Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
|
The Closing Of The Old Testament Canon
05/30/2007 - James Swan
I've been going through Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. Obvious from the title, the book attempts to validate the apocryphal Old Testament books found in Roman Catholic Bibles.Michuta argues the Jewish canon was open until the middle decades of the second century. This late closing of the Hebrew canon allows for the canonicity of the apocryphal books, in that it proves the Jews collectively did not have a canon fixed earlier excluding the apocrypha. Keep in mind though, the Jews did explicitly exclude the apocrypha at the late date Michuta suggests.
One particular Jewish leader, Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, had the rabbinical clout necessary to limit the canon once and for all to exclude the apocrypha (and also the New Testament). According to Michuta, it was this man who spurred on deceptive historical arguments put forth by second century Jewish leaders to eliminate the apocrypha from sacred Scripture. They were the ones who claimed oral traditions from antiquity held prophecy had ceased. Without a prophet, the apocrypha could not have been sacred Scripture. Michuta says this "..[A]llowed Jewish leaders to become the sole arbiters of Jewish oral tradition" (p.71). In Michuta's treatment of Josephus, he posits Josephus can't be trusted when he limits the canon to twenty-two books. Now when Rabbinical Judaism speaks of a cessation of prophecy rooted in oral tradition, they simply concocted this and read it back into history. There is indeed irony in a Catholic apologist criticizing the keepers of oral tradition, as those claiming to be sole arbiters of a particular body of information.
If Akiba ruled against the apocrypha and Judaism followed his ruling, the Jews of the second century began treating commonly accepted canonical books as non-canonical. Michuta does not explain how such a dramatic change went so smoothly within the confines of Judaism. Josephus notes the Jews were a people that would die for their sacred texts. How was it Akiba ruled against books that were previously treated canonical, and the Jews simply went along with his ruling?
Perhaps though it was only a portion of the Jews that accepted these books as canonical. Michuta notes, "...[A]t least some Jews must also have shared that acceptance [with the Christians], otherwise Akiba's decree would have been superfluous" (p. 69). Since there does not appear to be a major outcry against de-canonizing them, would this not indicate it was probably a smaller number that accepted the apocrypha as Scripture? This would mean the majority Jewish opinion saw the apocryphal books as non-canonical.
An immediate question arises if Michuta's view is correct. One can understand why Rabbi Akiba would speak against the New Testament. Akiba supported his contemporary, Simon Bar Cochba as the messiah, and repudiated Jesus Christ. Hence, for Akiba, the New Testament could not be the very word of God. But why would Akiba rule against the apocrypha? Michuta's answer comes from his debate with Dr. White. Quoting the Jewish scholar Lewis Ginsberg, Michuta says,
"Akiba's the one who definitely fixed the canon of the Old Testament books. Ginsberg also explains that the motive underlying Akiba's antagonism to the deuterocanonical books says the motive to disarm Christians, especially Jewish Christians, who drew their proofs from the apocrypha."
Now if this is the case, Michuta has to explain why Akiba singled out the apocryphal books being quoted by Christians. Did not the early church quote from the entire Old Testament to prove Jesus was the Messiah? The New Testament is filled with references to the Old Testament. As is obvious from checking the references to the Old Testament, the apocrypha is not needed to prove the entirety of the Old Testament spoke of Him. Why was Akiba so distressed by Christian citations from the apocrypha? Gary's reasoning presents more problems than answers. He needs to explain why Akiba found Christian citations from the apocrypha so troubling, whereas citations from the Old Testament proper were not addressed.
In his section on Akiba, Michuta spends more time arguing the early Christians accepted the apocrypha. The question though is, did the Jews accept it? Michuta quotes Akiba declaring, "The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The Books of Ben Sira and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands." Michuta then argues, "Here we have a hostile witness confirming through his actions that the earliest Christians accepted both the Gospels and the Deuterocanon as inspired and sacred Scripture" (p.69). True, Akiba speaks against both the apocrypha and the New Testament, but the conclusion he posits does not automatically follow. Wouldn't it be more likely to conclude that Akiba was arguing from the position of a historically closed canon? That is, those books that came after the cessation of prophecy were not sacred Scripture. Michuta refers to this on page 71, noting, "It is also during [the] reign of Akiba (or shortly afterwards) that the idea of a cessation of prophecy began to appear in rabbinic literature." What Michuta thinks serves as proof Christians held the apocrypha to be Scripture, actually serves as proof for something quite different, a closed canon at an earlier date.
In summary, Michuta never really explains why Akiba ruled against the apocrypha. He doesn't explain why Jewish leaders wanted to become the sole arbiters of Jewish tradition (why would any other group be entitled to share this anyway?). He doesn't explain why these Jewish leaders had to impose the cessation of prophecy back into history. He doesn't explain why at least some Jews, were not outraged by the elimination of allegedly sacred books from the canon. But most importantly, he does not explain why Akiba would be against Christians citing the apocrypha, when they spent more time citing the rest of the Old Testament to prove Jesus was the Messiah.
20:54:22 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
A Reasoned Reply from the Far Side of the Tiber
05/30/2007 - James White
In reference to White's article dated May 30, 2007. "Francis Beckwith Begins to Give His Reasons" It is well expected that Mr. White's comments towards Mr. Beckwith's reversion to Mother Church would not be favorable. What else would one expect from White. What else could White have said, but not speak in a favorable tone. After all White is a Prot. And not only a Prot. but one of the foremost defenders of Prot-ism and avid opponents against Mother Church. So how can anyone take what White writes seriously. I mean he is soooo one sided. White is better off not saying anything at all and letting the matter just die down. He makes it worst by commentting on Beckwith's reversion, thus drawing more attention to the subject of why Prots. revert at all, especially those who are learnered theologians, who at one time held the presidency of the ETS!!This kind note (I wonder what would happen if I started calling Roman Catholics "Papists" as often as they refer to me as a "Prot" or a "Deformer" or, in the loving, yet creepy words of Art Sippo, "anti-Catholic bigot" and a member of the "Kampus Krusade for Kthulhu" and the "Death Eater crowd"?) illustrates a common element of the non-dialogue that normally takes place today about important issues. If you read the first portion of my review, posted only a few hours ago, you will note that I addressed a wide range of things, including the reading of patristic sources, dating the origination of particular doctrinal concepts (like indulgences), etc. It asked serious questions about serious issues related to the gospel. But what did Bob, my Catholic correspondent, hear? Well, basically...nothing. Nothing of substance made it through Bob's filters. Instead, what does he say? White should shut up, because White is wrong. Well, there you go! I'm so "one sided"! Well, like the Pope isn't! I guess the Pope should be less one-sided, Bob?
And as for Beckwith being a learned theologian, he wasn't, and isn't. He's a learned philosopher. There is, of course, a difference. Beckwith is admitting he was an unfounded non-Catholic. By that I mean, he was not a Catholic, and did not know why he was not a Catholic. By his own statements in the article I am reviewing, he had not read patristic literature; his views of grace and man had always been in opposition to Luther and Calvin (as is the case with most non-Catholics today); he did not know why he was not a Catholic, that is, his position was not one of knowing conviction. He had not even read the Council of Trent. And I have a feeling that would describe a large proportion of the membership of the ETS as well. Join this together with his common cooperation with Roman Catholics in other areas (cultural issues, social issues, philosophy), his own background in Catholicism, etc., and the reversion is hardly surprising. One who does not passionately understand why the death of Christ is once-for-all, finished, completed, and perfect (in opposition to Rome's Mass), and who is not committed whole-heartedly to the sole sufficiency of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ as his or her whole and entire standing before God (over against Rome's infusion of grace and synergism) will find things like ecumenism, philosophy, social issues, etc., more than sufficient to overthrow any commitment to mere "doctrines" like sola fide or sola scriptura.
16:20:25 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Francis Beckwith Begins to Give His Reasons
05/30/2007 - James White
I'm sure I am not the first person to note that "the overwhelming historical weight of the dogmas defined by Rome on the basis of tradition, such as Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Bodily Assumption of Mary, compelled me to bow to the authority of Rome" has not been at the top of Dr. Beckwith's reasons for returning to Catholicism. In fact, I haven't see a word about Mary as yet, and I, for one, would very much like to hear how Dr. Beckwith, who so far has relied very heavily upon nebulous uses of the term "tradition," can pledge his fealty to Rome while at the same time embracing these very a-historical dogmas as if they are definitional of the Christian faith.I likewise believe I sense a certain amount of hesitancy on the part of some in the RC apologetics community regarding Beckwith's conversion. Note this paragraph from The National Catholic Register:
Because of the magisterium, contemporary leaders, in some ways, are constrained by the precedents of the past. That is more sure of a foundation than one would find in the evangelical world, where a congregation can vote, by fiat, things in or out. I accept the authority of the Church for very good reasons, just as I would accept what my doctor says because he went to medical school.
I don't know about you, but that does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of Papal primacy and infallibility. I'm sure Rome's apologists have noted the lack of such an enthusiastic endorsement of their central authority claims as well, and may be hanging back, waiting to see if Beckwith will be just another of the legion of "sorta-Catholic" scholars that currently fill their educational institutions.
In any case, slowly the arguments are coming forward, and one is left wondering just how much study went into this decision on Dr. Beckwith's part. He continually speaks of being "amazed" at reading patristic sources. This is a common element of what you hear from converts to Catholicism. But, you never get much in the way of critical thought as to what is so amazing about what they have read. You don't hear them being amazed at the things you find in patristic sources that Rome discards. You don't find any recognition of the fact that in every generation there are those who are insightful and sound in their writings, and those who are not; some strong in one area, weak in others. The impact of persecution, whether a writer knew Greek or Hebrew, the state of the recognition of the canon in his day and in his area, access to the entirety of the Scriptures, etc.--all things that are obviously relevant to the weight to be given to any particular writer or any particular writing--are all missing from the vocabulary of the convert to Rome.
One statement by Beckwith in particular amazed me:
But what it will do is help the Protestant to appreciate that the very same Christians that deliberated over the content of the Biblical canon also believed in the Real Presence, purgatory, intercession of the saints and indulgences.Beckwith has a strong attachment to the idea that Rome fixed the canon of Scripture (it didn't). But I am truly left wondering what the preceding statement actually means. I suppose he could be admitting that the first dogmatic, infallible definition of the canon (from the modern Roman perspective) is that of Trent in 1546, but that would not fit his "primitive" Christianity motif, nor the idea that the early Christians were "closer" to the Apostles than we are. No, I think he is truly speaking of the primitive centuries here, at least as far as the canon is concerned. But that is where the wheels fall off, for any serious student of history who is not a dogged apologist for modern Rome knows the concept of purgatory took centuries to develop and did not in fact arrive at its modern form until the fifteenth century; even the input of Gregory the Great, vital to its development, did not bring it to the current place it has in Roman theology, and surely Gregory is long after the canon issue is, for all intents and purposes, settled. And given that, it is likewise unquestionable that the concept of indulgences, which is grounded in the same merit-theology as purgatory, and which requires the further development of the concept of the thesaurus meritorum ("treasury of merit"), is later than purgatory. So, is Beckwith seriously attempting to argue that these two doctrines were believed by the church of the first four centuries? Did his study leading to his conversion consist solely of Roman Catholic works and defective Protestant ones?
We are also left wondering at what he means by "Real Presence". Does he recognize the difference between the spiritual presence of Christ with His people and the later scholastic development of transubstantiation, or has he bought into the same kind of historical anachronism that plagues almost all of modern Roman Catholic apologetics writings? Is he prepared to argue that the primitive church, say, up to the end of the fourth century, actually believed what Rome teaches today on such issues as purgatory, indulgences, and transubstantiation? His words here would seem to say yes, but, there is always the Newmanian Wiggle Argument:
Even in the cases where these doctrines were not articulated in their contemporary formulations, their primitive versions were surely there.
This is the final bastion of the Roman Catholic apologist who attempts to make a coherent argument for his faith.
"We are the one true church, going back to Jesus and the Apostles."
"So, you teach what the Apostles taught?"
"Yes, of course."
"So the Apostles taught about purgatory and indulgences and transubstantiation and Papal Infallibility and the Marian dogmas?"
"Yes...sorta."
"Sorta?"
"Yes. Like an acorn is to a tree...." [ Zen music helps at this point ]
"Oh, so, they taught something that developed, over time, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, into what you believe today."
"Exactly! Living tradition! Magisterium!"
"So as long as I believe in your tradition and your Magisterium, I will believe anything you have to say, whether I can find the Apostles teaching it or not, right? So you can teach, as dogma, whatever your tradition and magisterium say, even if you cannot find a Christian who believed those teachings who can in any logical sense be connected to the apostles; and, you can teach things in the names of the Apostles that have no connection at all to their writings, but, you claim apostolic authority for it anyway, correct?"
And so on. I wonder if Beckwith read Salmon's Infallibility of the Church during his studies? Whitaker? Goode? I'd be quite interested in seeing his reading list for "the other side," for surely he did, in fact, do that kind of study, did he not?
Ironically, one book he does mention, is that by Geisler and MacKenzie. His words speak for themselves:
While consulting these sources, I read portions of a book by my friends Norm Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. It is a fair-minded book.
But some of the points that Norm and Ralph made really shook me up and were instrumental in facilitating my return to the Church.
We shouldn't be too hard on Norm and Ralph: both Geisler and Beckwith graduated from Jesuit schools to begin with, and Geisler ran his book by Jimmy Akin for editing purposes, so there is little reason for feigning too much shock here. But if you have been thinking of using the Geisler/MacKenzie book as a resource, well, here is an endorsement for it that should get your attention.
Another statement that caught my eye is this: "In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world." I agree. But why is this? How can it be the "true" church bores its people into a coma while the "rebels" are able to engage in "expository preaching" in the way they do? Can it be because we honor the Bible as the Word of God in a way utterly outside the capacity of any religion that places itself above the Scriptures as Rome most assuredly does? Is it not very clear that the reason we produce Spurgeons and Edwards and Bunyans and the like is because we have a fundamentally different view of Scripture? Is this not the difference between a heart-felt conviction of sola scriptura vs. the functional attitude of Rome, sola ecclesia? I would think so.
[continued]
12:03:53 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Checking In With The Other Side Of The Tiber
05/25/2007 - James Swan
I regularly visit Roman Catholic blogs and websites to see what the apologists are up to. Here are a few highlights.The Envoy boards provided this newsbreaker from Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid:
"My new book on the subject of sola scriptura, which I'm finishing up this summer, responds directly and in detail to these claims made by King and Webster. The book, published by Servant Books, will appear in early 2008."
If this does get printed, I think it may be the first full-length published response to the Webster / King three-volume set, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. For those of you involved with Catholic apologetics, you really need to get the King / Webster books. I'm very fond of volume one (A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura) by David King. In my opinion, this volume is the best current book in print explaining sola scriptura, and also directly interacting with Catholic apologetic arguments on sola scriptura. All three volumes can be purchased here.
Over on the Envoy boards, a thread was posted critiquing another of my current blog entries. This gentleman wrote:
"James Swan in a May 21st blog post attempts to justify King's and Websters's 3 volume treatise on scripture and tradition. Since the AOMIN blog does not allow responses (as I have noted on prior occasions), I shall attempt to address some of James Swan's comments here."
And also:
"To make a very long story short, there is a Catholic understanding of sola scriptura that is much closer to that of the Church Fathers than that of the Reformers and modern day Evangelicals. My hope is the James Swan (and others) will enter into a constructive dialogue to discuss these important issues."
Now, this particular fan of mine knows full well I've been banned from the envoy boards. I was banned for simply posting a link to an article from AOMIN. Perhaps Mr. Madrid should be asked why he won't let me actually discuss this issue on his discussion board, but will let a link be put up about me, knowing I can't respond.
Also, I think it's about time to stop all this nonsense about James White not allowing responses on his blog. His blog is not a discussion board. In fact, those of you who have been around AOMIN for a while, know that the current blog set up simply replaced the old main page articles that were put up. In other words, this blog was never intended to be a discussion blog, and many others likewise have a similar set up. You can always call Dr. White's Dividing Line show to voice your comments. You will have the pleasure of immediate interaction, I'm sure.
If this person really wants "constructive dialog", I suggest writing Mr. Madrid and asking him if Roman Catholicism is more true if links to AOMIN are not allowed to be posted. In other words, let Madrid know the real world still exists outside of his Envoy forums. Many of his Envoy participants write only about AOMIN anyway. Patrick might as well simply make their time a little easier by allowing links, and not being so quick to ban people who are a lot less vitriolic than Mr. Sippo.
07:50:51 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Svendsen-Pacwa debate review
05/25/2007 - James Swan
If you're curious to know about the outcome of the Eric Svendsen vs. Mitch Pacwa debate, "What is the final authority for the believer--the church (sola ecclesia) or the Scriptures (sola scriptura?)", you can read a discussion/review about it here.07:50:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Two Contradicting Points Equals a Refutation
05/25/2007 - James Swan
Catholic apologist Art Sippo is asking that I apologize to Gary Michuta for my recent blog entry on the book of Sirach. Sippo says,"The ever overbearing and ill informed James Swan has been making ignorant rumblings about Gary's book. I guess the Death Eaters are feeling intimidated by real scholarship so they have to nit-pick without any real understanding of the topic."
"I think that Mr. Swan owes Mr. Michuta an apology for his misrepresentation of Gary's book. Furthermore he owes the rest of us an apology for his crass attempt at deceit."
Art posted a snippet from my recent blog entry, while totally ignoring the entirety of it. I went through Gary's argumentation, and tried to interact with all of it. Sippo says "Mr. Swan does not know the difference between a canon being formed and having 'fixed and certain' contents." Indeed Art, I do recognize this distinction, and know that it is an unproven assumption on both your and Mr. Michuta's part.
Sippo then says, "There is no doubt that by the time of Christ, the OT was formed into 3 sections: Torah, Prophets, and Psalms (or Writings). While the content of the Torah has never been in question, there were significant questions about the content of the Prophets and Writings." Yet Michuta argues in his new book (and also previously in his debate with Dr. White) that Psalms does not mean "the Writings," it simply means Psalms. Michuta argues this phraseology appears no earlier than the mid-second century, thus trying to prove Luke 24:44 cannot be used to prove a three-fold canon division. It would be helpful if Sippo, who claims to have Michuta's book, could at least check in with Gary to get his facts straight.
I saved a copy of this particular Envoy thread, because I have a feeling when Art reads this, his tune will change. Michuta chimed in and said, "Art did such a good job responding to Swan that I don't know if I can (or should) add anymore." But these guys are saying two different things. Of course, I would love to post this over at Envoy and directly ask Mr. Michuta how Sippo did such a great job, when he completely contradicts a major point in the new book.
07:48:34 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
The "Philosophy" of Sola Scriptura
05/25/2007 - James White
My Google Blog Search pulled this comment up:If you read a little more on the blog, you’ll see that at one time I had a sola scriptura philosophy. Then I realized such a philosophy is unbiblical. I couldn’t find anywhere in the Bible where the Bible says that the Bible is the sole authority for all matters related to faith. Rather I saw the Bible pointing back to the Church as an authority. History shows that the Bible is authoritative because the Church says it is (by virtue of the fact that the Canon was determined by the Church) and not the other way around. But, you’ve heard that argument before and have closed your eyes to it.This actually goes back a few weeks to the Beckwith reversion and the reactions that poured in regarding my impudence in 1) mentioning it, 2) daring to be a consistent, historical Reformed Baptist.
In reference to the comment, I find it unusual for anyone who once believed in the all-sufficiency of Scripture to refer to say they once "had a sola scriptura philosophy." That is not how we speak. But then we are given the standard arguments. We are told it is unbiblical. That would mean this person was convinced of another positive, biblical teaching, evidently, sola ecclesia. That seems to be the meaning of what comes after, but, not quite. Notice, "I saw the Bible pointing back to the Church as an authority." Well, that is not an appropriate counter-statement to sola scriptura and the assertion that it is unbiblical. No one questions the assertion that the Bible teaches that the church has authority. I surely have never denied that the church has authority. That would be odd for an elder in an Reformed Baptist Church. But, saying the church is an authority and saying this contradicts sola scriptura shows that our writer has misunderstood the doctrine he said he once held (maybe because he thought it was just a philosophy?) and continues to deny.
Then we are told that the Bible is authoritative because the Church says it is. Now this statement is blatantly false and easily refuted. When Jesus quoted the Scriptures to the Jews, did they respond, "Hey, the only reason those Scriptures have authority is because we said they do, since we determined the canon!" No, for they never dreamed that the authority of that which is "God-breathed" could be based upon the proclamations of the church. The Bible is authoritative because it is God speaking, not because anyone points to it and says, "That is authoritative." Clearly, for such a claim to be true, our writer would have to hold a blatant and clear form of sola ecclesia, giving to the Roman Church the ultimate authority. He clearly seems to think the Roman Church determined the canon, which is again, obviously untrue, for the first dogmatic definition of the canon, even according to Rome, is from the 16th century, and anyone who thinks the Bible was lacking in authority until then has not cracked the cover of said book. And so we see, again, a very confused epistemology being presented by the would-be defender of Rome.
I get the very strong feeling that his writer has never read The Roman Catholic Controversy let alone Scripture Alone. I doubt he has ever viewed one of my debates on the subject, either. Yet, he is confident enough to say that I am the one who has "closed your eyes to it." I have done no such thing. I refuse to close my eyes to error and contradiction.
Finally, I note that in referring to this comment, our writer once again referred to me as an anti-catholic. I would like to ask, is our writer an anti-Baptist? If not, why not?
07:45:59 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
On Double Standards (Again)
05/23/2007 - James White
Looking forward to doing "Kilted Apologetics" tonight here in Larbert (the Falkirk area between Glasgow and Edinburgh). Just finished a brand new digital presentation on the difference between the Uthmanic Revision and the transmission of the text of the New Testament that I'm looking forward to presenting tonight. Don't worry, pictures tomorrow!In any case, I began surfing around a bit, looking over my RSS feeds, and ran across this from someone who attended the Pacwa/Svendsen debate a few days ago:
The debate was fantastic and both men served their sides well. I was trying desperately to really pay attention to the Catholic priest and hear his side. The sheer giddiness of the predominately Catholic audience was at times distracting. And the rudeness of the Catholics (around me at least) towards the protestant was also distracting. They would roll their eyes and guffaw while he was speaking.Eric mentioned the same thing about the crowd, and some of you will recall that I noted that during the priesthood debate the Catholics in the front row were quite a distraction. Some of my long-time readers will remember the comments made by my wife and children regarding the behavior of the Catholics in the audience when I debated Tim Staples on the Papacy a number of years ago (see here with the links contained therein). Add to this the ease with which we can now just send folks over to Art Sippo's blog (before folks had to wade through Patrick Madrid's very poorly laid-out website to find the Envoy "www.aomin.org makes us cry" forums) for up-to-date examples of how Roman Catholic apologists excel in the use of ad-hominem, mockery, straw-men, and general bullying, and the sober-minded, clear-thinking person is forced to conclude that the slide in the apologetics community on the far side of the Tiber continues apace. The recent converts are not directing us to this kind of spectrum of thinking, but are generally moving toward a more "ecumenical" form of Roman Catholicism.
06:52:28 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
I Won't Read It, But It Must Be a Lie!
05/21/2007 - James Swan
Here was a thread that caught my eye on the Catholic Answers forums:"I was looking at Philip Porvaznik's ("Philvaz") website and saw an interesting quote from protestant apologist William Webster and David king in their book "The Holy Scripture: Pillar and Foundation of our faith"
" The patristic evidence for sola Scriptura is, we believe, an overwhelming indictment against the claims of the Roman communion. " (volume 1 by David King, page 266)
" Such statements [regarding the unhistorical nature of sola Scriptura] manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture. Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages. " (volume 2 by William Webster, page 84-85)
" When they [the Church Fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. " (volume 3 by Webster/King, page 9)
Obviously this is a blatant lie since we can see through reading the church fathers in context that they did not teach sola scriptura at all! Now if Webster's argument was that there are certain passages from the church fathers which can be used to support his argument that is one thing (although I highly disagree with it) but to say that there was a universal consensus for sola scriptura seems like these heretics are intentionally trying to mislead people. What do you think?"
What do I think? I think it's sad that someone would rather read Phil Porvaznik's misunderstanding of these volumes rather than read these books for himself. I think these comments accusing Webster and King of blatant lies rather than reviewing the evidence presented speaks volumes of the desperation of those dedicated to sola ecclesia.
For the first quote:
"The patristic evidence for sola Scriptura is, we believe, an overwhelming indictment against the claims of the Roman communion." (volume 1 by David King, page 266)"
Page 266 presents an answer to a common misrepresentation of sola scriptura: "Protestants Appeal to Patristic Evidence to Prove Sola Scriptura, Hence Their Proof Resides in Tradition." Pastor King responds by pointing out sola scriptura was not a novelty that began with the Reformers. Volume Three of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith contains over 300 pages of documentation to prove this. King then says, "Even apart from patristic evidence exists or not, the position of sola scriptura would and must be maintained for two primary reasons: 1) Scripture alone is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and gives us a full revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and, 2) there is no other special revelation extant outside of Scripture."
The next citation:
"Such statements [regarding the unhistorical nature of sola Scriptura] manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture. Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages. " (volume 2 by William Webster, page 84-85)
This comment (found only on page 85) was directed towards Philip Blosser's statement that Scripture alone was not the infallible rule for the first thirteen centuries of the church. Webster goes on to quote the great church historian J.N.D. Kelly who says the same exact thing: the fathers held to the authority, primacy, and sufficiency of Scripture. Is J.N.D. Kelly likewise a liar?
The last quote:
"When they [the Church Fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. " (Volume 3 by Webster/King, page 9)
Volume three does exactly what is claimed. Ironically, some Catholics will argue for the material sufficiency of Scripture, others will not. So, the person making these charges against Webster and King would be indicting some his fellow Catholics. Yves Congar would admit the material sufficiency of Scripture: "...[W]e can admit sola Scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation." [Cited by James Akin, Material and Formal Sufficiency, This Rock 4, no. 10 (October 1993): 15].
And by the way, according to some Catholic apologists, we're not "heretics" anymore. Your church now calls Protestants separated brothers.
00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Gary Michuta, Sirach, and the Threefold Division of the Old Testament
05/20/2007 - James Swan
I've been going through Catholic apologist Gary Michuta's new book, Why Catholic bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: The Grotto Press, 2007). The first bit of evidence the book covers is the usage and citations of the apocryphal Book of Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus) and its impact on the canonical status of the apocryphal books. Sirach dates from 200-150 B.C. Protestants have pointed to evidence from the prologue of this book to show that a threefold division within the Old Testament canon existed during this time period. In other words, Sirach may provide evidence the Old Testament canon was fixed and certain before the New Testament period.The prologue states:
"Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom: and whereof not only the readers must needs become skillful themselves, but also they that desire to learn to be able profit them which are without, both by speaking and by writing: my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law. Wherefore let me entreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret; for the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them. And not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language."
Key phrases pointing to a three-fold division are "the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers" and "the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books."
Mr. Michuta explains this evidence by stating,
"Some Protestant apologists have argued that this introduction speaks of 'the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings'- a threefold division of the Old Testament corresponding to the three-fold division in modern Jewish Bibles... Unfortunately, this line of reasoning greatly overstates the evidence. Sirach's introduction never speaks of 'the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings;' it speaks only of 'the Law, the Prophets, and the other books'- a very unusual piece of language if the now-established terms were already in use. Indeed, in three attempts to reference Scripture in this fashion, Sirach's grandson fails even once to apply what later became the recognized phraseology. Furthermore, such a vague name as the 'other books' may suggest a deliberate vagueness and, in fact, recalls the similar ambiguity employed by some of the early Church Fathers in the decades before a universally recognized New Testament canon was promulgated. At the very least, such an indistinct category cannot be said to effectively exclude much of anything" (p.7).
Michuta doesn't tell us which Protestant apologists he has in mind, so I surveyed a few popular Protestant books on this subject. They simply used Sirach to point to an early example of a three-fold division. The emphasis was not on the phrase, "the Writings," but rather the threefold division implied in the statement. It is simply one piece of evidence in the overall unfolding of the Old Testament canon. The threefold division simply didn't appear out of thin air, nor did Moses say, "I am now writing books to be included in the first section of the threefold Old Testament." No, the threefold division occurred over a period of time, and various bits of evidence substantiate it (see William Webster's helpful overview).
Michuta argues dually a three-fold division in Ecclesiasticus either can't be meant, or cannot be proven to be what the book means because the phrase "the Writings" is not used. With the former, it is spurious logic. Simply because the phrase may not have been employed at an earlier time does not mean it did not refer to "the Writings." The most popular example of such an occurrence would be the term "Trinity." Certainly the writers of the New Testament taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God without using this theological term, a term used after the apostolic period. With the later argument, Michuta argues Ecclesiasticus is simply too vague to serve as evidence for a threefold division. Even though logically Sirach mentions three distinct categories, it isn't clear enough to Michuta to imply a threefold division. Mr. Michuta then posits this was left intentionally vague by the writer of Sirach. In other words, the writer of Sirach not only didn't believe in a closed threefold canon, he wasn't sure which "other books" were canonical.
Even with this situation of ambiguity, Michuta argues Ecclesiasticus itself claims to be canonical. While the writer of the book wasn't sure what "other books" may be canonical, he was sure his was. Michuta says, "...Sirach indicates that he did, in fact, believe his book to contain the wisdom that comes only from the Lord, and that it could take a place among the other books of Scripture" (p.7). For substantiation, Michuta cites the preface (quoted above), and also Ecclesiasticus 24:28-31. Re-read the preface above. I don't see the evidence Michuta is referring to. Rather, as Roger Beckwith points out in evaluating the preface,
"It appears, then, that for this writer there are three groups of books which have a unique authority, and that his grandfather wrote only after gaining great familiarity with them, as their interpreter not as their rival. The translator explicitly distinguishes 'these things' (i.e. Ecclesiasticus, or uncanonical Hebrew compositions such as Ecclesiasticus) from 'the Law itself and the Prophets and the rest of the Books'" [Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 111].
Ecclesiasticus 24:28-31 (and also these cross-references mentioned by Michuta: 1; 6:37; and 16:24-25) are supposed to prove that the book claimed it could be placed with other canonical writings. True, these texts speak of wisdom, but they don't speak of looking for a place next to the canonical books. Look them up for yourself.
01:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
On Post Evangelicals
05/19/2007 - James White
David Howard, a past president of ETS and an executive board member, has written in response to Francis Beckwith's return to the faith of his childhood. Interestingly, the article affirms the propriety of Beckwith's resignation and seems to make it clear that the ETS's statement of faith, as interpreted by the executive board, does, in fact, hold to sola scriptura. Both of these issues were part of my initial post regarding Beckwith's reversion. For some reason, I was attacked and ridiculed for affirming these positions. Even a short period of time has vindicated my observations. Note his words:The phrase "the Bible alone" in the ETS context refers to the 66 books in the Old and New Testaments of the Protestant canon and thus rules out Mr. Beckwith's continued membership, given that the Roman Catholic Church accepts additional books in the canon, commonly referred to as deuterocanonical or apocryphal books. Mr. Beckwith maintains that he can still sign the ETS statement with full integrity because it does not enumerate the 66 books, but he voluntarily withdrew his membership in the interests of avoiding a rancorous debate in the society.These comments are all very interesting and very relevant, to be sure. My readers will note that in my initial comments on the reversion of Beckwith I did not go into the key issues of the gospel simply because Beckwith had yet to reveal the form of Roman Catholicism he is promoting today. Anyone who does not recognize the spectrum of beliefs in modern Roman Catholicism is living in denial of reality. I have yet to delve fully into even the few comments he has, in fact, made, for they are still quite preliminary.
The reason I wrote about Beckwith's reversion was simple: the gospel. The issue will always be: the gospel. And when someone like Beckwith goes back to the Roman system, we see just how central the gospel is to many who call themselves "evangelicals" today. You see, I am in no way surprised when men return to Rome. Rome's religion is very attractive. Indeed, unless a soul is convicted of its utter sinfulness and inability, and its utter guiltiness before God, and its utter dependence upon grace, and grace alone, it will always find comfort in man's religions, in pomp and circumstance, in religious pageantry and show--anything that makes God's grace subject to man's will, to man's control.
Many of those who do not bow the knee to Rome do so not out of a faith-affirming, soul-grounding conviction of the utter necessity of the gospel of grace, but simply out of their own traditions. The number of non-Catholics who are so out of knowledgeable conviction is small indeed. But I will likewise say, it is those who are thusly convinced who stand with the greatest clarity and firmness against Rome's denial of the gospel of grace, and Rome's enchantments find no place in their minds. Most in academia today purposefully distinguish themselves from such as these, so when one of them, or a group of them, decide to try out the far bank of the Tiber, it is hardly surprising.
Howard notes that "A small number of evangelicals have reacted as if he [Beckwith] committed an act of betrayal." If by this he refers to a betrayal of Beckwith's own heart-felt commitment to the gospel of grace, I could not possibly comment, since this would require me to know his heart and whether he had, in fact, ever been thusly committed. One cannot betray a gospel to which one is not pledged heart and soul. If I were to bow the knee to the Pope and pray to Mary, I would be betraying the gospel, knowingly, purposefully, and to my soul's destruction, without doubt.
There was a day, not too long ago, when the term "evangelical" referred to a person who actually believed the gospel defined the Christian faith---that the message of the cross was not a negotiable item, a secondary, if important, issue, upon which compromise could be allowed. But that day has passed. For many reasons I will not delve into at the moment, confidence in the gospel has vanished, and while many will still profess it to be "vital" or "important," in reality, most confess that it is just too difficult a subject, and "too many good men have disagreed" on the matter, so that the real conclusion is that we just can't really know the gospel with enough clarity to allow it to function in a definitional sense. The result of this is seen in the willingness to extend the faith to the "big tent," and refer to our "Roman Catholic brothers and sisters." The movement is on (seen in the willingness of some to pray with Mormon apologists and scholars) to extend the big tent even further, so that even Trinitarian heresy is not "enough" to exclude fellowship (witness T.D. Jakes, PC&D, etc.). And so the downgrade progresses, ever farther away from a biblical standard.
Howard writes,
Among many more, including us on the executive committee, the response has been one of cordial disagreement on some critical matters, accompanied by an acknowledgment that we nevertheless have much in common as fellow Christians...For myself, I can say that I have lost a valued colleague in the ETS, but I remain his brother in Christ and wish him well in his new spiritual home.One might well call for the renaming of the organization to the "Post-Evangelical Theological Society" if, in fact, this is the case. Again, I am not at all surprised by these things, but many who are not familiar with the "theology rot" inside Christian academia might be. The "E" of "ETS" is no longer defined by the "e" of "euangelion," the "gospel." I have no idea what it is in fact defined by, but if returning to the church of infallible Popes, Mary Immaculate and Assumed (the object of incessant prayer), the imperfect sacrifice of the Mass, the sacerdotal priesthood, and purgatorial sufferings, is to be likened to just another "spiritual home," the definitional standard is radically different than the one once held that long-vanished breed known as "Evangelicals."
00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Gary Michuta, Josephus, And The Cessation of Prophecy
05/15/2007 - James Swan
In his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Catholic apologist Gary Michuta Argues Protestant apologists misuse these words from the Jewish historian Josephus:"It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time..."
Michuta says,
"Josephus is here stating, according to Protestant apologists, that all prophecy ceased after the time of Artaxerxes (i.e. the time of the events recorded in the book of Esther); it is impossible, therefore, for the Deuterocanon to be inspired Scripture because only prophets can write divinely inspired books. Josephus, in other words, believed that a closed fixed canon of only twenty-two books (i.e. the equivalent of the Protestant Old Testament canon) had existed for hundreds of years by his time and no other works were considered Scripture. (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger p. 52)
Are Protestant apologists arguing Josephus says all prophecy ceased, therefore the apocrypha is not canonical? In his book, Michuta doesn't give any examples which Protestant apologists he's speaking of. This would indeed be helpful in evaluating his claim to determine whether or not it is a strawman. Indeed, Protestant apologists cite Josephus, but the emphasis is on his mentioning a twenty-two book Jewish canon, and his non-canonical treatment of those books which came after the time of Artaxerxes.
The entire key to this discussion is the interpretation of the words, "exact succession of prophets." Michuta, who says he's following the interpretation of Rebecca Gray, concludes the phrase means "a continuous and sometimes overlapping historical narrative" (p.54). In other words, the books previous to the apocrypha cover all the years of Jewish history consecutively, whereas the apocryphal books contain gaps in the historical years they cover. Therefore, this does not mean that Josephus believed all of prophecy ceased. Michuta points out, "Josephus never stated that all prophecy ceased after Artaxerses, nor did he say that a succession of prophets ceased. He writes instead that an exact succession of prophets ceased" (p.53). Michuta also points out Josephus does mention prophets and prophecy after the time of Artaxerses. This leads Michuta to conclude Josephus was only defending the canon previous to Artaxerses, and then when Josephus speaks of a twenty-two book Old Testament (similar to the Protestant canon), Josephus can't be trusted (see my previous entry).
What of this interpretation? First, it is an awkward interpretation, failing to interpret the context of Josephus words reasonably. Michuta's conclusion has to arrive at Josephus can only be trusted with facts that support the Roman Catholic view of history. The statements from Josephus about a twenty-two-book canon do not sit well in popular Catholic apologetic argumentation, therefore, Josephus can't be trusted on certain statements in the immediate context of Against Apion 1.41.
Second, his interpretation has to conclude that the post-Artaxerses books mentioned are really held to be sacred scripture by Josephus. Michuta argues Josephus really did believe the apocryphal books were sacred scripture (p.54-55), even though the Jewish historian clearly says they are not ("It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers"). This conclusion cannot make any sense of Josephus stating the Jews are willing to die for twenty-two canonical books. How odd for Josephus to make such strong statements delineating two types of Jewish books, if in fact, as Michuta argues, there is not really a difference! Michuta has to account for why Josephus would make such a perilous distinction, if in fact there isn't one.
Third, Michuta fails to entertain any counter explanations to the phrase "exact succession of prophets." That is, are there any other interpretations that stand stronger than that put forth in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger? On what basis of comparison did Michuta determine that his conclusion of interpretation is the only, or correct conclusion? What would happen if an interpretation of this phrase in Against Apion 1.41 put all the facts together coherently? What if an interpretation could be provided that does not have to resort to "Josephus' comments are certainly impeachable" (p.56). This would be a conclusion that I would want to hear, or at least be aware of if it were my book.
Michuta is correct that a survey of Josephus' writings show he did not hold the phenomenon of prophecy ceased to exist. The question is, what is the difference between the pre-Artaxerses prophecy and the post- Artaxerses prophecy for Josephus? There is an interpretation that gives coherence to the phrase "exact succession of prophets" and answers this question:
Josephus is quite clear in formulating a qualitative difference between prophecy prior the period of Artaxerses and prophecy following the period of Artaxerses. So long as there was an exact succession of prophets, from Moses on, literary prophecy was possible. Once there was a break in that exact succession of prophets, after the period of Artaxerses, isolated instance of prophecy were possible, but not literary prophecy. Perhaps, for Josephus prophecy and history were integrally bound up with each other and linked to Moses, the greatest prophet and historian. The stress may well have been on the historical aspects of literary prophecy. Only a continuous history could be deemed inspired. Interrupted or sporadic histories are by definition incomplete and therefore inferior. Once the chain was broken, nothing new could be added to the biblical canon" [Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (ed.), Josephus, The Bible, and History (Brill Academic Publishers, 1989 p.56)] (Emphasis mine).
06:58:26 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Checking In With The Other Side Of The Tiber
05/14/2007 - James Swan
I regularly visit Roman Catholic blogs and websites to see what the apologists are up to. Here are a few highlights.Catholic apologist Dr. Art Sippo has found a new vehicle by which to express himself: a blog. I guess it's my fault actually. I ran a little entry documenting some of the outrageous comments Sippo makes. This somehow inspired Art to join the blogging craze. I must say it is a profound honor to be the first subject Dr. Sippo blogged on. I can't believe I actually beat out Dr. White for Art's first post (Dr. White was scrutinized in Sippo's second entry). Here's a quick sample of what to expect when visiting Sippo's blog:
"Anti-Catholics like Swan, Webster, Ensweger [sic], Svendsen, Chick, and White constantly preach to the choir. Their fans want to believe their lies and so -- like their forbear Uncle Adolph -- they tell big ones and they tell them often."
It really does amaze Roman Catholics take Sippo with any credibility. I've been reading through Gary Michuta's new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. Michuta quotes "Arthur Sippo" (on page 186). Does Gary really think a Protestant reader will take his research seriously? Sippo thinks that Godly, honest, Protestant writers are to be put in the same genre as Hitler.
Next, the thread featured on the Catholic Answers forum exhorting Catholics to pray and fast for the conversion of Dr. White is still going strong. So far there have been 200 + responses. Now a spin-off thread has appeared, asking Catholic converts to post their conversion stories as a response to the recent aomin entries:
"In response to the call for a day of prayer and fasting for his conversion, professional apologist and anti-Catholic James White has begun posting letters written by former Catholics who credit Mr. White for helping them to leave the Church. I would encourage all converts to the Catholic Church to post the stories of their conversions in this thread. Please share what issues started the ball rolling, what the biggest obstacles were, and how you finally over came them."
One thing you'll notice if you read through the thread is the importance given to popular Catholic apologetic materials. For the most part, you won't read about anyone going through Dr. White's debates, evaluating the evidence presented from both sides, and forming an opinion. I wrote an entry a while back on the nature of Catholic conversion stories, pointing out these type of stories speak of receiving the Lordship of an alleged infallible church magisterium as the ultimate rule over one's life.
Finally, Catholic apologist Mark Shea has a blog disclaimer:"Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!" Ironically, Mark posted the following:
"As is probably obvious, I dislike James White. However, I ought not to let my dislike of him get the better of me and write a post in mockery of him. Whatever that is, it's not love. If you are wondering where the post and your comments went, I decided to delete it. My apologies to White and to my readers for letting my dislike of White trump the Great Commandment."
First, I'm not sure what Shea wrote, but it would seem his disclaimer isn't quite accurate. Certain of his thoughts should not be published. Second, Shea doesn't like Doctor White, and will publicly admit this, but actually putting his dislike into a blog post crosses the line. In evaluating this, recall the words of Jesus, "For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart."
00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
The Slander-Fest Continues
05/11/2007 - James White
Evidently the spirit of the Inquisition lives on. As you may know, men wrote in defense of the use of torture and imprisonment during the dark days of the Inquisition because they believed that since to be separated from the Church was to experience eternal loss, it was better to torture the body temporarily now than to lose the soul for eternity. That mindset seems alive and well over in the Catholic Answers Forums, even as they claim to be praying and fasting today for my conversion! One particular participant in the thread, found here, seems to use his real name, Michael Howard. He is listed as being from Washington State. The number of outrageous and slanderous things flowing from his keyboard in a thread about praying that I would be converted is truly astounding. I will let him speak for himself:
James white on the other hand is not a healthy person and for one to ignore this is shameful. He's a debate junky, enslaved to arguing, slandering and destroying the character of other people. This goes beyond attempting to show another person the errors of his/ her faith, he attacks the actual person and that simply is not acceptable according to scripture, that goes for Catholics as well or anyone who participates in hate dialouge. There hearts need to be converted because hatred and malicious anger are not of Christ but anti-christ.
Aside from what you believe about his teachings, to turn your eyes away from the fact that he's doing these things and even particiapte in the demoralizing others is problematic in the sense that it in no way reflects the character of Jesus Christ, just the opposite frankly. So I would suggest praying for your brother James White as well, that he would be released from anger and turn toward Jesus Christ who is pure love, and love is the greatest commandment.
His demoralizing shamefully goes on behind the scenes, James is well known for harassing Catholic aopologists, bombing them with e-mails, challenging them to debates and if they do not give into his wishes? He publicly shames them saying they were to cowardly to debate him!
If you want proof of this send an e-mail to Patrick Madrid and I'm sure he be happy to send you some of James Whites e-mails. Now, can you please show me from the Word of God how this behavior is beneficial? James Whites public shaming of people is no big secret.
It's not about peering into his heart, James White has been shamefully and "publically" promoting his attacks for years and he's quite proud of it. I question your honesty in this matter but, perhaps you are a very new sappling disciple of James White and stiil quite innocent in these matters?
If you really want to go through the hassle of collecting all of the hate mail James White has spewed over the years we can do that, it would probably take another thread though and it actually sounds quite dull to be honest.
Etc. and etc. Wow, can you feel the love? And can you see the documentation? Oh, no, there wasn't any of that. Just more unsubstantiated slander, all meant, I guess, to make me feel warm and fuzzy and help me "come home to Rome." I haven't seen anyone stepping in to point out the obvious. "Uh, hey, guys...this guy has written books, and, if he's so bad...why aren't you quoting from them? And, he's done nearly three dozen moderated debates with apologists well known to us. Wouldn't it be real easy to document all these allegations from those debates? Should we be slandering him up one side and down the other in the same thread where we are professing our hope for his conversion?" Yeah, you'd think someone might say that. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
14:12:19 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Please, Think Clearly About What is Charitable!
05/10/2007 - James White
The following just appeared on the Catholic Answers Forum:Mr White has been following this thread. On his website he states this:
Over on the Catholic Answers forums a thread has developed calling for a day of fasting and prayer for my conversion to Roman Catholicism. I would like to encourage Christians to spend time in prayer asking God to draw to Himself His people who are currently trapped in the Roman system...
To state that Catholic Christians are "trapped in the Roman system" is uncharitable indeed. But with all due respect, many uncharitable things are directed at Mr White fairly often on this forum. We do not need to pray for his conversion--the Lord takes care of the conversion of hearts. Just simply pray for him. Everyone needs prayer.
May I please, please, please seek to explain to Mickey and others that their use of the terms "charitable" or "uncharitable" in reference to my quoted statement is unbiblical and, in fact, illogical? If, in fact, Roman Catholicism is a false religion with a false gospel, is it charitable, or uncharitable, to warn someone against it? Mormonism teaches that God was once a man who lived upon another planet, and that men may become gods. Is it charitable, or uncharitable, to say "Mormonism is not a Christian religion and to follow it will lead you only into deception and error"? When Paul referred to religious teachers as "false brethren" and said that they were accursed by God (Galatians 1:6-9, 2:4), was he being "uncharitable"? Is Matthew 23---the entire chapter---"uncharitable"? If we speak in accordance with biblical guidelines in saying that homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight, and that anyone guilty of it must repent to have eternal life, is this "uncharitable"?
The Bible says we are to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). The Bible never says we are to speak in such a way so that people will always think we are loving. In fact, those who are in rebellion against God's truth, whether they be atheists or religious, will often be "offended" by our proclamation. But it is biblically unloving to edit the gospel so as to remove the offensiveness of it: it shows no love for God, for the gospel, or even for those to whom we are speaking. Offending them may well be part and parcel of the means God uses to save them! An inoffensive "gospel" is no gospel at all (1 Cor. 1:18-25).
When Roman Catholics cannot even get past the feelings stage ("Oh, he said Rome is wrong! I'm so offended! He's so mean!") is it any wonder they do not see how shallow and circular their defenses of Rome's claims really are? All Christians today must recognize that we live in a culture where feelings have become the new standard of truth, and offending someone's "feelings" is the new unpardonable sin. The fact that the Christian is offended day in and day out is ignored, of course. But we must be prepared to bring the twisted thinking of Western culture back to ground zero: the fact that all are made in the image of God, and hence we can demonstrate the inconsistency of thinking in a way that is contrary to God's truth.
Now, Mickey is quite right: many truly uncharitable things are said about me by Roman Catholics every day. What is the difference? Simple. When I speak about Roman Catholicism, I have done everything in my power to be accurate in what I am saying. I have taken the time to read what the other side has to say (ironically, while typing this paragraph, an Amazon shipment arrived with another new Catholic work of apologetics in it). In my books, I cite sources, quote official materials, and I do so in context. I surely disagree with what I am citing, but the only way to show honor to the truth and honor to God is to handle even what which you disagree with accurately. But, is it not the commonality of so much of what is posted in these forums that these folks have not read my books, and even refuse to do so; that they have not watched the debates, and refuse to do so. Second and third hand rumors fly around without challenge, and are accepted at face value. (I even saw an outrageously funny statement by someone recently who said I had gained 100 lbs just so I can intimidate my opponents!) Why is it that these folks do not even take note of my work in reference to Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, Islam, or my defense of the Trinity, the transmission of Scripture, etc.? Personal attacks are uncharitable when they are 1) untrue, or 2) unnecessary, or 3) derive from an unwillingness to fairly represent the person being discussed. And that is the nature of what I see in these forums in the majority of instances. The exceptions, while refreshing, are likewise quite unusual.
So, Mickey and the others at the Forums: tell me. If it is uncharitable for me to speak of your being trapped in the Roman system, is it likewise uncharitable for the Pope to promulgate the Papal Syllabus of Errors? Is it not obvious that whether something is charitable or not simply cannot be determined on the basis of whether you are offended by it or not?
14:33:37 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Friday, May 11th: Day of Prayer and Fasting for the Conversion of James White
05/10/2007 - James White
As our regular readers know, over the past week or so once again the wrath of a wide spectrum of Roman Catholics has been sent my direction due to my daring to be consistent with my own faith and with the positions I have presented in published works and public debates for many years. You have also noticed, I'm sure, that the essence of these objections are not based upon matters of truth but upon perceptions and feelings, the very essence of post-modern Western thinking. While the accusation of ignorance and error etc., is constant, likewise is the lack of documentation or examples. Though I have opened the phone lines to give these folks the opportunity of expressing their objections to me, we do not find many to have the courage of their convictions. The vast majority have not even bothered to read any of my books, watch the debates we have done, etc.Over on the Catholic Answers forums a thread has developed calling for a day of fasting and prayer for my conversion to Roman Catholicism. I would like to encourage Christians to spend time in prayer asking God to draw to Himself His people who are currently trapped in the Roman system, revealing to them a perfect Savior who needs no mediators between Him and His people. Of course, I am uncertain why Roman Catholics would adopt this course, given their theology really does not allow for a sovereign God who can take out a heart of stone and give a heart of flesh (the Reformed view), but that really isn't my point in noting this thread.
What I find fascinating about this thread is the hypocrisy it documents. Hypocrisy is the consistent utilization of double-standards in one's thoughts and actions. The application of one standard to me, and another to anything related to Rome, is the hallmark of the torrent of words sent my direction of late. And you can hardly find a better series of examples of it than in this thread at the CA forums. Remembering that this is a thread about praying for my alleged conversion, let's note the language, the falsehoods, propounded in the name of Mother Church:
Many believe that Mr. James White has led many people astray and makes his living by promoting anti-Catholicism. (I'm a Reformed Baptist apologist: when I debate Muslims, am I an anti-Catholic?)
It is my belief that Mr. White knows more than anyone how untruthful he is regarding the Catholic Church and that he is sort of "stuck" by making a good living out of Anti-Catholicism. (Yeah, just rollin' in the dough!)
Please also commit to fasting from meat this Friday as a form of prayer for the conversion of James White. (Col 2:23)The following comment I found quite interesting:
If you are not arrogantly assuming that he is not a Christian, what on earth are you calling him to convert to?I should note the good with the bad:
Your church??
(Exactly: as James Swan has noted recently, that is what Rome's "evangelism" is all about: conversion to Mother Church.)
if you said you believe Mr. White knew him better than anybody, what reasons/evidences/ to prove that he is doing it for the money. Unless you have solid confidence, I don't want to read someone else's heart if I don't know well. (Hey, someone who realizes most of these folks are focused upon persons rather than truths! That's downright encouraging!)
If you don't know him, his main thrust and focus in life can, in my opinion, and the opinion of many, many others, be called Anti-Catholic. (And everyone who does, in fact, know me, knows this man does not).
It can safely be said that Mr White has kept thousands of people from the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church. (Angelic chorus of "alleluia" in background).There are other threads in the forums about me, as I am a constant topic of discussion. Maddeningly, the majority of those who comment have never read a book, never viewed a debate, and are very happy in their ignorance and intend to stay that way. I suppose that is one of the major differences between us: when I encountered Roman Catholic apologists, I immediately bought their books, listened to their tapes and debates, and responded to the best they had to offer. I think that alone makes a rather loud statement.
In any case, let me say to those few Roman Catholics who would actually dare come to this website and read: if you wish to see me converted, I have already laid out what you must do. I have raised a tremendous number of issues over the past almost twenty years regarding the claims of Rome. Listen to the best debates I have had with men like Mitch Pacwa, for example. Listen to the questions asked. Listen especially to the debates on the Papacy with Matatics, Staples, Sungenis, and Pacwa. Can you explain the contradictions even between the responses offered by these apologists? Can you honestly say your apologists have given compelling, consistent defenses in debate for the strong, wide-ranging historical evidence that stands so firmly against Papal pretensions that even Newman had to admit their weight? Conversion to a system of error is not the work of the Holy Spirit, but a spirit of delusion, my friends. So you must provide a significantly better response to the many problems of your authoritarian claims and your theology than you have. The Spirit does not make untruths true; the Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and it is my prayer that as you pray on Friday you will be convicted that you are praying for someone's conversion to a system rather than someone's conversion to Christ.
09:08:35 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Mr. Bradley Closes His Eyes Tightly
05/09/2007 - James White
If you want an incredible example of self-deception and suppression of truth, here's one from this morning. You will recall that I noted the less-than-honest and accurate words of one California attorney, Peter Sean Bradley. First, I replied to his comments on the Beckwith situation here. I walked through his entire article and responded to, and refuted, each point. Then, a little later, I replied to another article of his, here, demonstrating he could not even accurately identify the authors of the articles he was addressing (he confused James Swan and myself). So I had to blink a few times to make sure I was reading correctly as Bradley started off on his blog with this:James White proves that I was right; his "schedule of values" is sadly askew. After dropping down into Kacy's blog in order to question her as to why she found in him "uncharitable," and, then, beating a retreat when he got his answers, White has strategically chosen to ignore my current post in order to dredge up a post from from last month, which is a master-work in the art of "not seeing the forest for the trees."I can only assume Bradley doesn't believe anyone will follow his links. Either that, or he is one mighty confused person. I replied, of course, to Kacy, here, and that fully. The article he links to is directly, and fully, about his most recent post, not one from a month ago (he even links to the correct article, 1966; the one from a month ago is 1968). He is simply wrong to say I do not regularly provide links. This is a falsehood, but he refuses to back up his statements. He blames his bad research on the font size of the by-line! How about just admitting you blew it, Mr. Bradley, and apologizing? But then he argues that since I did not edit James Swan's article, that, combined with his lie that I don't link to other articles, still means I'm a hypocrite! In fact, you can surely tell the man is an attorney at this point, for, standing there with the facts squarely against him, what does he do? Check this out:
But I want to be accurate. Swan is the author of the relevant post, but White's response to my post is tendentious and, we "exalted parasites" might say, non-responsive, and his allowing the post to be placed on his blog and his silence about its content properly allows the inference that he adopts its position.See, when you are on the losing side of the facts, here is what you do. First, state that you want to be truthful and accurate. Then, make sure to shift the focus from your own errors (the false assertion that I do not link to others, which is self-evidently refuted by anyone with the temerity to examine the blog, and the misidentification of the author of the blog article) to accusations against the person you have actually lost the argument to. Do this by making vague accusations that you do not have to back up. In this case, wow them with lawyer-speak. Say the response is tendentious and non-responsive (despite the fact that it was his post that was tendentious and simply false). Then ignore the fact that Swan's article was perfectly valid: the Envoy forum does preclude links to www.aomin.org, despite the fact that those in the forum are constantly commenting on what is said there. My lack of desire to open yet another IIA (Internet Ignorance Aggregator, i.e., comments section) is irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that 1) I make myself more available in public settings than almost anyone else I know, 2) both Mr. Swan and myself have quoted from the Envoy forums many times on this blog, replete with links, and 3) anyone on the Envoy forums can choose to comment fully on their own blogs, as even Art Sippo has begun to do. Swan's point was that it is hypocritical to pretend you are open to meaningful dialogue when you are not. When there is no longer a toll-free phone number for Mr. Bradley to call (which he did not yesterday...maybe Thursday?), he can try to make his case. Till then, the jury has to return a verdict of "not guilty" to his accusations, and he is surely to be held in contempt of the highest court, that of truthfulness.
And, really, that's the point of the post. White doesn't generally link and he doesn't allow comments, but he is willing to jump in on other people's blog if his feelings are bruised and he is willing to allow his blog to be used for hypocritical arguments.
11:05:01 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Gary Michuta, Josephus, and the Twenty-Two Books of the Hebrew Bible
05/09/2007 - James Swan
Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has released a new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: The Grotto Press, 2007). Michuta scrutinizes the Protestant assertion that the canon of Jesus and the Apostles was closed and fixed. Calling it a "Protestant tradition" (p.50), he notes the writing of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 37-101) serves as an important source for Protestant argumentation to substantiate this tradition.Josephus gave early testimony to the canon used by the Jews, giving a precise number of the canonical books. The numbering of the books by Josephus ("only twenty-two books") provides evidence the Jews did not consider the apocryphal books to be sacred Scripture, for if they did, the number would have been larger. Josephus notes those books written after the time of Artaxerxes (i.e. the apocryphal books) were not of the same authority. Michuta realizes the weight of this argument, and spends a few pages attempting to defuse the Protestant use of Josephus.
Josephus wrote against the Alexandrian pagan grammarian Apion. Apion had asserted the historical facts presented by Josephus in The Jewish Antiquities couldn't be true, because the best Greek histories do not contain information about the Jews being an ancient people. Josephus counters by giving a precise description of the Hebrew Bible, the primary historical record of the Jews:
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them" [Against Apion 1.41].
One can see the powerful nature of this quotation. Josephus affirms the Hebrew canon, and also downgrades the apocryphal books. Truly, Catholic apologists have a historical problem on their hands. How then does Mr. Michuta handle this citation? Michuta wants his readers to keep the context of the Apion / Josephus dialog in mind. Apion questioned the veracity of the earliest Jewish sacred records. Were they reliable? Josephus counters with affirming the reliability of the Hebrew Biblical writings. In disarming this citation,Michuta introduces a rather unique interpretation:
"What Apion questioned was the veracity of the earliest sacred records. Thus, Josephus felt compelled to vindicate only the writings which came before Artaxerxes (the Deuteros were, of course, written after that time)" (p.54).
So, according to Mr. Michuta, Josephus was only defending the reliability of the canon up until the time of Artaxerxes. In other words, Josephus was not defending the entire scope of the Hebrew canon. Problem solved, Citation defused! But does this interpretive solution really work? Keep in mind Josephus says the Jews have "only twenty-two books" that are sacred. That word only really does seem to be a problem for Michuta's position, especially since Josephus doesn't explicitly qualify his statement as Michuta has explained it. Further, Josephus states the canon text is fixed, and no one dared to add or take anything away from it. Well, Michuta has an explanation for this as well:
"Scholars who specialize in the writings of Josephus candidly admit that he frequently resorts to bombast and exaggeration, especially in his controversies with pagans. Against Apion 1.41 is a good example. Immediately after his comments on the twenty-two books, Josephus writes, 'so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them [the twenty-two books of Scripture], to take any thing from them, or make any change in them.' We now know, from the discoveries made in Qumran that the text of Scripture, in both Hebrew and Greek, circulated in a variety of different versions in Josephus' day. Some Jewish sects, like the Essenes of Qumran, showed no scruples about editing the sacred text to their liking. These variant texts could not have escaped Josephus' notice; therefore, his words must be taken as hyperbole. However, if Josephus was willing to over exaggerate knowingly the widespread existence of a fixed text, can we trust him in his assessment on the twenty-two books in Against Apion? As a historical source, Josephus' comments are certainly impeachable" (p. 55-56).
So for Michuta, the bottom line is Josephus can't be trusted when he speaks about twenty-two books! Now this interpretation and the one previous must be weighed together. In the first instance, a qualifier is introduced to not limit the Hebrew canon as to include the apocrypha (Josephus was only talking about pre-Artaxerxes Biblical books). When the citation goes on to provide evidence Michuta's qualifier is spurious by defining a twenty-two-book canon, Josephus can't be trusted.
I find this a striking example of forcing a text to make one say what one wants to. Perhaps the canon of the Jews is not a Protestant tradition as Michuta asserts. Perhaps in fact, history has evidence that cannot be smoothed over by Catholic apologetics, and Protestants are simply reading historical documents in context.
01:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
More from the Bulging Mail Bag
05/07/2007 - James White
Dr. White, if you understood how much you are loved by Roman Catholics in spite of your misled ramblings regarding our beliefs, you would go into your secret place and ask Jesus what He would have you do and say instead of assuming what He would have you do and say. I say this from experience and from a very serious concern for your eternal soul. In His Mercy, Keith MooreMr. Moore:
Yes, I've truly been feeling the love from Mark Shea and Dave Armstrong and the rest of those who have been sending me their "love." But, like those folks, Mr. Moore, you speak of "misled ramblings." Now, I find it odd, and maybe you should as well, that the folks who continually say this are the same ones who will never, ever expose themselves to the tough task of proving their accusations. I mean, it is so easy to accuse me of ignorance and the like, but, I've done nearly three dozen live, moderated, public debates with leading Roman Catholic apologists. Wouldn't it be rather obvious that I've missed the boat in those contexts? Couldn't these well trained, knowledgable men demonstrate my many errors?
So I have to ask, what is it about a "secret place" that can change the facts of history and the truths of the Bible into their opposites? If I go into my "secret place," will the fact that there was no single bishop in Rome until the middle of the second century go away? Will the fact that Ignatius, when writing to the church at Rome at the beginning of the second century, did not make any reference to the bishop of Rome, disappear? Will evidence that someone, anyone, in the first five centuries of the church, believed what Rome teaches today about Mary, suddenly appear there in my secret place? Will the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church disappear? Will the text of the Bible change in my secret place, so that I no longer possess, already, peace, having been justified by faith (Romans 5:1)? Will the statement that Jesus' death perfects those for whom it was made be altered, in my secret place, to where Jesus' repetitive, non-perfecting, non-saving sacrifice, represented repeatedly upon Roman altars, will always leave me uncertain, imperfect, liable to suffering in purgatory, and even to eternal death should I die in mortal sin? And what really frightens me, Keith, is if I go to this secret place of which you speak, will Christ lose His ability to save, perfectly, without fail, every single one given to Him by the Father (John 6:38-39)? If so, to be honest, Keith---I will stick with the revealed Word of God. I invite you to flee any place, secret or otherwise, that keeps you from knowing the truth.
19:38:50 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
The "Patristic Consensus"
05/07/2007 - James White
The grand myth of Roman Catholic dogmatics (enshrined in her own statements), is the idea of the "unanimous consent of the Fathers." Outside of monotheism, I do not believe you could create a "unanimous consent" based upon the currently existing historical record for any doctrine, any belief, without engaging in "tradition editing," that is, without picking and choosing which sources you will allow into your "unanimity." Obviously, a serious, open-eyed examination of the patristic corpus reveals wide divergences of viewpoint, just as any examination of the current theological literature reveals the same phenomenon. Only conservative Roman Catholics seem to labor under the idea that since they know their church has been around for two thousand years, and the Pope has always been the Pope, etc., then there must be some kind of unified body of doctrinal belief that looks just like...them! The selective reading of patristic sources is the inevitable result.In the book Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (Baker, 2006), Dr. Nick Needham addresses the topic of justifiction in the early church (pp. 25-53). I would like to cite his own words on this topic:
It is easy to be misled by terms such as "patristic teaching" and "patristic corpus." We need to bear in mind that this survey takes in three hundred years of Christian thinking and writing. If we consider the last three hundred years, from 1700 to the present, we will immediately see how misleading it might be to speak about "Christian teaching" or "the Christian corpus" over that period (or we could replace the word "Christian" with "Roman Catholic" or "Protestant" to the same effect). The phraseology could imply a uniform body of thought when the reality is anything but. When therefore I speak about different strands of thought in the fathers of the first four centuries, I am not claiming that all these strands always existed together in a single coherent monolith that was universally embraced by the fathers (or even in the writings of the same father). I am simply highlighting various aspects of Christian thought and piety that can be found within the documentary residue of the first three hundred years of postapostolic church life. I am not convinced that these formed a monolith, and doubt whether the "consensus of the fathers" over that period extended much beyond the Apostles' Creed. (p. 27).There are so many things that preclude the establishment of some kind of "patristic hermeneutic lens" that it is hard to know where to begin in listing them all. Obviously, some writings no longer exist. We do not have an unbiased sampling of the writings of the entirety of the faithful during those centuries. The quality of each writer can vary wildly, sometimes even within the corpus of the individual father (i.e., some writers are better in one area than they are in another). The level of biblical knowledge can vary tremendously from writer to writer and place to place. And often interpreting what a particular writer means is far more problematic than determining what any individual writer of Scripture intended.
I addressed this very issue at the end of my debate with Mitch Pacwa in 1999. I posted this recently, but in light of the events of the past few days, I thought I would post it again:
15:06:51 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Some First of the Week Notes: More on the Beckwith Situation
05/07/2007 - James White
These things go in waves, don't they? Especially when it comes to Roman Catholicism. Well, better to address the issues openly, demonstrate that we do so for consistent and biblical reasons, and provide, by our refusal to engage in the same kinds of behaviors common in our critics, that dedication to the truth honors God and edifies the saints.Well, let's see. Paul Owen has demonstrated his utter inability to even pretend to be unbiased in joining in the ridiculous "outrage" that I would dare to make public mention of Dr. Beckwith's reversion to Roman Catholicism. I long ago stopped worrying about what Owen thinks, but the level of dishonesty to which he has sunk in recent years is lamentable on any level. Note just this one absurd line from his comments on the situation: "Nor would a frowning Reformed Baptist congregation which spends every waking hour contemplating the beauty of TULIP (especially the “L”) be very attractive to these great saints of old." The only way you could possibly write such a line is either you are 1) desperately disconnected from reality, or 2) you are desperately dishonest. I'll let Owen's history speak for itself at that point. Every generation needs its Alexander the Coppersmith!
Ironic, isn't it, that Patty Bonds is back on the scene at a time like this. I had gotten word that she was going to be on The Journey Home again a few weeks ago (oh, am I not supposed to mention that, either? Am I "outing" someone again? It is so hard to know!). Whether this will be a repeat of the program from years ago, or a new one, I do not know. For those interested in the story, here's the information.
Then we were informed that over on the Catholic Answers Forums they have posted a "poll" using my direct words in my opening statement on sola scriptura from 14 years ago against Patrick Madrid, but without telling anyone who wrote those words. So far, the large majority say it is an "accurate" statement of the doctrine. I wonder how the poll would have been impacted by having my name attached to my own words?
I was asked by a Roman Catholic today if I had followed Matthew 18 with Frank Beckwith. Uh, no. Frank Beckwith was not a member of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. I had, and have, nothing personal against Frank Beckwith; there is no matter of personal sin between us, which, of course, is what Matthew 18 is about. This question, together with Owen's rhetoric, once again shows how most people see these issues as personal things, when they are not. My reason for noting the reversion was simple: I knew this would once again raise the issue of the gospel, the sufficiency of Scripture, and would require the faithful to once again speak the truth in love in defense of the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints.
Now, let me be quick to add something that will once again result in howls from the post-modernists who have little concern about truth and honoring the God who gives is: if the church Dr. Beckwith has left has the courage of its convictions, they will place him under discipline. I do not know what kind of church he was a member of, if he was a member of a church at all. But if the New Testament means anything at all, or has authority and is normative for our practice---confessing the faith, and then denying it, is grounds for discipline. This should have been done in the case of Mrs. Bonds, but to my knowledge, was not. It should be done now out of obedience to Scripture in reference to Dr. Beckwith. I can assure you, beyond all question, that anyone who was a member of a Reformed Baptist Church that uses the London Baptist Confession of 1689 would be placed under discipline and, barring repentance, excommunicated, for such an action. The post-modernist cannot understand this. The post-evangelical cannot either (since they have almost never seen the church exercise discipline for any reason, let alone a doctrinal one). But the honor of God's truth, the health of the church, and the edification of the saints, requires that those who go out from us be marked as such. The reason this probably won't happen is simple: very few alleged "Protestants" today actually believe converting to Roman Catholicism involves a denial of the gospel. I surely believe it does.
"Oh, that is so unloving!" No, believing otherwise is. You do not show love for God by subjugating His law and His will to man's whims. You do not show love for Christ and His gospel by allowing it to be trampled underfoot without result. You do not show love for God's Word by pretending it is not clear enough to address what the gospel is, or what we should do about apostasy. You do not show love for God's people by modeling for them a lack of concern for the purity of the body or obedience to the Word. And finally, you do not show love for Francis Beckwith by allowing him to think that such a profound abandonment of justification by grace through faith, the finished work of Christ, the imputed righteousness of Christ, the sufficiency of Scripture, etc., can be engaged in without the people of God calling him to repentance and, should he not do so, making a clear statement that he stands opposed to what he once professed. It is this final reality, which requires a belief in the objective truth of the gospel, that scandalizes so many post-modernists today. But the honest hearted reader knows I am speaking in perfect accord with the New Testament itself.
12:33:50 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
My Reply to Kacy
05/06/2007 - James White
As noted earlier, I ran across a blog entry titled "James White annoys me to no end." When I read the article, I quickly typed up a few basic questions, designed to do nothing more than point out yet once again the double-standard that seems to define Roman Catholics on the web these days. I did not take the time to read the person's bio, scan through old messages or anything else. I was mentioned by name. I was attacked personally. I asked that the person consider what they wrote. Nothing more.Well, turns out the blogger is a young convert, and of course, many of the rather "screeching" side of the conflict have commented about how terrible it is that I would dare to ask someone honest, sound questions about their personal attacks upon me! How dare I do such a thing! If you are a Protestant, or more so, a Calvinist, don't you realize folks can misrepresent you, attribute every possible evil motive to you out of gross ignorance, and you are to remain completely silent? Well, yes, that seems to be the climate of things today, sad to say.
In any case, Kacy replied to my questions (which I posted earlier). I here provide her response, and my thoughts as well.
With this being said, I believe it is important for me to respond to the comments James White left in response to my previous post. I have read Dr. White’s blog on a few occasions, but never visited it regularly due to the overall defensive and polemical tone it often takes. However, because I did reference Dr. White’s statements when writing my post, I will respond to his request for further elaboration. I do this because it is the respectful and right thing to do, while realizing that by doing so I am opening myself up to the possibility of public ridicule on his blog. Because I am not a trained apologist, I do not wish to continue further dialogue with Dr. White. Thus, if he so chooses, he can have the “last word.”I am forced to wonder yet again...why can folks make vague accusations against me without providing specifics? When Kacy reads Galatians, does she speak of its "overall defensive and polemical tone"? If not, why not? I simply seek consistency here.
I had asked Kacy:
May I ask, please, that you take the time to show me where, in my article, I in any way, shape, or form, "slandered" Dr. Beckwith? Could you explain, from my own words, please, where I even *implied* anything about "politics"?She replies:
1. I found it uncharitable that you would announce Dr. Beckwith’s reversion on your blog before Dr. Beckwith made this public himself. Due to the sensitive nature of Dr. Beckwith’s particular situation, I found your post inconsiderate.The only way such an action on my part could be considered "uncharitable" was if 1) I had been asked not to talk about it (I had not), or 2) one thinks this is just a personal matter (it isn't: Frank Beckwith's position makes it a very, very public thing, similar to the head of the Republicans in the Senate becoming a Democrat, for example), or 3) one thinks this is all about persons (it isn't: this is about the gospel and how men are saved). So, there is no logical or rational ground upon which to complain that the President of ETS (a position of honor entrusted to him by others based upon particular facts, including his claimed profession of faith) would be "off limits" from having his conversion noted, and discussed, along with its ramifications.
2. This statement implied political reasons for conversion: I do not believe such a person has the right to overthrow the intentions of the founders of the organization just to make a point or promote his new religious ideologies...Kacy is simply in error to read such concepts into my words. The portion from which she quotes came immediately after the following:
Here you imply that Dr. Beckwith somehow had political motivations in mind for converting while president of ETS. In my response, I was simply trying to say that from my understanding of the situation, this was not the case. As, Dr. Beckwith’s post shows, he was careful in evaluating the time of his return to the Church and what that would mean for ETS.
I would like to very seriously propose that any person who, while in the leadership of such an organization, choses to abandon the faith he professed when elected, and embrace a faith substantially different (which clearly the founders of the ETS intended to exclude the views of Roman Catholicism), should by any meaningful ethical standard step down from his position. The very fact that he was elected as one standing in a particular theological spectrum who, then, abandons that position in a substantive, directly relevant way, would be enough to bring a moral imperative to bear upon him.Please note that I was referring to "any person," not just to Frank Beckwith. Further, evidently, Dr. Beckwith agreed, for he even made a similar comment in his own blog entry. So, there is no rational reason to read into this statement anything more than what it says: I do not believe a person who converts to Catholicism as President of ETS should remain in that position. Why read anything more into the statement than its clear meaning warrants?
3. If you do not passionately love the truth, God is under no obligation to continue to allow you to possess it.
This comment struck me as particularly slanderous and “annoying” because you were implying that Dr. Beckwith is not a lover of truth. This bothered me because you were questioning the intentions of Dr. Beckwith as well as his intelligence in seeking out answers in matters of faith.
Here we truly encounter the heart of the response we have been seeing on the part of Roman Catholics to my comments. Evidently, theological constructs, based upon exegesis of the text, cannot be brought to bear upon personal situations. For most Roman Catholics, that is simply taboo. So, in the above statement, I was drawing from a direct biblical text, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. The context is:
In any case, as sad as it always is to read of someone abandoning the gospel for the false pretenses of Rome, it really does not surprise me when it happens. Why? Because we live in a day when the faithful are being tested as they were in Elijah's day. If you do not passionately love the truth, God is under no obligation to continue to allow you to possess it. And how many do we see in the post-evangelical world who are truly passionate about the truth of the gospel?Now, once again, it seems that Kacy does not believe that I have the right to believe that the gospel of grace that marked the Reformation is "the truth," while the gospel of Rome that marked Trent and Vatican I and the Papal Syllabus of Errors, etc., is "false." If what I believe is true, then what Frank Beckwith, Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis, etc., have embraced, is false. Therefore, logically, I would believe that their actions would fall into the general category I was discussing of "evangelicals" who do not have a deep, abiding, passionate love of the gospel of grace. The fact that they are willing to abandon that gospel is pretty strong proof of the statement. It is hardly a rational response for a Roman Catholic to say, "That is mean, since I believe our gospel is true!" Well of course, but that is hardly relevant to what I was saying, is it? That is why we have debated the topic of the gospel, numerous times, in the past. But given my beliefs, what I said is not "slanderous" nor "annoying." To be consistent, Kacy would have to allow me to say that her posting her conversion story is "slanderous" and "annoying" as well, but, of course, I do not find converts overly consistent at this point.
By the way, it is difficult to understand how someone can impute to me a questioning of Dr. Beckwith's "intelligence." He may well lack fundamental facts of knowledge regarding key issues in church history, or exegesis (he is a philosopher by training), but even that is far removed from a question of the man's intelligence. Once again, it is very faulty thinking to confuse the spiritual matter of the danger of apathy toward the truth of the gospel and an accusation of a lack of intelligence. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
23:42:52 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Another Wonderful Example of the "Charity" of Mr. Bradley
05/06/2007 - James White
Hey, I didn't know I had been treated with such kindness and "charity" (the new buzzword I guess for being politically correct in bowing the knee to claims of Roman supremacy) by Mr. Bradley in the recent past. Here's another example of his insightful commentary:Pot complains loudly about the dark coloring of the kettle.
I enjoy reading uber-Calvinist James White in the same way that I enjoy watching movies of imploding building - there's a whole lot of pointless activity going on, plus White's regular demonstration of an absence of charity is the best safeguard I know from being attracted to the siren call of "hyper-calvinism."
In any event, check out White's latest post about various threads at Envoy's discussion forum that concern White. White complains that "The Envoy discussion board will not allow links to Alpha and Omega Ministries, yet they are fixated on this very blog."
However, White's post lacks any links back to the Envoy threads that he is complaining about.
The failure of White to link to the posts that he is attacking is not an oversight. A regular feature of White's blog to never link to the "enemy" - which then requires people who are interested in getting the other side to do a google search - although he does link to those posts that are on his side, so he knows how to do hyperlinks.
Mark Shea captures the ethos of the apologetics subculture quite nicely in this post.
That said, the whole thing holds a shameful fascination for me that I imagine professional wrestling holds for a far larger number.
I'm glad Mr. Bradley will not be attracted to hyper-Calvinism. Then again, neither am I.
The post he refers to is by James Swan. That is why it says "by James Swan" at the bottom. Neat little feature that "by-line" thing. Too bad Mr. Bradley doesn't read carefully enough to notice it. How charitable of him.
Scan through the past month's worth of posts on this blog. Count how many links to articles, including those opposed to me, you will find. Yeah, evidently Mr. Bradley isn't big on this honesty and accuracy thing. Hey wait, I even linked to him in this one! And the last one! How...charitable of me!
Anyone want to take any bets on how many actual debates he has viewed? Books he has read?
22:03:54 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
On Pots and Kettles
05/06/2007 - James White
I noted in the previous article that since I dared to ask some fair, obvious questions of a blog post titled, "James White annoys me to no end," I had people coming down on me for "picking" on a young college student. How dare I ask them to think straight and defend their accusations against me! That blog article became the grounds for the unhinged to start posting their shots at me (like Dave Armstrong).So, this afternoon the young blogger replied. And, instantly, she's a hero! Check out the comments for yourself. Now, consider the choice I now face: if I respond (which I intended to do, simply because the reply provides a basis for discussing the common misconceptions of this young person, errors shared by many others), I will be attacked for so doing. "Look how mean he is!" If I do not, "See, he ran away, refuted again!" Such is the kind of thinking seen daily on the Roman Catholic blogs and web boards of our culture.
20:25:22 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
To All Consistent Children of the Reformation: SHUT UP!
05/06/2007 - James White
The response to my outrageous act of actually commenting on Francis Beckwith's return to Roman Catholicism has been highly educational. One thing comes across loud and clear: the advocates of Rome, while they are rightly quick to defend themselves when the secular media seeks to silence their freedom to speak out, are just as quick to act like the media in seeking to silence anyone who would disagree with them theologically. The double standard (read that, "hypocrisy") that is found in article after article, comment after comment, is truly amazing. Here is an example that I just ran across (and btw, I have a Google homepage item that scans blogs and posts headlines relevant to my searches: that is how I ran across this, and the previous "James White really annoys me" article I will note below):Food fight.Note that while I sought to focus upon 1) the ETS situation (which has been primarily resolved by Dr. Beckwith doing the right thing) and 2) the issue of the gospel, men like Peter Sean Bradley have very different goals. I was accurate in all of my comments regarding the situation when it developed. Rome's defenders cannot even show me the respect of accurately representing my actions, words, or beliefs. Let's point out the problems:
Francis Beckwith – conservative philosopher, President of the Evangelical Theological Society and blogger – has “swam the Tiber." This caused hyper-calvinist James White to hyper-ventilate.
Read White's post for his typical lack of charity. White accuses Beckwith of abandoning the search for truth and says that Beckwith has been damned by God.
But when a 20-something student at Beckwith’s college dares – dares! – to call White on his uncharitable post because she is a member of the parish that Beckwith joined, White descends on her little blog with a phalanx of Calvinists.
Fun ensues. Read the comments.
It should be noted that it was White who "outed" Beckwith in the first place. That kind of "outing" thing is certainly popular by those who want to enforce a rigid adherence to an ideology and make sure that everyone stays on the politically correct reservation, but it is the opposite of what the idea of charity and freedom of conscience ought to imply.
And it should be further noted that White is willing to jump in with both feet to criticize another person's post but he does not allow comments on his blog.
Finally, charity compells the observation that Mr. White probably needs to make a fundamental change in his schedule of values. Monitoring the internet 24 by 7 for comments by college students can't be healthy.
1) "This caused hyper-calvinist James White to hyper-ventilate." If I were to refer to Bradley as a Feeneyite, for example, I would have to demonstrate, from a fair, proper reading of his writings, that my characterization is accurate. If his writings specifically disavow the moniker, then I would have to go beyond this to a full documentation of why his own self-professed position should be overthrown and my description accepted. That is what honest men and women do, those bound by some kind of morality and ethics. This kind of behavior does preclude you from producing sensationalistic material, but it is likewise just basic morality.
Any examination of my writings, my website, etc., will demonstrate not only a rejection of the epithet "hyper-Calvinist," but it will likewise provide extensive counter-argumentation. Evidently, I am bound by ethics and morals about which Mr. Bradley seems to know nothing. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
17:59:34 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Dr. Beckwith Explains His Conversion and Does the Right Thing Regarding ETS
05/05/2007 - James White
Dr. Francis Beckwith has posted an article regarding his reversion to the Roman Catholic Church here. I will withhold commentary on the reasons he gives (they are quite interesting for what they say, and more importantly, for what they do not say) until later, but for now, I wish to note that Dr. Beckwith has done the right thing and has stepped down as President of ETS. He writes, "But given the fact that it is unlikely that I would have been elevated to the presidency of ETS by its membership if my reception into the Catholic Church had occurred prior to the time of my candidacy, I think it would have been more than reasonable for these gentlemen to ask me to step down." This is completely in line with the reasoning I offered originally in reference to my conclusion that the ethical thing to do here would be to step down. I am thankful to see this for many reasons, but most importantly, it will allow the actual reasons Dr. Beckwith cites for his move back to Rome to be the focus of serious discussion rather than the ETS situation.14:11:51 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
The Roman Moonbats (Updated)
05/04/2007 - James White
This morning Jimmy Akin verified the Beckwith story here. You will note, "The source through which the matter was made public happened to be James White's blog, and as you can imagine, Mr. White is not happy." But, Akin provided the link to my comments, and I am grateful that he did so. I'm not sure why anyone would think I would ever be happy about someone abandoning the gospel of grace for the sacramental system of Rome, and obviously, when someone like Frank Beckwith does this, we will be treated once again to repeated illustrations of just how shallow post-evangelicalism is in reference to its commitment to the core truths of the gospel of grace. I am certain that, unless he does the right thing and steps down from his position as the head of ETS, he will be allowed to complete his term. Organizations like ETS move at the speed of an over-loaded '74 Chevy Luv on a steep grade, so even if a movement developed to remove him, it would have no possible means of doing anything until long after the next election. And so I can only call on Dr. Beckwith to do the right thing, and point out that if the head of, say, an organization like the Catholic Theological Society were to announce that he had become an independent Bible-Baptist King James Onlyist, I would call on him to step down, too. It is a simple matter of doing the right thing, and straining the micro-sized ETS statement of faith to the point of making it essentially irrelevant is hardly doing the right thing.But I digress. Akin attempts to argue that Beckwith could, in good conscience, remain as president of ETS. Evidently, Akin would agree with the "let's not worry what the founders intended, we can do as we wish" viewpoint of Constitutional interpretation as well, since Nicole's statement, which I heard with my own ears, evidently is not enough. I guess we need to poll all the founders to provide sufficient basis. I have no interest in arguing the point. If Akin wouldn't mind a new Baptist convert from Rome running some Roman Catholic institution or organization, then fine. He can disagree with me over Beckwith staying at the helm of ETS.
Anyway, I only mention Akin's blog because at the very least, Akin did not pour a gallon of acid into his keyboard before he posted his article. For that, I'm thankful. Jimmy and I aren't going to be sitting around chatting over coffee anytime soon, but at least he can write in a civil manner. Unlike...the Roman moonbats.
Now, moonbat is an interesting phrase. It is generally used to describe the wacko left, but it strikes me as being particularly descriptive of wackos in general, unhinged folks who have no self-control and are utterly controlled by their angry emotions. Most religions have their moonbats. Rome surely does. Off the top of my head, we can list Vinney Lewis, Art Sippo, Dave "the Stalker" Armstrong, and the ever-loquacious Mark Shea.
About four hours after I posted the article on the Beckwith reversion, Armstrong posted a rambling attack on...who else? I think DA was just upset he wasn't "in the know" like Akin. Now, I expect moonbat behavior from DA. His track-record speaks for itself. I mean, bats hang in trees, right? But I was just checking RSS feeds, and found that one of the most disagreeable, nasty, mean-spirited RC apologists out there has chimed in.
I have never found Mark Shea capable of the control Akin showed in his post. He likes to insult folks, and in particular, yours truly. Not much for substantive response, and surely not one for debate (he has had a standing challenge for quite some time). In any case, he seems to read a lot of political blogs, and maybe cannot see that he has imbibed their vitriol into his own posting. Here's his insightful, kind, helpful commentary:
Bill Cork has announced that he is returning to Seventh Day Adventism. I am sorry to hear it, of course. However, I would appreciate it if readers would not use my comboxes to run diagnostics on his soul. The best thing at such times is prayer.
In happier news, Dr. Frank Beckwith, the current President of the Evangelical Theological Society, has swum the Tiber. Unfortunately, the only link I can find to the story at present is James White's fulminations about it over at "ArroganceOurMINistry.org" which, while typical of James White fulminations, are not terribly edifying for people who want to know something besides the fact that James White's Hindenburg-size ego is offended, causing him to emit clouds of defensive ASCII into the cybersphere like a panicked squid.
I trust Dr. Beckwith will soon have something out in print describing the reasons for his move. He too can certainly use prayer. Such men sacrifice a great deal (including livelihood very often).
Wow, that was deep. I sure feel refuted! I mean, I honestly did not expect Shea to interact with anything I said, because, well, that would require apologetics, and Shea is more a mud-slinger than any kind of apologist. But I must say, I am impressed at how you can get that snarling sound-effect into your words so folks know just how consumed you are without you having to provide any graphics! That's...just amazing. But hey, I should note the one redeeming element of Shea's moonbat explosion: he linked to my article. If he has any readers who do not spit nails at the thought of following the link, they may well ponder why Shea's words are so far removed in tenor from those he is allegedly responding to. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
16:55:21 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Head of the Evangelical Theological Society Swims the Tiber
05/03/2007 - James White
About a month ago I followed a link to Frank Beckwith's blog. The article (found here) is a response to John MacArthur on the topic of Lent. As I read through the article I could not help but feeling a very odd feeling about what I was reading. The language, the sources cited, all sounded so very familiar...as if I was reading the opinions of a newly minted follower of Rome, anyway, over at The Journey Home or some other RC apologetics blog or website. But Frank Beckwith? Current President of the Evangelical Theological Society? It struck me as very odd. I even opened up my blogging software to write a response, but, as is so often the case, was over-run with other duties, and had to give up on it.The ending of Beckwith's article was particularly troubling:
Pastor MacArthur and Ms. Litz would have also discovered that some of the same Church Fathers the pastor cites to dispute the perpetuity of spiritual gifts celebrated Lent. So, one finds an ancient church, celebrating Lent according to beliefs, events, and practices found in Scripture, that is able to produce the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, establish the canon, and make correct judgments (according to MacArthur) on the matter of spiritual gifts.
Not too shabby for a "pagan" church.
As my regular readers know, the "establish the canon" claim would be more than enough to get my attention. Now, I personally have little interest in the Lenten argument (outside of noting the gross abuse of such an idea inherent in Mardi Gras and the insight that provides into the thinking of many in the Roman communion), but when I saw repeated references to Roman Catholic sources, the New Advent website, etc., I could not help but think for a moment of how many have splashed their way across the Tiber due to the combination of 1) an out-of-balance view of philosophy's authority in comparison with that of divine revelation, and 2) the influence of direct and regular cooperation in moral/cultural conflicts with members of the Roman communion (i.e., pro-life, pro-family groups). I have chronicled my own journey in struggling with cultural cooperation in reference to the matter of the gospel in the past, and will not repeat it here. Suffice it to say that there have been many who, upon forging friendships based upon common moral stands (against abortion, against homosexuality, etc.), have found their commitment to the centrality of justification by faith, or sola scriptura, sliding down the list of "most important life-defining beliefs." Of course, it works both ways. Many of those on the other side of the Tiber who are involved in the same activities tend to become quite "ecumenical" and are willing to set aside dogmatic definitions, often leading to a functional inclusivism or even universalism. Of course, many in the pro-life movement are radically Marian in their devotion, but both sides can testify to seeing the theological imperatives of their respective beliefs turned upside down by the "ecumenical attraction" syndrome.
In any case, I received information today that Dr. Beckwith has, in fact, returned to the Roman Catholic communion (I saw "returned" only because it appears, from his biographical information, that he was raised in the Roman communion). Now, I have searched the web, including Dr. Beckwith's websites/blogs, and have not found any confirmation of this information. However, I have now received multiple, independent attestation to this fact. I would imagine we will, in time, be provided a fairly full apologia of his decision. At that time it would be highly appropriate to once again provide a biblical response. For the moment, there is another matter I wish to consider.
Let's ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?" The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:
"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."
Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura.
I would like to very seriously propose that any person who, while in the leadership of such an organization, choses to abandon the faith he professed when elected, and embrace a faith substantially different (which clearly the founders of the ETS intended to exclude the views of Roman Catholicism), should by any meaningful ethical standard step down from his position. The very fact that he was elected as one standing in a particular theological spectrum who, then, abandons that position in a substantive, directly relevant way, would be enough to bring a moral imperative to bear upon him. I do not believe such a person has the right to overthrow the intentions of the founders of the organization just to make a point or promote his new religious ideologies. There are, of course, many Catholic biblical societies such a person could join.
Of course, ETS has already shown that it is unable to expel from its ranks those who are Open Theists, and this due to the maddening brevity of the statement of faith. And, I have learned today as well, this entire discussion may be irrelevant, since there are already Roman Catholic members of ETS. But while Open Theism, at least in the form promoted by such men as Boyd, Sanders, and Pinnock today, was not even in the minds of the founders of ETS when they formed the organization, Roman Catholicism, as Nicole's comment shows, was. And while membership is one thing, can anyone seriously argue that the election would have gone the way it did with a confessing Roman Catholic running for the Presidency?
Now that just such a high-profile conversion has taken place, prepare yourself for the flood of substance-less "Come Home to Rome" articles. Let me make a prediction: as is so often the case, the very act of conversion, not the reasons for so doing, will be the primary focus. "He's so brilliant, if he converts, he must have a brilliant reason!" There are very few "new" reasons for conversion that have not been fully addressed in the past, and Rome's modern apologists have learned that it is never to their advantage to give air to the replies offered by the most careful of their critics. As any review of the current body of Roman Catholic "conversion stories" will bear out, fair, balanced, insightful representation of the facts related to sola scriptura, Papal primacy, the Mass, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, etc., is utterly lacking. Emotional appeals to "the ancient church," mythical references to the "unity" of Rome (those actually inside the communion and familiar with its rancorous disputes cannot help but chuckle at those blissfully naive, breathless commentaries), and the warm feeling of "coming home" to the Church (almost never anything about conversion to Christ) are the keys to successful conversioneering.
Of course, folks like yours truly will ask all the boring questions, like, "How do you escape the circularity of the Roman claims regarding papal infallibility?" or "How can Rome's claims, built as they were historically, upon such a wide variety of fraudulent documents, stand today in light of her own history?" And more to the point, "Do you really believe you can approach the Mass 20,000 times in your life and still die impure, and that this re-presentation is the same sacrifice as the perfect work you once professed to embrace?" Of course, those are the tough questions, which lead folks back to the inspired Scriptures, and that is the last place The Coming Home Network wants to go.
In any case, as sad as it always is to read of someone abandoning the gospel for the false pretenses of Rome, it really does not surprise me when it happens. Why? Because we live in a day when the faithful are being tested as they were in Elijah's day. If you do not passionately love the truth, God is under no obligation to continue to allow you to possess it. And how many do we see in the post-evangelical world who are truly passionate about the truth of the gospel? Oh, folks may be very passionate about their particular cause, but there is a vast difference between being cause-passionate and being gospel-passionate. There is little difference between the zeal that consumes basketball fans this time of year and that which is created by a particular cultural "cause." But the gospel is different. It speaks of attributes of God's character that the natural man does not have the capacity to truly love. It strikes at the heart of man's arrogance, it removes, by its emphasis upon powerful, effective, sovereign grace, any ground of boasting in the man. But over time, if one is apathetic about the truth of the gospel, God may well bring judgment to bear in causing one to love a lie. And surely, anyone who has gazed in awe at the grandeur of the finished work of Christ in the light of the eternal decree of a holy and just God, who can then "trade that in" for the endless treadmill of Rome's sacramental system, the unfinished work of the Mass, and the specter of satispassio in purgatory, is one far beyond my comprehension and understanding. I truly pray for Dr. Beckwith's restoration, but more so, I pray God will once again cause His people to recognize the centrality of the truths of the gospel so that others may not fall into the same temptations to trade in the reality of peace with God for the empty facade of Roman piety.
20:34:06 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
|
