriptures teach the idea of the real presence and there should be concern for such things.
“He says this pratice developed in later times.”
Which would make sense if the Catholic interpretation is incorrect.
“However, Tertullian wrote shortly after 200 that this was in practice. This is the third generation after Christ, and the second after the apostles. If in fact this practice developed mistakenly, it developed at most two generations after the apostles themselves.”
Which is quite possible.
“This would mean that the apostles taught one generation that the communion was symbolic…”
Assuming they thought anyone could believe anything else. They may have just taken it for granted. After all, communion is mentioned over and over in the New Testament as the ‘breaking of bread’, not the breaking of Jesus, and the Jews had always had the bread and wine offerings pointing the Christ’s body and blood.
“…then these people taught another set of people, and then by the time they taught the next set of people, the belief had completely been reversed and the Eucharist was believed to be Christ’s Body.”
By completely reversed you’re assuming (1) that the church started off emphasising the symbolic meaning of the offerings of bread and wine and (2) that all Christians everywhere in the year 200 believed in the real presence. The Apostles may not have seen any reason to emphasize what seemed obvious at the time, and the arguments for the real presence are very convincing when you don’t know the rest of the story, the history leading up to the Last Supper. As time goes on more and more believe it, and eventually they start pointing to all the others who believe.
“This is historically absurd.”
Ah, the irony.
John:
If you believe that Jesus is God, why is it so difficult for you to believe that He can change bread and wine into his own flesh and blood if he so desires? Protestants claim to believe in salvation through faith, yet their lack of faith, in this matter, is evident.
John,
Remember the bible says ‘He who eats… but does not discern the BODY eats and drinks judgement upon himself.’ If the bread and wine were just bread and wine, then why would someone who discerned it to be only bread and wine be damned?
John-
Does it not seem extremely unlikely to you that belief in the Real Presence soearly supplanted the original teaching of the Apostles that you posit (namely that it was symbolic) and that NOT ONE Christian figured that out until some time after De-formation???
Even Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence.
The Mormons and the JWs (and a bunch of others) also assert that the Church went off the rails early, but they would include Protestants in that. Why? Because they HAVE to. Otherwise they would have no excuse for completely bypassing 2000 years of Christian history.
David I am on vacation so sorry for the long response time. I was not trying to call anyone names I was just trying to inject a little humor into a situation where in the midst of a fairly rational discussion, someone busts on the scene and starts hurling insults. Maybe I watch too many cop shows but I thought it was a familiar scenario.
Adam; thanks for your response. You seem to want to end the discussion so I’ll just make a couple of points and then we can leave it at that if you wish.
first “You musta’ really irked him, Greg” Please don’t make excuses for that kind of behavior it is simply unwarranted and is a discredit to the entire group he aligns himself with. It’s one thing to stub your toe and blurt something out that you might not normally say but when you have to type and press post there is simply no excuse. So far I have not seen either Mr white or Mr Akin exhibit anywhere near the level of egregious behavior the JP has, and they are being called to task. Where is the consistency here.
Second I don’t see where my logic is to be faulted so that I need to take a formal logic course.
Mr Akin accused Mr White of using ad hominem argumentation. Mr White responded quite accurately, that there were no instances of ad hominem arguments in any of his responses to Mr Akin. To which Mr Akin replied that he was using a secondary non formal definition of ad hominem which basically reduces to “any remark directed to the man rather than to his arguments is an ad hominem remark” then gives this definition from Websters;
(1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made)
Fine! if that’s the case, then he is as guilty if not in fact more as Mr White. Look at the title of Mr Whites first post that Mr Akin took such exception to;
“Jimmy Akin More than a Decade Behind”
Nothing about Mr Akins character, intentions or motives; just a simple observation that Mr Akin was unaware of the publicly stated position of a substantial protestant apologist that Mr Akin brought up.
Now compare that to the title of Mr Akins response:
“You’re So Vain; I Bet You Thought That Post Was About You”
A direct attack on the character and thoughts of Mr White.
One of these things is not like the other. Who is it that is using a double standard?
I am off to go Sturgeon fishing in the Columbia river tomorrow morning. I’ll check back in when I get back. Good night all.
Greg
“Please don’t make excuses for that kind of behavior it is simply unwarranted and is a discredit to the entire group he aligns himself with.”
Yes, Adam. If I’ve done something wrong, then you should substantiate the charge or retract it. I have no need for you to make excuses for me, and I see no reason to apologize for anything I have said.
MaryC,
“If you believe that Jesus is God, why is it so difficult for you to believe that He can change bread and wine into his own flesh and blood if he so desires?”
It’s not at all difficult to believe. It’s simply contrary to what Scripture teaches. If you seriously believe your interpretation is correct then you would be damning not just all Protestants to hell, but Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and even Moses, because Jesus did not mince words when He said unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you cannot have eternal life.
But Paul says even the Children of Israel ate and drank the spiritual food and drink in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:1-4). Was he wrong? Or how do you interpret his words?
———
David B.,
“Remember the bible says ‘He who eats… but does not discern the BODY eats and drinks judgement upon himself.’ If the bread and wine were just bread and wine, then why would someone who discerned it to be only bread and wine be damned?”
The link I gave before answers this question this way:
“Paul wrote of a couple issues with receiving communion. Some believers apparently saw the bread and wine as nothing more than something with which to fill their hungry stomachs. They were oblivious to the seriousness and sacredness of the meal. Paul wisely exhorted them to satisfy their bellies before coming to communion so they could receive the bread and wine with the proper reverence and discernment (1 Cor. 11:20-22,33-34). He further stated that by either eating the bread or drinking the wine we are proclaiming our faith. But if we proclaim a faith we do not truly possess, faith in the flesh and blood given for us, then we are liars and are guilty of the body and blood of Jesus (1 Cor. 10:16-17; 11:23-29)”
————-
Tim J.
“Does it not seem extremely unlikely to you that belief in the Real Presence soearly supplanted the original teaching of the Apostles that you posit (namely that it was symbolic) and that …”
Not at all. You stand as a testament to the ability of men to believe regardless of how many of your arguments are proven wrong. Longevity is ultimately the only argument you have left, and that isn’t enough.
“… NOT ONE Christian figured that out until some time after De-formation???”
Even you can’t figure it out now, despite the clear inconsistency with the belief many Catholics have that Protestants will be heaven. You can’t have it both ways.
//If you seriously believe your interpretation is correct then you would be damning not just all Protestants to hell, but Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and even Moses, because Jesus did not mince words when He said unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you cannot have eternal life. //
Wrong. Jesus demands obedience, but he doesn’t demand that which, for whatever reason, we cannot do. God is just.
“Wrong. Jesus demands obedience, but he doesn’t demand that which, for whatever reason, we cannot do. God is just.”
We are in agreement on this. You just refuse to believe God is capable of providing the source of eternal life, the nourishment of Jesus’ body and blood, apart from the Eucharist.
//We are in agreement on this. You just refuse to believe God is capable of providing the source of eternal life, the nourishment of Jesus’ body and blood, apart from the Eucharist.//
What he is capable of and what he has done for those who are able to obey his command are two separate issues.
What Jesus has done is the real question, and the answer is backed up by 2000 years of apostolic teaching.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
“What Jesus has done is the real question, and the answer is backed up by 2000 years of apostolic teaching.”
And yet no Catholic has ever done what they argue the defecting disciples of John 6 thought they were being told to do.
//And yet no Catholic has ever done what they argue the defecting disciples of John 6 thought they were being told to do.//
Sure we have. I do it all the time.
Now you’re just being silly. Comparing eating what looks and taste like unleaven bread with tearing the flesh out of another person’s arm with your teeth. What you do isn’t anything like what you argue Jesus wanted the disciples to believe and allowed them to walk away believing.
//Now you’re just being silly. Comparing eating what looks and taste like unleaven bread with tearing the flesh out of another person’s arm with your teeth. What you do isn’t anything like what you argue Jesus wanted the disciples to believe and allowed them to walk away believing.//
Then you don’t understand Catholic teaching very well. I’m deadly serious. I eat Christ’s flesh and his blood… the whole Christ, under the appearances of bread and wine.
From the link:
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
“so it is the Lord’s death that you are heralding, whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, until he comes. And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily (in a state of mortal sin), he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood.”
How can one be held accountable for the body and blood of the Lord, if what they are consuming is mere bread and wine?
“Longevity is ultimately the only argument you have left, and that isn’t enough.”
You’re mistaken, of course, but on the topic of longevity, tracing ones faith all the way back to the Apostles is the only pedigree that counts.
How old is YOUR religion?
The above scriptural quotation is: 1 Cor 11:26-30.
The disciples who “walked with Him no more” took Jesus literally when He said we had to eat His Flesh and drink his Blood, and he allowed them to walk away. If He had been speaking figuratively, He would have been morally obligated to say: “Hey, wait a minute! You’re taking me literally when I was speaking figuratively.” But He didn’t do that; he let them go. This is the only recorded instance of anyone leaving Jesus for a doctrinal reason. It was also the occasion when Judas’ betrayal began, as St. John points out. That betrayal reached its fruition the night Jesus gave His apostles His Body and Blood to eat and drink.
John,
Jesus said we must eat His body and blood, but He didn’t indicate how we must until He told His apostles to eat what looked like bread and wine but what He called His body. When catholics receive Holy Communion, we are not eating Jesus as cannibals might. Rather we are receiving Our Lord-body, blood, soul, and divinity-into our very souls.
“But I am not an anti-Calvinist in the second sense named above since I do not believe that Calvinism is so evil/bad/defective/whatever that it prevents Calvinists from being Christians.”
Hmmm…then you must not hold to the Declarations of the Council of Trent which anathematizes those of us who subscribe to Calvinism for such is what Calvinists subscribe to- for such is what God’s Word teaches. Since you are opposed to the Councils declaration, does that mean the church is wrong for decreeing such anathemas?
“I am perfectly happy to acknowledge Calvinists as brothers in Christ, even if I disagree with certain points of their theological system. You don’t do that. Your level of “againstness” toward Catholicism is such that you think it deprives a person of the status of Christian if they really believe what the Church teaches, and that represents a more fundamental level of opposition to Catholicism than I have toward any form of Protestantism.”
And again, you may see us as brothers in Christ, but that is not what Trent means when they say “LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.” There is a level of “againstness” for Paul tells us to “encourage with sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9). Christians are also called to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). So yes, there is opposition. If you do not have the same opposition, then you are inconsistent with your own worldview. If you subscribe to the teachings of the Church over and above what God’s Word teaches (for they are not the same), then what Paul says applies,
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
-Galatians 1:8
Maranatha!