Indeed, the Lord's unwillingness to become an "ecclesiastical rebel" is in perfect harmony with the Scriptural teaching on the subject of authority in the church. There was nothing in the tradition of having someone read from the Scriptures while sitting on Moses' seat that was in conflict with the Scriptures, and hence, unlike the corban rule which we saw earlier in Matthew 15, Jesus does not reject this traditional aspect of Jewish synagogue worship. He does not insist upon anarchy in worship in the synagogue anymore than His apostle Paul would allow for it in the worship of the church at Corinth. It is quite proper to listen to and obey the words of the one who reads from the Law or the Prophets, for one is not hearing a man speaking in such a situation, but is listening to the very words of God.

Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses' seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught. Thus, apostolic succession, whereby the Catholic Church, in its priests and bishops and popes, claims to be merely the custodian of an inherited apostolic Tradition, is also prefigured by Jewish oral tradition, as approved (at least partially) by Jesus himself.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

You wrote: "Now, while it is true that, in Matt 18:18, Jesus bestows a similar authority to "bind and loosen" upon all of the Apostles collectively, it is to Peter alone that Christ entrusts "the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." So, what are these Keys? What are they suppose to signify?" When, specifically, did Christ bestow the keys ALONE to Peter? The Greek verb in Matthew 16 is future in tense. Hence, if this does not take place in Matthew 18:18, when does it? And, can you cite patristic foundation for saying the keys differ in authority and meaning from the power of binding and loosing? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

20:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Mark Bonocore and Isaiah 22:20-22 (Part III)

01/18/2005 - James White

   I continue reviewing the attempted defense of the modern usage of Isaiah 22:20-22 by Roman Catholic apologists, responding to Mark Bonocore. In our previous installments we have examined Bonocore's use of patristic sources in reference to Irenaeus and John Cassian. We continue with his presentation:

I believe the reason we don't see Isaiah 22 used more extensively is that it's rooted in a sense of Jewish national identity. And, since most of the fathers were Gentiles, it's not surprising that they see the Keys of Matt 16 referring to authority in a more generic sense (which is equally valid). However, we do see the Kingly, Davidic aspect of the Keys alluded to more often in the Semetic-speaking branches of the Church. For example, Aphraates the Sage (c. 330 A.D.), one of the oldest fathers of the Syrian Church, says: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Mark Bonocore and Isaiah 22:20-22, Part II

01/16/2005 - James White

   Context, context, context. Cassian is writing against the Nestorians on the Incarnation. In chapter 11 of Book III he transitions from a primary use of Pauline texts to some derived from the Gospels. He briefly alludes to Martha's confession of Christ in John 11:27, but quickly moves to Peter's testimony in chapter 12, from which Bonocore quotes. Let's look at all of it:

But if you prefer the authority of a greater person (although you ought not to slight the authority of any one of either sex, on whom the confession of the mystery confers weight - for whatever may be a person's condition, or however humble his position, yet the value of his faith is not thereby diminished) let us interrogate no beginner or untaught schoolboy, nor a woman whose faith might perhaps appear to be but rudimentary; but that greatest of disciples among disciples, and of teachers among teachers, who presided and ruled over the Roman Church, and held the chief place in the priesthood as he did in the faith. Tell us then, tell us, we pray, O Peter, thou chief of Apostles, tell us how the Churches ought to believe in God. For it is right that you should teach us, as you were taught by the Lord, and that you should open to us the gate, of which you received the key. Shut out all those who try to overthrow the heavenly house: and those who are endeavoring to enter by secret holes and unlawful approaches: as it is clear that none can enter the gate of the kingdom save one to whom the key bestowed on the Churches is revealed by you. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Mark Bonocore and Isaiah 22:20-22, Part I

01/15/2005 - James White

   I return now to my response to the articles by Mark Bonocore, noted in the blog responses on Dave Armstrong's page. The article that was sited was on Apolonio Latar's site (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num18.htm). But since it had been a very long time since I had taken the time to track down what Mark Bonocore was up to, I did a little digging this evening. What I found is most interesting.
   For those familiar with the ebb and flow of Roman Catholic apologetics organizations that have come into existence since the late 1980s and the advent of Catholic Answers, the split up of the Sungenis/Sippo coalition is a well known event. Two men who had once stood shoulder to shoulder in heaping abusive speech on others in the service of the Papacy turned their guns upon each other, and the result was predictable. But as the dust settled, and Sungenis and his few followers moved ever farther into obscurity and irrelevance in the larger Roman Catholic apologetics movement, those who refused to follow Sungenis' odd views gravitated toward one another. Eventually, The Catholic Legate came to be home for many of those who had once been in the Sungenis orbit of influence. Its primary proprietors today form a triumvirate of the nastiest of the nasty: Art Sippo, John Pacheco, and Mark Bonocore. Anyone who has been the object of the condescending, abusive nastiness of these men will testify that I am truly being kind in my description thus far. My files are filled with nastigrams from Sippo, for example. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Angelz Shows DA How To Do Humor the Right Way

01/13/2005 - James White

   HUMOR ALERT! HUMOR ALERT! Granite-faced Calvinists and frigid cold Catholics need not continue reading, or even look!
   As some of you know, Dave Armstrong at first tried to reply, somewhat, to my review of his book, The Catholic Verses. Then he pulled the plug on responding to "anti-Catholics," again, as he has done in the past, as Eric Svendsen so humorously documented. Then he started writing "theme songs" for me, which, of course, is not really responding, at least not in a responsive way, with words and arguments and things, see.... Well, this morning, when I read Eric's blog on the Dividing Line, little did I know that my friend Angel was listening, and getting tickled. And so, back by popular demand, I present Angel's most recent creation. There is so much fun stuff in this one, you need to look at the big picture. Check out all the details! And Dave, please read the note along the side. It's just for you! :-)

22:41:46 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

More in Response to Mark Bonocore

01/13/2005 - James White

   Now, having reviewed the context of Irenaeus' teaching about the age of Jesus at his death, we turn to the calm, kind, rational commentary offered by Mark Bonocore on the same issue, found here. Let's look at his comments. After I had noted very briefly what I explained more fully above, Bonocore writes,

Well, you're proving that you are not infallible more and more, Mr. White. Not only do you read the Scriptures incorrectly because you wrench them out of context, you also do the same with the Fathers. Why didn't you present ALL of what St. Irenaeus has to say? Then you might understand his point IN CONTEXT. ;-)
First of all, Irenaeus' point is that Jesus' humanity identifies with human beings of every age:

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God --infants, and children, and boys, and ***youths***, and ***old men***. He therefore passed through ***every age***, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. ****So likewise He was an old man for old men****, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time ***the aged*** also, and becoming an example to them likewise."

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Going Against Your Better Judgment

01/12/2005 - James White

   Responding to some "writers" just goes against sound wisdom and judgment. There are some who are simply so ill-behaved, so nasty of temperament, that to respond to them is tantamount to poking a rabid dog with a stick: don't be surprised when you get a consistent response of growling and slobber. And so it is against my better judgment to even invest the time to respond to some materials by Mark Bonocore, one of Art Sippo's fellows, but since his work was promoted in the Armstrong series as containing a "rebuttal" of my position, I feel it necessary to try to make my way through all of the nastiness and gratuitous ad-hominem and document the truth. Further, as I was contacted by a pastor asking about another of Bonocore's blasts, I thought I would put the two replies together and hope, despite the inevitable character of the response, to edify someone in the process. Also, I promise as well that there will be fewer exclamation marks in my response than in Mr. Bonocore's texts. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An uber-brief response to the Crimson Catholic

01/10/2005 - James White

Jonathan Prejean has offered some comments on the first sections of my interaction with Dave Armstrong. Since they are brief, I will be brief in response. As he quotes me extensively, I will put my original words in blue, his replies in red, my replies are in purple.

Intro
Now, of course, DA will respond with text files (liberally salted with URL's) that will average 10x the word count of anything I have to say. That's OK. I shall win the award for brevity and concise expression, and let him take home the bragging rights to verbosity and bandwidth usage.
[False and unwarranted.]
Anyone at all familiar with Dave Armstrong over the years knows better. Just look at his website. I began experiencing this with the very first letter Armstrong sent me in the mail. This one isn't even arguable. :-) ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:18:13 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

"Git" and Sippo's Students

01/07/2005 - James White

Thanks to all of you who wrote to let me know what a "git" is. Silly naive me: if I had known this fellow was a student of Art Sippo, I would have thought the worst, but since I didn't, and there were numerous other problems with the spelling of his insulting invective, it seemed logical to look for another alternative. But now that he has identified himself as a clone of Art Sippo, it all makes sense. There is an entire spectrum of RC "apologists" who believe condescending insults are substantive arguments (see the examples provided in the Mark Bonocore article noted earlier), even to the point of the juvenile refusal to use a person's proper name, etc. (think of Gail Riplinger, but with a real nasty, bad attitude). Most of these folks are so far out there they can only communicate with a small audience who, for whatever reasons, are insensitive to the shrill nature of their invective-laced writings and talks. As I am headed to England soon, I will have to remember that term: and, as is only proper, avoid it.

08:57:30 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Alexander the Coppersmith Blunders Again

01/07/2005 - James White

     I never dreamed just how appropriate the terminology I chose was. For a number of years I had experienced the constant hatred and attacks of Paul Owen, first when he was a student in seminary, then when we was off in Scotland working on his doctorate, and now that he has returned and his spreading his unique variety of theology as a teacher. Since he seemed to live to oppose me, in whatever I say or do, I saw a parallel to Alexander the coppersmith, whose ignominy was established by the apostle Paul when he wrote,

2 Timothy 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. 15 Be on guard against him yourself, for he vigorously opposed our teaching.

I guess having an Alexander in your life is good for you. You can't get apathetic when you have someone who simply lives to oppose you. Of course, it must be miserable that such a person has such a life, and one can only wonder at what kind of a life it is, but such folks exist. That's just the way it is. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:30:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Satispassio: Suffering of Atonement

01/06/2005 - James White

A poster using the name "BenYachov (Jim Scott 4th)" writes in response to MarieP, who protested that there's a whole lot of accusing going on, but precious little proving:

Well in his Bible Answer Man debate with James Akin the smarmy git implied the merits of our suffering in purgatory where from our own efforts & not from the Grace of Christ.
Indeed his confuses the Catholic view of the Supremacy of Grace with the condemned error of semi-plagianism all time. Where have you been?

Again, there was no debate on the Bible Answer Man broadcast those many years ago. There was a call in talk show. Besides this, I'm not sure "smarmy git" means ("smarmy guy" perhaps?), but I can only imagine that he is referring to my statement regarding satispassio, the suffering of atonement in purgatory. Ludwig Ott explains:

The remission of the venial sins which are not yet remitted, occurs . . . as it does in this life, by an act of contrition deriving from charity and performed with the help of grace. This act of contrition, which is presumably awakened immediately after entry into the purifying fire, does not, however, effect the abrogation or the diminution of the punishment for sins, since in the other world there is no longer any possibility of merit.
     The temporal punishments for sins are atoned for in the purifying fire by the so-called suffering of atonement (satispassio), that is, by the willing bearing of the expiatory punishments imposed by God (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 485).

What I recall saying is that satispassio is borne solely by the believer: it is not an application of the merits of Jesus Christ. Would Mr. Scott like to show me where Rome has defined satispassio as the application of the grace or merits of Jesus Christ? Or will he instead seek the "easy way out" and offer the lame excuse that, "Well, anything related to salvation is ours by grace, so, even the opportunity to undergo the suffering of atonement in purgatory is, ultimately, due to Christ's grace," an absurdity that would only prove my point to the fullest? I invite Mr. Scott to give us a call today on the DL and explain to everyone how suffering in purgatory for the temporal punishments of your sins is consistent with the New Testament's teaching about the atoning work of Christ and the nature of grace. That alone should be enough to establish the semi-Pelagian nature of modern Rome's doctrine of grace. The number is 877-753-3341. :-)

08:55:32 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Open Invitation

01/06/2005 - James White

     The RC pep rally and general back-slapping rave going on at DA's blog has continued unabated for a few days now, though I think eventually even these folks will get tired of repeating the same mantras over and over again. "Wow, that James White, we sure have refuted him, haven't we!" "Yeah, sure did! Wow, he's as dumb as a bag of hammers!" etc. and etc. At the moment, the file I've created saving the comments is 65 pages long. And if there are two paragraphs that can be taken seriously, I'd be surprised.
     Most of the comments are quite humorous. But a repeated theme, one poured out regularly by the likes of "Patrick," Jim Scott (read only if you are wearing asbestos) and Jonathan Prejean is that in point of fact, I have not been dealing with Armstrong's work fairly or accurately, and more importantly, that others have "refuted me." Even little Apolonio chimed in, sorta like, "Yeah, me too, me too!" We even had a Muslim come on and join the fun, fellow by the name of Josh Wilcox. Not an overly pleasant fellow, I must say. I'm looking forward to his debate with Sam Shamoun. :-) ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

03:30:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Catholic Verses: The Pillar and Foundation

01/05/2005 - James White

     
Mr. Armstrong has just recently noted, in reference to myself and others,

Carry on, fools . . . we're all watching, and it is high entertainment, believe me. You think you will get me to change my mind by these childish tactics and colossal errors of fact? You go right ahead. I'm documenting every vacuous, vapid insult and dumb mistake you make . . .

Well, hoping to continue to provide the stongest possible contrast to his attitude, behavior, and actions, let alone his theology, I press forward with my review of Dave Armstrong's book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

13:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

A Note to David Pacitti

01/05/2005 - James White

David Pacitti wrote to me (publicly, on DA's blog):

What is amazing to me is how James White and his followers actually think that he is write about anything. I have read James White work and have compared it to yours and others such as Steve Ray and Bob Sungenis and White's work does not stand up to the evidence. White is the kind of person who would loose a tug-of-war match but still claim that he won! Tim Enloe gave a good example of this yesterday about his comment on the e-mail that he sent to White.

Hello David, I don't think we have met. :-)
     It is hard to respond to such statements, since you do not give any specifics. Tim Enloe sent me a scathing, barely rational e-mail that he then demanded I never reproduce, and now he's talking about it publicly (if it happens again, I will publish it). I think if you were to read his actual e-mail, and my response, you might have a different view. But that aside, could you be specific? For example, could you tell me where, in dealing with Matthew 16:18-19, Isaiah 22:20-22, etc., or any of the key passages on the Papacy, what I have written did not "stand up to the evidence"? Have you listened to the debates I have done on this subject? The 7.5 hour debate with Gerry Matatics from 1993 in Denver? The 3+ hour debate with Father Mitch Pacwa on Long Island? I'd think if what I have said and presented could not "stand up to the evidence," those two men would have the capacity to prove it, yes? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

12:46:46 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Catholic Verses: The Papacy

01/04/2005 - James White

     It was the late 1980s. Remember them? Yes, well, things were developing in the Roman Catholic apologetics arena. Benny Diaz, a former Roman Catholic, and one who was working with us in reference to Jehovah's Witnesses, kept pushing me to study the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. He introduced me to Catholic Answers and the materials they were producing. I began encountering Roman Catholic apologists on line (via the pre-cursor to the Internet: the BBS [Bulletin Board System]). In fact, my first two books were on the subject of Roman Catholicism (everyone expected I would first write on Mormonism, for I had been working with LDS folks for much longer).
     In those days Catholic Answers included Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, and Gerry Matatics. Matatics was one of the two super-star converts (along with Scott Hahn). I distinctly remember a picture of Matatics in a Roman Catholic church, looking at the camera, with the words, "I'm the one who took your loved ones out of the Catholic Church." In fact, as I wrote that, I decided to look, and I found the old, November 1990 This Rock magazine. The specific line is, "I'm the guy who lured your family and friends out of the Church". Here's the picture (Gerry has aged, but not nearly as much as I have!) BTW, later, I asked Gerry about his alleged "anti-Catholic" activities prior to his conversion: he wrote no books, did no debates, recorded no tapes, wrote no articles or tracts. Anyway, I was collecting debate tapes of Matatics running various local pastors around the gum-stump. Few gave him much of a fight, and Hahn's papers, though at this time not overly well produced (often just photocopies of dot-matrix print outs...remember those?), presented arguments the vast majority of non-Catholics had never even heard before, let alone had the foggiest idea how to refute or answer. The "old guard" of evangelical "missionaries" to Roman Catholics were no match for the smooth, scholarly sounding arguments of this new movement in Roman Catholicism. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

18:30:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

A Brief Detour: Scott Hahn and Luke 1:28

01/04/2005 - James White

     I was not blogging when Scott Hahn's Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God came out. I did, however devote two Dividing Line broadcasts to a review of it. The book set new "groan" records for its horrible, never-ending, "please, have mercy, it stopped being funny four chapters ago" use of pun-filled subtitles. It truly made the book next to unbearable. Here is a sampling:

Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary
From Here to Maternity
Let's Get Metaphysical
Cutting the Unbiblical Cord
Maternity Warred
Justin Time
The Lyons Den
Venerators of the Lost Ark
Ark the Herald Angels Sing
Mary Had a Little Man
Mary, Mary, Reliquary?
Primary Cullers
I Dream of Genealogy

And that is only up to page 95. It was enough to drive even the heartiest of reviewers to distraction. In any case, to say that my review was less than complimentary would be a major understatement. The work is truly for the "already convinced," or, at best, the historically (and logically) naive. Yet, at a whopping $20 for the fluffy hard-back, I'm sure it sold quite well. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

12:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Desperation of Armstrong Fans: Patrick

01/04/2005 - James White

Quick note: yesterday, when Dave Armstrong first posted his "I'm done with critics" stuff, his blog showed exactly two articles. Everything else was gone. Later in the day the rest of the material re-appeared. Obviously, at some point, an error was made in posting material (a common enough event). I've seen something similar happen at PowerLine, where all of a sudden one column takes over the content of another. In any case, when the article first appeared, that was the state of DA's blog: that article and the preceding one with a link. Nothing more in the blog section, just the side column. I mentioned this in passing, and so, of course, someone named "Patrick" on DA's blog has even more evidence of my dishonesty as a result. It is truly amazing to watch these folks do everything in their power to avoid dealing with the actual issues I have raised. Amazingly sad, anyway. Onward and upward, as one radio personality is known for saying...

09:49:20 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part VI)

01/04/2005 - James White

     As I noted in Part I, Dave Armstrong's attempt to substantiate the sinlessness of Mary is one of the longest sections in his book. We have noted that he specifically claims to be offering sound exegesis and analysis of Luke 1:28, but so far, we have not found his comments to live up to the claims he makes for them. So now we turn to the bulk of his positive argumentation, the "deductive logic" he presents as a basis for this Roman Catholic dogma.
     First, Armstrong establishes that the noun "grace" means "grace." This was not in dispute, of course, though the Roman Catholic concept of grace, the state of grace, graces, etc., surely requires a significantly fuller effort than is offered even here. Be that as it may, Armstrong writes, "The Catholic argument hinges on the meaning of kecharitomene." This alone is sufficient to establish the propriety of the previous five installments, for the meaning of the term can only be determined lexically, grammatically, and syntactically, and we have seen that beyond question the term does not, in fact, carry the weight assigned to it by Rome. But we continue on with Armstrong's argument, for he refers to the abridged edition of Kittel's TDNT regarding grace, and while what Kittel's says is quite true, given the passages being referred to (1 Cor. 1:29, Romans 5:20-21, Galatians 5:2, 1:6), unless Armstrong can establish, contextually, that the meaning of the noun "grace" in those passages is carried into the participial form of a vocative participle used as a greeting by an angel in a completely different context and used by a completely different writer, we once again have no reason to find it a compelling argument. I remind the reader of what we could do, using the very same kind of speculation, with "blessed" in reference to believers, etc. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

04:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part V)

01/03/2005 - James White

     Interestingly, though I presented these passages and this objection in the same section from which Dave Armstrong quoted, he did not address them. He did, however, make one of the most common errors one encounters in literature such as this: the "let's look at a really basic definition in a Greek grammar and hope it applies to our particular text" mistake. Now, of course, there is nothing wrong with providing basic definitions, but in this case, Armstrong is claiming to be refuting a scholar who has invested years in learning the language, something he has chosen not to do. So Armstrong tries to quote such a basic definition as if Svendsen would be ignorant of it. The reality is, Svendsen is aware of far more about the subject than Armstrong is. DA writes,

So he tries to show by cross-referencing and Greek grammar that Luke 1:28 is neither unique nor a support for Mary's sinlessness or the Immaculate Conception. But the perfect stem of a Greek verb, denotes, according to Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, "continuance of a completed action" (Greek Grammar of the New Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 66). Mary, therefore, continues afterward to be full of the grace she possessed at the time of the Annunciation. That cannot, of course, be said of all believers in Ephesians 1:6, because of differences of levels of grace, as shown earlier.

Again, so many mistakes in so few words. Eric was noting the fact that the perfect tense would not tell you that Mary had always had a "perfection of grace" as Rome tries to assert. Armstrong misses his entire point. Secondly, Svendsen did not say Luke 1:28 is not unique, but that it does not teach what Rome has packed into it. Third, what does Armstrong mean by "perfect stem"? Does he even know? I do not get the feeling he has any idea what Greek stems are all about, personally. He might wish to read the rest of the syntax section in sections 340 through 346 of Blass/Debrunner for a little fuller discussion of the range of the perfect in Greek. We have already noted the problems with Armstrong's explanations of Ephesians 1:6.
     So in essence, neither of the two possible approaches to substantiating the Roman claims regarding kecaritwme,nh are successfully pursued by Armstrong. What we are left with, then, is his exercise in deductive logic, to which we will turn in our next installment.

20:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part IV)

01/03/2005 - James White

     Now, all of this, up to this point, has simply been to work through the first of two issues I myself raised regarding what a serious Roman Catholic would have to explain to make a serious Protestant feel at all "confounded" at Luke 1:28. If kecaritwme,nh is telling us that Mary was sinless due to the possession of a perfection of grace from the time of her immaculate conception (i.e., due to the application of the merits of Christ at the very point of conception, protecting her from the stain of original sin---and all of that in a single word in an angel's greeting! Ponder that a moment!), then this must be communicated to us either by the root meaning of the term itself or by its form and syntax. Despite his best efforts, Mr. Armstrong has completely failed to deal with the reality that if the root meaning is the key, then this proves way too much, for believers are likewise "graced" in Christ Jesus in eternity past, not given graces like sports abilities, but graced in Christ Jesus, that is graciously united with Christ by the will of the Father, all the praise of His grace. Obviously, therefore, carito,w does not communicate the concept of sinlessness or anything relevant to the Roman Catholic claims regarding Luke 1:28. And this was Dr. Svendsen's point as well, and all Mr. Armstrong did in attempting to respond to Svendsen was prove that in reality, Dave Armstrong does not understand the basics of how to respond to sound, simple scholarly observations regarding the subject.
     So, in case the details overwhelmed you, here's a summary statement: the Greek verb "to grace," which is at the root of the Greek participle used by the angel in greeting Mary, as well as appearing in Eph. 1:6, does not mean "sinless," and there is nothing in its range of meaning that would positively lead us to the conclusions Rome has defined as dogma. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

10:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part III)

01/02/2005 - James White

     First, Armstrong misunderstands why Svendsen cites Eph. 1:6 and its relevance, for he writes, "Svendsen thinks this defeats the Catholic exegesis at Luke 1:28, but the variant of charitoo (grace) here is different (echaritosen)." First, this is a verb, not a noun; hence, it is not "grace" but "to grace." Secondly, this is not a "variant" it is a grammatical form. Thirdly, if the difference in form is relevant (perfect passive vocative participle vs. aorist tense verb) Armstrong needs to explain why (he doesn't). Continuing in his confusion, Armstrong thinks that Vincent's Word Studies intends to provide a contrast that supports his view, for he writes, "Vincent indicates different meanings for the word grace in Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6. He holds to 'endued with grace' as the meaning in Luke 1:28, so he expressly contrasts the meaning with that passage." As to Vincent, it is not a specific lexical resource (in contrast with BDAG), first of all, it is a running commentary. Secondly, the term is not "grace" it is "to grace." Third, Vincent is referring to how to translate the term in the differing contexts, he is not commenting on the issue before us. Vincent writes regarding Luke 1:28:

28. Thou that art highly favored (kecaritwme,nh) Lit., as Rev. in margin, endued with grace. Only here and Eph. 1:6. The rendering full of grace, Vulgate, Wyc., and Tynd., is therefore wrong.

But in reference to Ephesians 1:6 he writes, ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

08:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

A Response to a Comment Left on DA's Blog

01/01/2005 - James White

Another RC apologist commented on DA's blog (when he declined exegeting Romans 4:6-8):

I can answer White's question viz. who is the blessed man very easily. He is the justified believer who God reckons (logizomai) righteous because He has made him righteous in justification. That's what the etymology of dikaiow would have us believe anyway.

Great: so, if this person commits a mortal sin, to whom is it imputed? Him, or someone else?
If this person commits a venial sin, to whom is it imputed? Him, or someone else?
If either sin is imputed to him, how is he the blessed man to whom the Lord will not impute sin?

23:29:10 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Edification

01/01/2005 - James White

     As you can see, I'm investing some time in properly working through the published comments of Dave Armstrong. Two quick notes:
     1) The Greek font I generally use is from BibleWorks, and is available for download and installation here (this includes the Hebrew font as well). In a recent article I used the Mounce font, which does not seem to be available any longer. It used to be at www.teknia.com, and the free font avialable there may work acceptably well.
     2) The replies Armstrong is posting on his blog are simply amazing. The most recent brought back up his "I can't find anyone with sufficient artistic skills to match Angelz so I'll 'borrow' his stuff again" activities. Deep, very deep. I'm glad the issue is larger than Armstrong, and the review more useful than just demonstrating his errors. :-)

20:50:04 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part II)

01/01/2005 - James White

     Armstrong stumbles right out of the block when he insists that Protestants are "hostile" to the idea that Mary was sinless and Immaculately conceived because this makes her a "sort of goddess." No, we are hostile to all dogmas and doctrines that are claimed to be derived from Scripture or God's authority but that are, in fact, completely devoid of Scriptural basis or apostolic authority. There is a much more fundamental problem with Rome's traditional teachings than Mr. Armstrong seems to understand. I am offended when anyone claims Christ's authority without echoing Christ's voice in the Word, especially when they pretend that Christ's voice is found within the boundaries of their particular infallible group/organization (such as the Roman magisterium).
     Next, Mr. Armstrong invests a fair amount of time establishing facts that are not, in actuality, in dispute. Please note I am not being inconsistent here: establishing the facts of a context, passage, lexical meaning, etc., are all quite relevant if, in fact, the intent was to offer meaningful and consistent exegesis in a positive fashion. But Armstrong tips his hand repeatedly, couching his comments in terms of "and this writer was no friend to Catholicism" etc., as if the mere statement of a fact supports or proves the RC point. No one questions, for example, the fact that carito,w is related at its root to ca,rij, itoj, "grace." Noting Tyndale or Wycliff using "grace" or "endued with grace" is barely relevant to the massive edifice of doctrine based upon what Rome says this means. For, as I pointed out in The Roman Catholic Controversy, the claimed meaning of the term in regards to Mary has to be related to one of two elements of this perfect passive vocative participle: either the root communicates something about sinless perfection, or the form of the word (vocative, perfect, passive participle) does. Armstrong simply doesn't understand the process of scholarly examination of a text, and as a result, runs headlong into walls trying to act like he does. The result would be humorous if 1) this wasn't a serious subject, 2) if he didn't think he was truly providing meaningful exegesis, and 3) if the doctrine was irrelevant (and as a de fide dogma of Rome, it isn't). ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

20:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part I)

01/01/2005 - James White

     We know, from examining Dave Armstrong's The Catholic Verses that he has one of my books, and has looked at a portion of it, though, seemingly, not all of it (even regarding the passages that are directly relevant to his own claims and work, which I am not alone in finding quite odd). And we know that at least a few times he chooses to try to take on my position directly (like on Matthew 23). But for many Protestants, the greatest example of Rome's misuse of Scripture, and the greatest evidence that, in fact, Rome does not bow to "Scripture and tradition," is found in the complex of dogmas and teachings she promulgates on the subject of the blessed mother of Jesus, Mary. And so since we have found it difficult to get Mr. Armstrong to offer us exegesis that we can really "sink our teeth into" so to speak, we turn now to the section on Luke 1:28, one of the "95 Verses" that allegedly confound Protestants, pp. 181-190, one of the lengthiest sections in the entire work.
Now, it is only fair to note that Armstrong concludes this section by stating,

Most Protestant thinkers and opponents of Catholic doctrine would, I think, assume that the Immaculate Conception could easily be disproven from Scripture. But from an analysis of the verses cited, we see that, although it cannot be absolutely proven from Scripture alone, it cannot be ruled out on the basis of Scripture, either. What is more, a solid deductive and exegetical basis for belief in Mary's sinlessness, and thus her Immaculate Conception, can be drawn from Scripture alone. (p. 190)

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

14:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives