"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527)

   "The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther's approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther's lifetime they disappear."

   "As Luther's intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works."

   "According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon.That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).

   "I pull no punches and make no apologies for opposing, and exposing, the novelties, oddities, heresies, and blasphemies promoted by what purports to be the "official" Catholic establishment, but in fact is nothing but a band of unauthorized apostates and usurpers who have been permitted by God's providence to commandeer the infrastructure of the previously Catholic institutions of our world since the death of Pius XII precisely in order to bring about the universal apostasy God has patiently and persistently repeatedly warned us, over the last 6000 years, must precede the return of His Son."

   "This message will likely get bleeped, but HEY! You can't blame a guy for trying! Envoy linking to Mr. White's material is like B'nai B'rith linking to the Aryan Nation website for an opposing view on the Holocaust and Nazi genocide. It is very obvious to us that Herr Weiss... I mean MR. White follows the doings on this board very closely and often überreagiert... uh, overrects to what we say here. But this does not mean that we have to provide a tyrannkanzel.... sounding board for all the sturm und drang ... controversial comments he makes."

   "James is now stuck with thousands of copies of his laborious prose sitting in boxes in his garage. So he naturally tries to make lemonade from lemons by turning his blunder into yet another proof of the heartlessness of the Romanist Deception. In his earnest, anything-for-a-rhetorical-point way, he asks (in a piece called "Apologetics Roman Style"): 'Let's say the scholarship in The Lost Tomb of Jesus is laughable. So what? Do you respond to laughable scholarship with...laughter?' Um, yes. You do.Or, at any rate, normal people do. See, it seemed pretty obvious to me that the Nine Day Wonderhood of this story was a given when the story broke, when I saw the lame nature of the "evidence" adduced, so I laughed it off as I generally laugh off news ofthe absurd. Life's too short."

White mocks the notions of "preponderance of the evidence" and "greater probability" as antithetical to biblical Christianity and the proclamation of the gospel, yet this is precisely what the early Christians did: they proclaimed eyewitness testimony of what they had seen and heard. If they presented "legal"-type testimony, then why cannot an apologist use the same sort of argument today? No one alive was an eyewitness of these events, so it is necessarily the case that we have to make legal-historical arguments in order to do an intelligent rational apologetics.

   "My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else's interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact."

   "As Gary mentioned, Trent specifically discussed the status of 1 Esdras and decided to pass over the question of its canonicity. But anyone who is familiar with the state of the Biblical Canon in the late 4th Century knows that the term '2 books of Esdras' had been used for over 100 years by Origen and others to refer to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. And St. Jerome was well aware of the difference between 1Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah in the 390's. In the Vulgate translation he made, St. Jerome used the title 1Esdras to refer to Ezra, 2Esdras to refer to Nehemiah, and 3Esdras to refer to the apocryphal 1Esdras from the Septuagint."

   "IMHO the whole thesis is DOA. But White, Webster, Svendsen and the rest of the Kampus Krusade for Kthulhu keep beating this dead horse, so we need to keep dealing with it."

   "Both White and Webster take the position that the absence of a book called Esdras in the Council of Trent's definition of the canon constitutes, not mere silence on the issue, but a clear and explicit rejection of the book without the slightest ambiguity.This is a big deal for them because, if it is true, then a case could be made that Trent contradicted the Councils of Carthage and Hippo which they understand to have explicitly included Esdras (no doubt without the slightest possible ambiguity there either). My position is that, whatever we want to make of the status of Esdras, the question of a contradiction between Trent and Carthage cannot arise because the bishops at Trent explicitly avoided answering the question. White and Webster seem to be under the impression that this idea is my own 'novel' interpretation of the decree of the Fourth Session. It is nothing of the kind."

   "Let me be perfectly clear. My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else's interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact."

   "...(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testamentseeing that one God is the author of both as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession."

I, DAVE ARMSTRONG, DO HEREBY RESOLVE TO CEASE AND DESIST EVEN FROM *MENTION* OF DR. JAMES WHITE AND TIM ENLOE (and strongly urge other Catholics to do the same)
Posted by Dave Armstrong on March 14, 2001 at 19:32:43:
Hi Ronnie,
   Thanks for reminding me of, and provoking me to my own actual preference, down deep. You have done me a great service indeed, and I appreciate it. One can get caught up in all the controversies with anti-Catholics, and thus cite the "king" and most supposedly "respectable" of the anti-Catholics too much.
   The better part of my judgment agrees that this is excessive, for I have been urging Catholic apologists to not engage White in *public* (oratorical) debate for many years now. I turned him down in 1995 and twice in our recent exchanges. Funny, though, how he keeps challenging *me* to debate him, since he considers me an absolutely unworthy and unqualified opponent, a pompous, foul-mouthed, dishonest and devious blowhard, etc. - things he has verbally expressed in one way or another many times. Yes, quite odd. But I don't think it is all that hard to figure out, without too much effort. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

21:10:48 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Porvaznik Perfidy and Matatics Mendacity Documented Final

04/06/2007 - James White

   Here is the final clip I've recorded from the 1997 sola scriptura debate with Gerry Matatics on Long Island. This comes directly after the cross-ex I posted Monday, so they go together. I picked up the same theme and pressed forward with it here. Hopefully these clips have illustrated, in a way that only video can, the less than useful gamesmanship and circular argumentation favored by many of the most popular, less popular, and formerly popular, Roman Catholic apologists today.

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

Gary Michuta Says: Read My Book

04/04/2007 - James Swan

Recently, Catholic apologist Gary Michuta began posting on the Catholic Answers forum. In his posts, he commented on his apocrypha debate versus Dr. White, presenting his novel way of reconciling the canon discrepancy between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. Michuta also mentioned the work of William Webster, prompting these responses from Webster:
   Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta Part I
   Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part II
   Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part III
   I had been having some interaction with Gary over on Catholic Answers, and I knew he was aware of these links. There was nothing though from Gary on the recent entries from Webster. I had wondered if he disagreed with them, or if he was passing over them in silence. One thing you can say about Catholic Answers is they do allow for opposing points of view. There are numerous discussions between Protestants and Catholics going on. It would've been interesting to interact with Gary on this subject.
   On the other hand, the Envoy forum has "bunker" mentality. They protect themselves from those who would offer a different opinion. It appears Gary Michuta has traveled from Catholic Answers over to Envoy. He is now a moderator on Envoy. One of his first posts was a response to William Webster. I find this interesting, because he chose to post this response in a forum that doesn't like to allow Protestants to respond. Michuta couldn't even link to Webster's articles because aomin links are not allowed on Envoy.
   What of Michuta's response? He simply reaffirmed the stance he took in his debate with Dr. White. He notes the vote at Trent to pass over in silence was 42 to 3. So much for canon certainty from Rome: 42 said you can't be certain you've got all the Biblical books, 3 said you can. Michuta concludes by pointing people to his new book: "If anyone is interested in a fuller discussion of the many questions surrounding the disputed books of the Old Testament canon, my newest book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, will be available later this month." Ah, another read my book.
Quick Addition from JRW: OK, does this mean Trent did, or did not, provide a dogmatic, infallible canon? Haven't we had the Keating/Madrid/Akin/Matatics/etc. crowd telling us for years now that we need Trent's canon to even know what Scripture is? So, what do we call this? Dogmatic silence? Infallible uncertainty? "By Our Apostolic authority, standing in the line of Blessed Peter and Paul, We hereby grit our teeth." If they knew of the differences, does it not follow that we have here an ecumenical "We are clueless, don't ask"?

21:20:12 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Porvaznik Perfidy and Matatics Mendacity Documented #4

04/04/2007 - James White

   Here is Gerry's cross-ex portion, including the 18 seconds of silliness Porvaznik has turned into an "admission of defeat" on my part. To do this, of course, he has to seriously argue that for sola scriptura to be true, it must have been true at all times and in all places and in all situations. Hence, Jesus and the Apostles, though living in a time of enscripturation, would have to have operated on the principle for it to be true. Evidently, I guess everyone who ever lived would have had to have done so. So, Adam, would have to have believed in sola scriptura for it to be true. Of course, there was no scriptura at that point, so that's obviously silly, but, given the presupposition of the Roman Catholic "question" here, doesn't that prove the point? If sola scriptura speaks to today, and both sides agree today is different than the days of the Apostles (revelation was being given then, it is not today), then how can the question even be asked in all honesty? The circularity of the Roman position of self-proclaimed infallibility and outright ownership of "Sacred Tradition," including the "written traditions" of Scripture, blinds their apologists to the emptiness of their claims. As I have pointed out in the past, it is an empty claim to assert that a belief must be believed at all times. There was no Papacy to believe in even from the Roman Catholic position before Peter (and in the historical context, long after). Applying the same circular logic to that concept would lead to self-refutation of the belief. Indeed, the only folks who believed in oral, extra-scriptural divine revelation in the days of Jesus were...his opponents in the Jewish leadership. I'm sure my RC apologist opponents do not wish to embrace that as their paradigm---or do they? All depends, I guess.
   In any case, just a few comments: it is so sad to see a former student at Westminster Seminary starting off with a classic Jehovah's Witness style question, "There is no verse that says the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith." When the same man will have to admit there is no verses referring to the Papacy, transubstantiation, Bodily Assumption, purgatory, etc., and that he will then have to attempt to demonstrate these things not from specific texts, but from constituent teachings from different texts brought together, you again wonder how the question can be asked honestly. What is more, this kind of argument likewise could be used in the form, "You would agree there is no text that says specifically that the Book of Mormon is not divine Scripture" or the like. This kind of argument is supposed to be compelling?
   You will note that as soon as I finish citing 2 Tim. 3:16 Gerry says he wants me to quote Scripture. I thought that was Scripture. Then note he asks, "does that say every doctrine?" It says doctrine (teaching). It does not say every doctrine, but that would be included in the work of teaching, would it not? Any sober-minded exegete of the Pauline letters to Timothy and Titus would have to say yes. Then he accuses me of "reinterpreting" the term "good work," yet, again, he well knows, or, at least, at one point in his life, knew, that "good work" in Paul's exhortation to Timothy did include the entire list of exhortation, teaching, rebuking, training, etc. This is not even a question in any serious context. His wandering off into the Roman Catholic addition of "good works" to justification is, of course, not only not a question (and hence a violation of the cross-ex rules) but a red herring as well.
   The applause of the Roman Catholics in the audience at the grand admission that the word "only" is not in 2 Timothy 3:16 is as gratuitous and empty as the glee of a Jehovah's Witness at the admission the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, or that of the Mormon when you "admit" the Bible does not say Joseph Smith was not a prophet. The Bible does not speak, by direct verbiage, to the term "Islam" either, but that is hardly relevant, is it?
   Next, Gerry's "last year you used Greek to confuse this audience" rhetoric was simply reprehensible and, on any meaningful level, sufficient grounds for his disqualification. He is referring to the discussion of "until" and e[wj ou- "hews hou" in reference to Matthew 1:25. Even raising the topic in this context was an egregious violation of the rules. He spends 45 seconds wandering all over the landscape and then has the temerity to insult the audience by saying "it's a simple yes or no question." This is the standard Matatics methodology of using what can only be called cheap debating tricks. For the person who seeks to follow the issues closely, this kind of thing is maddening. The circularity of Matatic's attack upon the sufficiency of Scripture, all to make room for Rome's dogmas of Papal Infallibility, or the Bodily Assumption, etc., is clear to all with eyes to see and ears to hear.

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

Is William Webster Telling The Truth?

04/03/2007 - James Swan

I received a private message over on the Catholic Answers forum informing me William Webster was being accused of lying about the edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia which contains a statement from Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo, against the canonicity of the apocrypha. This Bible was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X. The assertion of Webster's lack of truthfulness reads:

   "I hate to admit this but I think Webster's assertions are wrong. I found a book about Cardinal Ximenes, Pope Leo X and the Complutensian Polygot. It was on Questia com. From what I read there is no preface condemning the Apocrypha books. What Pope Leo does condemn are pseudo-Apocrypha books. But who really knows... perhaps the Vatican isn't telling the truth (maybe they fudged the real documents). After all the Vatican has all of these secret documents (I tried to check some of them out on the Vatican web-site) that the average person isn't permitted to read."

   This was the first time I've come across such as assertion. If this is indeed the case, I would have to ask this person to explain this statement from the preface of Ximenes:

   "The books which are without the Canon, which the Canon receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of ecclesiastical doctrines, are given only, in Greek, but with a double translation."

   If pseudo-Apocryphal books are meant, this is equally as awful for the Roman Catholic dealing with the historical record. Well, this is not what is meant. Ximenes meant the apocryphal books.

08:44:10 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Six Points On Luther's "Epistle of Straw"

04/03/2007 - James Swan

Almost five hundred years after the fact, Roman Catholics still scrutinize Martin Luther. One the most popular quotations from Luther is the infamous "epistle of straw" remark, directed at the canonicity of the book of James. It really is amazing how frequently this citation appears. It is usually brought forth as proof one must believe an infallible church authored an infallible list of infallible books. Without this, one subjectively decides which books are canonical, like Martin Luther supposedly did in the sixteenth century.If you find yourself in dialog facing this quote, there are a few facts and arguments you should know.
   First, this quote only appears in Luther's original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. After 1522, all the editions of Luther's Bible dropped the "epistle of straw" comment, along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books. It was Luther himself who edited these comments out. For anyone to continue to cite Luther's "epistle of straw" comment against him is to do him an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.
   Second, detractors are keen on selectively quoting Luther's preface to James. Most often cited are only those comments that express negativity. If one takes the times to actually read Luther's comments about James, he praises it and considers it a "good book" "because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God." Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform a reader Luther praises James, or respects God's law. On the other hand, I have seen many Catholics insist Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian. Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth Gods law.
   Third, Luther does appear to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James, but it wasn't because he was purely subjective as Roman Catholics claim. He did not whimsically dismiss Biblical books simply because he did not like their content. Luther was aware of the disputed authenticity of the book. Eusebius and Jerome both recorded doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. Luther did not consider James to be James the Apostle. He wasn't alone in this. The great humanist Scholar Erasmus likewise questioned the authenticity of James, as did Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars.
   Fourth, it is true Luther had a contextual problem with the content on James. He saw a contradiction between Paul and James on faith and works. Some conclude Luther missed the harmonization between these two Biblical writers, but this isn't true either. Luther's great biographer Roland Bainton pointed out, "Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting reconciliation. 'Faith,' he wrote, 'is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith' " [Here I Stand, 259]. In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies. Luther responded:

   "The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, 'faith' ought to be placed with the word 'justifies' and the portion of the sentence 'without works justifies' is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word 'justifies,' not to 'faith.' In the minor premise, 'without works' is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. 'Without works' is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. [LW 34: 175-176].

   Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution, it is probably the case that the question of James' apostleship out-weighed it. One cannot argue Luther was never presented with a harmonization between Paul and James. He seems to have granted the validity of it, yet still questioned the canonicity of the book.
   Fifth, its important to point out the double standard at play when Catholics bring up Luther's opinion on James. If it comes up, hypothetically grant the validity of the Roman Catholic Church declaring the contents of the canon. Then point out Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions and debated these issues previous to the Council of Trent's declaration. The New Catholic Encyclopedia points out,

   "According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon."

   Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All expressed some doubt.Their's was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it.
   Finally, Luther says he cannot include James among his chief books "though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him." These are hardly the words of one claiming to be an infallible authority or a "super-pope" (as one Catholic apologist used to claim). This points out an important flaw in Catholic argumentation. Some actually argue as if we think Luther was an infallible authority. Luther didn't think he was, and I've yet to meet a Protestant who considers him anything more than a sinner saved by grace, imperfect, yet used by God during a crucial period in history.

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

Porvaznik Perfidy and Matatics Mendacity Documented #3

04/02/2007 - James White

   Here is the final portion of my cross examination of Gerry Matatics in 1997 on the topic of sola scriptura. In the next section I will present his turn, which will include the 18 second clip Porvaznik has posted. This portion ends with my giving Gerry a copy of the Soli Deo Gloria book on sola scriptura. Footnote 41 in my chapter on sola scriptura and the early church (pages 60-61) provides the following information, directly relevant to his question of me at the end:

Greek text found in Robert Thomson, edtior, Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 2. Or Migne, PG, 25:4. The Greek reads, auvta,rkeij me.n ga,r eivsin ai` a[giai kai. qeo,pneustoi grafai. pro.j th.n th/j avlhqei,aj avpaggeli,an. With reference to the term auvta,rkeij, we note the definition provided by Bauer, "sufficiency, a comptence" and "contentment, self-sufficiency." See Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 122. The most helpful work of Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domans (United Bible Societies: 1988), p. 680, says of the term, "a state of adequacy or sufficiency---'what is adequate, what is sufficient, what is needed, adequacy....' In a number of languages the equivalent of this expression in 2 Corinthians 9:8 may be 'always having all that you need' or, stated negatively, 'not lacking in anything.'"

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

Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part III

04/01/2007 - James White

The Teaching of Major Western Theologians of the Middle Ages
   The perspective of the Glossa ordinaria is reflected in the views of the most influential theologians of the Church throughout the Middle Ages. They separated the Apocrypha from the canon, consistently citing the Hebrew canon and Jerome as authorities. Bruce Metzger affirms this reality:

Subsequent to Jeromes time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180).

A thorough documentation of the views of the Western theologians of the Church from Jerome to the time of the Reformation can be found here.
Cardinal Cajetan
   The majority view is that expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term canonical as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

   Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage (Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.

   This is a fair summary of the overall view of the Western Church from the Middle Ages to the sixteenth century. Jerome's opinion dominated. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives