James, you state that the vast majority of Catholics don't believe a document you provide a link to. I am appalled. How can you make a claim that over 700 million Catholics don't believe this? Did you interview every single one of them? How dare you write these words to justify your twisted view of the Catholic Church. How dare you use your own prejudice to make these claims? I demand you retract this statement immediately. You have crossed the line again in your attempt to bash the Church. You and your ministry are a mere shadow to those who seek the truth. How could any respectable Christian make such a claim and not understand that you will be held accountable for that claim. How disappointing this should be to all Christian everywhere. Do you not understand the hard realities of life? You cannot make false claims about the Church without retribution. You have made a mockery of what Christ has taught us about the way we should conduct our lives. Your ministry is really just a carnival and you are the barker calling to people with false statements designed to infuriate them. You and Jack Chic have more in common than I thought. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The apostle Paul is the single most influential person in all of Christian history. Many scholars have even gone so far as to say that HE is the true founder of the religion that bears the title of Jesus. In fact, Paul freely admits this when he says: “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the FOUNDATION, and another buildeth thereon” (1 Cor. 3:10). Many scholars will surely agree that if it weren't for Paul, Christianity would still have been a sect of Judaism today.

Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject Faith to the Day of Resurrection; then shall ye all return unto Me and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute. (Surah 3, Al-i'Imran, 55)

Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to dicern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.

Too much spam and too many long-winded posts from anti-Catholic trollers who think they are so important everyone should drop what they're doing, study their private interpretation of Scripture and spend days accommodating them with long responses to their innumberable questions — and they want it right now! These people are bores. They tend to have no joy, no humor, no patience. They are a waste of time for me and my guests.

1. Paul admits that he is the founder of Christianity.

2. Paul admits that he is regularly tormented and beaten by a demon.

3. Paul admits that he speaks on his own authority, not on God's.

4. Paul admits that he uses deception and treachery to make converts.

5. Paul admits to stealing money in order to bribe people to believe.

6. Paul admits that he lies in order to make converts.

7. Paul contradicts Jesus in almost every single area of religious significance.

8. Paul never quotes the Lord's Prayer, a Beatitude, or even a single Parable of Christ.

9. Paul in Galatians contradicts Luke in Acts about his post-revelation travels and experiences.

10. Paul dishonors his word to James that he will follow the Kosher laws.

11. Paul made many false prophecies about the immediate 2nd coming of Christ.

12. Paul says that being “a fool” is a prerequisite of faith.

So can Paul be trusted? NEVER!

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

* Sahih Muslim, English version, chapter CCCLII (titled: What is to be said while visiting the graveyard), v2, pp 461-462, Tradition #2127
* Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, pp 669-670, Tradition #103
* Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p147

   Tomorrow (Thursday) I will be posting my brief response. Gary Michuta wrote the basic response and I will flesh it out and add a few items. Gary is a very good apologist and you can learn more about him at http://www.handsonapologetics.com. But first I have to finish the Study Guide for the Apostolic Fathers' DVD which has to go to the printer this week.
   I find I am important enough to again be featured on White's blog. I just skimmed through it because it is too long-winded and goes on and on. Again, he sure takes me more seriously than I've ever taken him. Since most of his latest just seems to be his typical whining and invective, I'm not wasting my time in a lengthy response. He's not worth the time it would take to respond to his latest rant other than to say what I've known for a while. He is a waste of time and getting into a tangle with him always makes me feel like I need a shower. My guess is that a lot of people feel this way, except of course his groupies.
   There, now White has another "mean thing said by Steve Ray." So today he can howl some more and write another long-winded rant. This is actually kind of sad — like poking a rabid dog with a stick. He always responds so predictably. :-)

Assumption of Mary -- Assumptions of White

I was notified that James White, the magisterial voice of Protestant anti-Catholics, had responded to my blog on the Assumption of Mary. Not only is he insulting and arrogant though it may be his sorry attempt at humor and relational psychology is also wrong and sloppy. I hope to have time to respond to his huffing and puffing but don't know if I will have the time before I leave. If I do Ito answer well and that takes time not matter what the topic.

By the way, White is usually the first to whine about people who use "ad hominem" arguments and comments against him. He even wept crocodile tears about it in one of our past correspondences. But James and I have not corresponded in years and the last time I did speak with him was in New York at his debate with Gary Michuta. I thought [sic] we have [sic] a cordial meeting. Before that I invited him to lunch on one of my trips to Phoenix and he "No" explaining that to have lunch with little ole me would compromise the gospel. Geez, even Jesus ate with sinners!he said he didn't like me and he only eats lunch with people he likes. Well, frankly, I dont' like him either, but I was willing to be charitable and see if we could find common ground and work toward liking each other. But he said no.

Interestingly, and quite consistent with his usual inconsistency, White comments in his "Year of the Cat" blog entry that, "The past five days have set new all-time records for vitriolic nastiness, at least on the part of those devoted to Rome." Geez, what a thing to say from a guy who with no provocation wrote this sarcastically about me today "Steve Ray, Catholic Convert Extraordinaire and king of on-location videography, world-traveler and sufferer of permanent safari hat-hair." So much for his consistent inconsistency.

Will I respond to White and his assumptions? I hope so if I have time. But he seems to historically have taken me more seriously than I have ever taken him.

Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

Tomorrow is the Feast of the Assumption, best known to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists as "the Marian dogma that isn't mentioned in Scripture." We can concede that point--it is true that Scripture nowhere mentions the Assumption--while noting the antiquity of the belief plus the fact that nothing in Scripture contradicts the Assumption.

Dear James, It is not charitable to lie Jim. I pray the veil, if their actually be one, be lifted from your eyes. Same old lies; same old James. May our Lord and Creator (anf Founder of Holy Mother Church) have mercy on your deceitful( or just plain stupid)soul! In His Most Sacred Heart and under the folds of the Queen Mother's mantle, Robert (who is still praying for you)

Follow the logic: 1) The kings of Israel raised their mothers to Queenship which became established as an official office; 2) the mothers were referred to as the Queen Mothers or the Great Lady; 3) they sat on a throne near their sons (1 Ki 2:19); 4) Jesus is the quintessential Jewish King with an eternal kingdom; 5) Jesus is the fulfillment if the Israelite offices of Prophet, Priest & King; 6) As the Davidic king, Jesus would honor his mother more than earthy kings honored their mothers; 7) It is biblical, historical, and reasonable to expect the perfect Jewish king to follow in the stead of the kingdom and his fathers by assuming his mother to a throne at his right hand. 8) It is proper and biblical to consider Mary in a position of intercessor.

Many have said already: White's actions are designed to deliberately repel the very same people he seeks to convert.

Beckwith's conversion is probably the most upsetting thing that happened to White since his sister became Catholic. He has all the time in the world to press Beckwith for answers to his questions but the sense of desperate urgency and impatience in his posts reveals something beyond normal panic.

If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end.[1]

It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the attributes of godliness.[2]

So with the All-knowing attribute, Omniscience: that must be understood somewhat in the same light as the other attributes considered: not that God is Omniscient up to the point that further progress in knowledge is impossible to him; but that all knowledge that is, all that exists, God knows. He is Universal Consciousness, and Mind---he is the All-knowing One, because he knows all that is known.[3]

So the attribute Omnipresence---the Everywhere Present attribute. This must be so far limited as to be ascribed to Gods Spirit, or Influence, or Power: but not of God as a Person or Individual: for in these latter respects even God is limited by the law that one body cannot occupy two places at one and the same time. But radiating from his presence, as beams of light and warmth radiate from our sun, is Gods Spirit, penetrating and permeating space, making space and all worlds in space vibrate with his life and thought and presence: holding all forces--dynamic and static--under control, making them to subserve his will and purposes.[4]

A Plurality of Divine Intelligences: We have already shown that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct persons, and, so far as personality is concerned, are three Gods. Their oneness consists in being possessed of the same mind; they are one, too, in wisdom, in knowledge, in will and purpose; but as individuals they are three, each separate and distinct from the other, and three is plural. Now, that is a long way on the road towards proving the plurality of Gods.[5]

But since the premises themselves have been shown to be utterly untenable, as relating to God, as revealed in the scriptures, and in the person and nature of Jesus Christ, the conclusions are wrong; and the facts established are that while God in mind, faculties and in power is doubtless infinite, in person he is finite; and as his spirit is united to a body, he is composite, not simple; and as Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh, the express image of God the Fathers person, the counterpart of his nature, and yet at the same time was a man--it is neither unscriptural, nor unphilosophical to hold that God, even the Father, is also a perfected, exalted man.[6]

Many years ago I was on WEZE radio in Boston, MA, with then recent Catholic convert Gerry Matatics (the same Matatics who is now a sedevacantist but who had been, up to that time, a staunch defender of orthodox Roman Catholicism, at least as staff apologist for Catholic Answers). Mr. Matatics and I had done two debates the preceding week at Boston College, one on justification, the other on the Apocrypha. At one point during the radio program I asked Mr. Matatics the following question.

How did the faithful Jewish person know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture fifty years before the coming of Christ?

He was completely stunned by the question. For those Roman Catholics who argue that the authority of the Church is necessary for the establishment of the canon of Scripture, rather than seeing Scripture as an artifact of revelation (a point I made in _Scripture Alone_, pp. 102-109), the question poses what I think is a truly unsolvable puzzle. Over the years since I first asked the question on the fly of Mr. Matatics, I have received the following kinds of replies:

1) Some have said no one could, in fact, know, until the Papacy was established. However, this flies in the face of the fact that the Lord Jesus held men accountable to what was found in the Scriptures during His ministry, which He could not have done had this been true.

2) Some have said they could only known by reference to the Urim and the Thummim, i.e., by asking the High Priest to inquire of the Lord on their behalf. Yes, seriously, I have had some suggest this. Obviously, it suffers from many problems, but the response to the first reply would apply equally well here.

3) Some have said they would have to follow the "Jewish magisterium." That sounds great, until you realize that the Jews never accepted the very books that Trent dogmatically canonized in 1546, creating the conundrum of magisterial contradiction.

The fact is, the question points out that the demand to have an infallible authority define the canon is anachronistic at best, and, in the case of Rome's claims, unworkable in light of the fact that the first *dogmatic* and hence *infallible* definition is that of Trent, leaving us with the untenable idea that no one could truly use Scripture until after the time of the Reformation. I leave aside here all the most interesting facts concerning how even Popes rejected the final conclusions of Trent (Pope Gregory the Great rejecting Maccabees, for example). Those who have studied these issues in depth, from both sides, well know the facts of the matter.

There is one last thing I would like to note. I would like to ask anyone who claims that the Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today, has existed for nearly 2000 years, to explain something to me. When the Council of Nicea convened, around 318 (by one count) bishops attended. Could a Roman Catholic representative point me to a single bishop at Nicea who believed what you believe de fide? That is, was there a single bishop in attendance who believed, for example, in transubstantiation? Purgatory, as defined by Rome today? Indulgences? The thesaurus meritorum? Immaculate Conception? Bodily Assumption? Papal Infallibility? If these things have been defined de fide, are we to believe that the gospel has "changed" since that time, if, in fact, these things were not defined as part of the gospel at that time? Are we not left with the specter of the comments of Gerry Matatics in my debate with him on Long Island in 1996 wherein he boldly stated, before the entire audience, that we have the very same warrant to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven that we have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave? Hard to believe? Here is the video of him saying it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSyfdwmsXzc

I will be reviewing a number of the comments made on STR Sunday evening this week on The Dividing Line. I did indeed feel it was a very educational exchange.

James White
www.aomin.org

Is the use of the term "viaticum" in the 13th canon of the Council of Nicea evidence of an early belief in indulgences?

Dr. Beckwith, in his STR interview, alleged that the practice of indulgences has roots going back to the Council of Nicea, and before. He has repeated this claim in a post on the STR blog. But does such a claim withstand scrutiny? Let's examine it. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

14:51:36 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

A Word Once Again on Prejean

08/10/2007 - James White

   I noted that the Crimson Catholic, Jonathan Prejean, has been active, well, everywhere, in the current blogsplosion of "charity" amongst Roman Catholics aimed my direction. One of the common themes is how terrible, horrible James White hung up on saintly Prejean when he called the DL! Further documentation of just how much of a low-life I truly am.
   However, those who are not satisfied with just surface level accusations might have reason to think a bit more about this. First, Prejean first called the program in October, 2004. He was on the air for 22 minutes, 51 seconds. Here is the call. Listen for yourself. No hang ups. Nice conversation. Offered to send him free materials.
   The second call from 2006 took place after Prejean had, shall we say, a major change of attitude. He had just, in written form, accused me of Nestorianism, snobbery, ignorance, of "crowing" about things, etc. So the call started in a much less friendly way. But, despite that, the call lasted just under fifteen minutes in length. Fifteen minutes. I wonder, if I called Jimmy Akin next time he is on and acted like Prejean did, do you think I'd get...two minutes? Ninety seconds, perhaps? Total time Prejean has gotten on the air is right at 37 minutes. Thirty seven minutes. Hmm, I wonder why some folks try to make it sound like he has not gotten a fair shake? Think they might not want folks calling the DL?

18:31:13 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Could It Get Any Loonier?

08/10/2007 - James White

   Yesterday I posted two pictures that any rational person knows had one point and one point only: it is hypocritical to rant and scream and threaten in religious matters while claiming to be charitable and peaceful. The result of pointing out the hypocrisy of an entire group of commentators was predictable, though I didn't expect Jimmy Akin to blow a complete gasket and make such a spectacle of himself in the process. Be that as it may, the irony is that just as we chuckle a bit when Muslims pull the "We are a religion of peace and if you say otherwise we will blow you to tiny bits!" trick so too the folks at Akin's board and elsewhere just don't get the idea that calling for me to be "charitable" while throwing every possible kind of insult at me, from questioning my mental stability, intelligence, honesty, integrity---well, you name it---does nothing more than prove my point. Since last evening Akin's next "here's some gas, and here's a match" type of post has garnered, as of this writing, 301 combox comments. You do not have to read through half of them to come to the conclusion that "charity" is the last thing driving the comments of the Roman Catholics there. Hatred and animosity, yes, charity, no. So, Jimmy, thanks: debate over. Case closed. You lose.
   Anyway, one comment in particular was pointed out to me, and I just had to post part of it here. You really, really have to wonder if "Paul" went back and re-read what he wrote here. Check it out:

James White is, quite simply, a moron. His arguments are moronic. He is a moron not of necessity (for that would not be something to be held against him), but rather a moron of convenience. I think his stupidity is a defense against the Truth that is the Roman Catholic Church. And, as he is becoming more stupid, I can only imagine it as a sign that he is moving closer to Rome. His arguments appear as a patter of weak hands against the door of the Church, not sure if they are thrusting away or bidding entrance. I would not be surprised if White becomes a Catholic in the next few years. Given, of course, good charity and a clear head from those whom he listens.

   Yes, well, my mother was a hamster and my father smelt of elderberry, too, right? (If you don't get that, never mind). In any case, did Paul really mean to say that as I become more stupid I am moving closer to Rome? Does it follow that if I reach the very heights of moronhood that I will most assuredly swim the Tiber? Is that what he really wanted to suggest?
   I can't help but think of just a few months ago when, in the thread at the CA Forums calling for a day of fasting for my conversion to Rome, the thread was filled with the ever-present insults, slams, lies, etc.---all very charitable, of course. Do these folks really think that lying about me, slamming what I have written without showing the first bit of knowledge of it is supposed to attract me to this religion? Evidently, but I confess, I don't begin to understand the mindset.
   In any case, to dear Paul, the charitable combox commentator there: Thank you so much for your kind words. I can assure you, the only time I will darken the door of the church of Rome is to engage her defenders in debate. There is nothing in your system to attract me. Your papacy repels me for many reasons, biblically and historically, and I would refer any honest-hearted person to the debates I have engaged on this topic. Your gospel is a shadow, a shell, a soul-enslaving treadmill of never-perfecting sacraments without a perfect Savior, without a true promise of God-centered salvation. I will never understand how anyone who once professed the true faith could embrace it, but, of course, I don't believe anyone who has, by the Spirit's power, come to know their own sinfulness and Christ's glorious sufficiency could do so. Empty profession is no bulwark against apostasy. So really, Paul, your religion has nothing to offer me. It has no attraction. I know its image as the "ancient church," shrouded in the mists of time, is but a facade. I've spent too much time in the early sources to buy the facile arguments of Rome's apologists. My feet are firmly planted on the solid, unmovable rock of Scripture, so you don't need to worry about this moron sitting next to you someday at your services. But I do thank you for joining so many of your co-religionists in proving my points for me regarding how to be charitably uncharitable. No one has ever been so charitable while calling me a moron. Many thanks.

14:00:15 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

A Great Comparison

08/10/2007 - James White

   It is rare that you get to provide such a contrast as this, but this one is great. First, start out with this blog entry by Steve Ray, Catholic apologist who, ironically, just finished a DVD about the Apostolic Fathers. Why is it ironic? Well, read on. Look at his entry and see if he interacts with anything relevant to context, meaning, etc. Read his combox.
   Now, read TQuid's inquiry about the text, but most importantly, read the combox comments offered, especially the citation of Whelton, and David King's contribution.
   In which entry do you get any real idea of the context, meaning, and hence, historical relevance, of the Basil citation? And given how long Steve Ray has been doing what he is doing, how could he not be familiar with the issues surrounding the miscitation of this text?
   This is how modern RC apologetics propogates itself: ignore the other side, ignore replies, challenges, and just keep repeating the same mantra over and over again.

10:56:20 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

John Chrysostom on Matthew 16:18-19

08/10/2007 - James White

Having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession; not long after He says, Get thee behind me, Satan. And elsewhere he said, Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. (In pentecosten 52.806.75 - 52.807.1)

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

Akin Loses It: White "Vile, Despicable, Childish, a Troll" A Troll??

08/09/2007 - James White

What White has done here is not humor.

It is vile. It is reprehensible. It is despicable. It is outrageous. If White were thinking rationally, he would see this.

Hence, White has lost his mind when it comes to this. He is not functioning as a rational agent on this topic.

   Then, a little later, he continues his rant,

Discussion over.

James, you lose.

If you were Catholic, I'd tell you to go to confession.

What you did was vile, unacceptable, and childish. You have reduced yourself to the status of a troll.

If you can't immediately see that and make amends then no one, knowing that you are capable of this, should engage you in debate or discussions of any kind. (source)

   Thus the lead apologist of Catholic Answers, a man who has been documented to have promoted errors in his arguments for Rome repeatedly over the years, feigns shock and horror while ignoring the point of the gross hypocrisy he fosters at his blog and in his comboxes---and, as a staff member in high standing of Catholic Answers---in the Catholic Answers forums. He has not only refused to acknowledge the reality of the double standards displayed with regularity by Roman Catholics in his comboxes, but he himself has promoted it, ignoring the truth so as to promote the claims of Rome. Read the lengthy rants on his blog. Does he step in and point out the obvious double standard of his fellow followers of Rome? No, he lit the match to start the conflagration, just as the imams in Islamic countries whip up the fervor of their followers. I know Jimmy Akin is more than intelligent enough to get the biting irony of "behead those who lack charity." It is a graphic, and utterly truthful, demonstration of the double-standard of his followers who can ravage others without reason while insisting that they do so out of charity. And the frightening part is, that's exactly how those who served Rome in the Inquisition viewed their work. They were so wedded to Rome as the Mother Church that they felt the imprisonment, torture, and even execution, of "heretics" was for the good of the church and of the heretics as well! And once someone becomes that warped, there is nothing they won't do in the name of God. Rome engaged in that kind of butchery for centuries, and while her followers today lack the political power to continue that kind of activity, the mindset has not been banished.
   The hypocrisy of Akin's behavior should be noted. If he were truly so offended, he would not re-post the pictures which he finds so offensive. But he did. Why? Simple. He knows what the pictures are about, and he knows that to take them the way he pretends he has is absurd. But he doesn't care about that. He has an audience to impress and to excite, and so he knows if he appeals to the emotions of that group he can use the pictures to his own advantage. (There might also be a bit of "I'll cover for you, Frank...you get out of the limelight for a while, I'll draw White's fire!")
   By the way, Akin tries to connect these pictures to horrible actions of jihadists around the world. I had posted both of these pictures on my blog before, and pointed out that both were almost laughable: they are of the very same kinds of people that Akin is whipping into a frenzy now (just different false religions): those who are easily manipulated into acting in irrational fashions for no serious reason at all. In fact, I had originally posted the first picture and noted it was about a bunch of folks all hopped up about Salmon Rushdie and I noted that I bet not a one of them had an actual clue about what they were so upset about. Which was the point. The second guy is in the UK and is hiding his identity--another act of cowardly hypocrisy. Hence the point of both pictures: those who are ranting and raving about me while ignoring the issues and the arguments I have presented are no different than these wild-eyed zealots. Irrational zealotry is not limited to Islam. Service to any false religion, including Romanism, can create it. Historical illustration: C R U S A D E S. And one other thing: if Akin is so righteously indignant about Islam, why isn't he doing what I am doing to refute the claims of Islam? Actions speak louder than words, even when those words are hysterically written or spoken.
   Of course, Akin has been avoiding doing a real debate since he lost the only one we have done (on KIXL), and he seems to likewise be using this so as to have an excuse to keep hiding from that challenge. I had just last week begun examining our BAM encounter from 1995, documenting where he failed to respond to my very first statements in the program, so possibly he is aware that the challenge is going to be repeated by others who likewise wonder why the "lead" apologist for Catholic Answers continues to avoid those challenges? Maybe he realizes I will be pointing out his errors and inconsistencies in the "BAM Debate" as CA likes to call it, showing how he stands against even Roman Catholic scholarship in saying what he did about the e;comen / e;cwmen variant at Romans 5:1, and I likewise intend to find time to document his amateurish errors regarding his comments about the proper translation of ivdi,aj evpilu,sewj at 2 Peter 1:20. Akin pretends expertise in these areas he simply does not possess, and makes his living off of so doing. He needs means by which to avoid having to be exposed before his audience on matters such as these, and he has chosen to fan the flames of angry and venomous hatred of his audience against (note the irony here) his "separated brethren" so as to provide himself "cover."
   Some have wondered why I am not allowing these kinds of vitriolic, hypocritical attacks to go by in silence. Simple. This is nothing less than intimidation, an effort to shut up those who would dare question Rome and, in this case, her newest prize "convert." And I will have none of it. I have been consistent from the first day I blogged about Beckwith's reversion to Rome. This isn't about him, and as much as Akin and the many others who join him in attacking me personally want it to be, it isn't about me, either. I have been spot-on-focus from the start, and that fact is documented, too. I knew exactly what the Roman apologetics community would do with his actions. And I knew the faith of many might well be upset as well. So what did I do? From the start I put the spotlight on the key issues. Gospel and authority. Would Beckwith say anything more than Rome has been saying all along? Would this be just another opportunity to once again edify the saints by reminding them of the firm foundation that has stood the test of time despite all the best efforts of Rome and every other form of false religion to undermine it? And in those very first posts I warned anyone with ears to hear: this is about things much larger than Frank Beckwith or James White or anyone else. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and it is more precious, more important, than any man, his wealth, status, and reputation. Today in our society we think on such a small scale, with such a focus upon ourselves and our little world of interests that we struggle to see the bigger picture, the things that are of so much more value. I will not be intimidated into silence by those who scream and shout while covering their ears. The issues are too important.

---in the defense and confirmation of the gospel

20:49:48 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Gerry Matatics on Sedevacantism on Iron Sharpens Iron

08/09/2007 - James White

   It was almost surreal to be on Iron Sharpens Iron today to try, anyway, to talk with Gerry Matatics about his adoption of the sedevacantist position (he doesn't like the term, and prefers "consistent Catholicism," but I must say, that phraseology really communicates nothing about the peculiar aspects of his beliefs). As always, Gerry got the lion's share of the time (mainly because you can't break into him because he has the amazing ability to talk without ever pausing to breathe), but I still managed to get a few statements in, mainly after the middle of the program. I would love to hear Matatics and one of the "mainline" apologists debate this topic, I really would, but that is probably not high on the mainline apologists' list of "things to do before I die." But maybe something will be worked out. In any case, if you would like to hear the initial interview with Gerry alone, it is here, and today's program that included me...at least after the half hour part, is here.

18:39:07 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line: Beckwith STR II

08/09/2007 - James White

   Had some technical difficulties at the start (our apologies), but finally got into the groove and finished off my review of the STR program with Frank Beckwith, once again focusing upon the substantive issues Greg Koukl tried to bring up, and the claims Beckwith made that amount to attacks upon sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. But we need to keep something in mind: Rome can deny these divine truths all she wants, and when she does so, she is always charitable. But, if you defend those truths, well, that cannot be done charitably. This is a matter of simple definition. Live with it! Here's the program (free/high quality).

18:26:32 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Charitable Accusations of Dishonesty and "Doctoring"

08/09/2007 - James White

   What an amazing sight greeted me this morning as I arrived at my office. Crowds of faithful followers of Rome had gathered in the parking lot in support of the Charitable Dr. Beckwith, calling for my immediate repentance and adoption of charity (i.e., stop pointing out the obvious, stop challenging Rome's claims, stop focusing upon issues rather than feelings, join hands and stand in awe of all conversion stories and give equal weight and value to all "journeys" even if they involve, in your honest belief and faith, acts of glowing apostasy and involve a denial of the gospel to which you are pledged). I admit their dress is a bit odd for this area, but their fervor could not be denied!
   Yes, I know. How uncharitable of me. Dr. Beckwith can tell an audience he expected Trent to read like a Dan Brown novel (though, of course, he already knew better, having read it before), but if I use humor, it is uncharitable. I'm getting the idea. Charitable = in support of Mother Rome, uncharitable = in support of biblical Christianity and the Reformation.
   Each morning this week has brought fresh reason to sit and shake one's head. This morning, I was directed to the following accusation, posted, charitably, of course, by Dr. Beckwith even as he claims (repeatedly) to be "done" with the topic. So, as a parting accusation of dishonesty on my part, Dr. Beckwith, charitably, makes the following accusation:

   The point is this: to say that someone "repeatedly denied" something when the second instance, the "repetition," was a clear non-denial is in fact to bear false witness against one's neighbor. Of course, Mr. White could deny having known of the Ignatius Press piece. But, as I will show, that can’t really be an option. First, it would mean there would be no "second instance" and thus no "repetition." It's difficult to claim that I repeatedly denied something if it's not even clear I did it once let alone a second time. And second, and this is revealing, we in fact know that Mr. White is aware of my Ignatius interview, for he clips and pastes from a blog post of mine [I have inserted this as a link, and note it so that no further charges of tampering/doctoring will be leveled against me] in which I mention the Ignatius Press interview as well as several others interviews. Here's White's post in which he links to my post that mentions the Ignatius Press interview [link inserted].
   In that post, sadly, White took isolated portions of my original post and ran them together as if they had appeared that way in the original. He did not place a “....” to indicate missing text. Thus, he doctored my original in order to make it seem as if my post was all about doing Catholic apologetics, when in fact it was a thank you to those who had written to my wife and me and to whom we had not written back. In that same post, I also link to the works of thoughtful critics of my reversion, including Carl Truemann, Christianity Today's editorial board, and Timothy George (in First Things). I encourage you to read it for yourself.
   This is why character counts. And this is why Jesus said, “Follow me,” not merely, “Believe me,” though it is with faith the journey starts. This is why grace is supposed to transform us, not merely pardon us, though we indeed were pardoned at the moment we became new creatures at our conversions.
   I'm through sparring on this topic. It is, at the end of the day, a colossal waste of the gifts God gave me. (I think Tim knows that already). Also, I need to prepare for my real job, Professor at Baylor University. The Fall semester begins in two weeks and I am teaching two courses, Logic and Legal Reasoning, and Law, Science and Society. I also need to get ready for the arrival of my parents from Las Vegas. They will be joining us on August 18 for my wife’s confirmation, her full reception into the Catholic Church.

   Now, please note the charitable means by which Beckwith ravages my character, honesty, integrity, etc., all the while very charitably ignoring the mountain of relevant, cogent, meaningful issues I have raised. If I respond to Dr. Beckwith, my response will be uncharitable, by definition, of course. (Is the pattern emerging here with sufficient clarity?)
   I find the accusation of "doctoring," and Dr. Beckwith's attempt to read my mind and discern my motives, beyond absurd, and given the man's obvious intelligence, I can only conclude that he has no means of responding to the refutations I have offered of his claims, the critique of his reasoning, etc. So, like so many others in the Roman communion, it is far easier to attack the man, gain the applause of Rome's legions of adoring followers, and move on. Nothing new, but, I expected it might at least take a little while for Dr. Beckwith to read through the entire "Roman Catholic Apologetics Manual of Operations."
   Here, in its entirety, is the huge, massive, long post to which Beckwith refers, and upon which he accuses me of dishonesty and doctoring of the text:

29 July
The "I Came Home to Rome" Tour Begins
The question "will Beckwith's reversion be used as a Roman Catholic apologetics tool" is being answered.

As I have traveled over the past three months--speaking at assorted venues around the United States--I have had inquiries from many about the deliberations that went into our decision. As I have said already, I am working on a book that will document my pilgrimage and offer an account of my journey.
Over the next two months I will be interviewed by Greg Koukl (President of Stand to Reason) on his radio program (August 5) as well as on Catholic Answers Live (September 5) and the television program, The Journey Home (September 24). Each of these is a call-in program.

posted at 17:09:12 on 07/29/07 by James R. White - Category: Roman Catholicism - edit

   Now, please note: a full and accurate link to Beckwith's own blog entry is provided. Anyone who wanted to read the original was given the ability to do so. If I had any interest at all in trying to "doctor" Beckwith's post, I would not provide a link to the original for anyone to read for themselves.
   Next, my actual contribution to the entry is one full sentence which is nothing more than a reference to Beckwith's own post. When I commented on Beckwith beginning to give his reasons for conversion on my blog (the fact that I have always pointed out his own assertion that he will be writing a book, and hence, till then, all discussions are preliminary, would be considered by some rather charitable, though, we know, of course, by definition, it can't be, since I am, by definition, uncharitable), I quoted his statements from the single article I have reviewed fully, which appeared in The National Catholic Register. I had not read, nor did I cite, the Ignatius Press article.
   Next, until this week, I had in fact held out some hope that Beckwith would resist the siren call of RC apologetics and recognize the inherent problems involved in becoming a "star convert" (who is actually just a revert). But I know the RC apologetics world. I'm their favorite target. So when I saw his announcement that he would be on both Catholic Answers Live and The Journey Home, it became obvious to me that, in answer to a single particular question, that being would he be "used" by Roman Catholic apologists, the answer was coming to light, "yes."
   Now, I quoted two portions of the article to which I had linked first that were relevant. I simply could have posted one sentence, but I chose the two portions of the text that addressed the issue, "Will Beckwith seek to have an apologetic presence in defense of Rome?" Those two sections included his statement that he was writing a book on the topic, and, that he would be on STR, CA Live, and The Journey Home.
   Evidently, Beckwith's entire basis for now, charitably, of course, accusing me of "isolating" and "doctoring" and, on that basis, of, charitably, insinuating that I lack character and that this is due to a false belief I hold about the gospel, is that between the two portions of text that I cited right after giving the link to his entire blog article I did not put "..." Yes, my character would have been proven sound if, though I had directed folks to his own original words, when I put the relevant material on my blog, instead of this:

As I have traveled over the past three months--speaking at assorted venues around the United States--I have had inquiries from many about the deliberations that went into our decision. As I have said already, I am working on a book that will document my pilgrimage and offer an account of my journey.
Over the next two months I will be interviewed by Greg Koukl (President of Stand to Reason) on his radio program (August 5) as well as on Catholic Answers Live (September 5) and the television program, The Journey Home (September 24). Each of these is a call-in program.

   I had put this:

As I have traveled over the past three months--speaking at assorted venues around the United States--I have had inquiries from many about the deliberations that went into our decision. As I have said already, I am working on a book that will document my pilgrimage and offer an account of my journey.
...
Over the next two months I will be interviewed by Greg Koukl (President of Stand to Reason) on his radio program (August 5) as well as on Catholic Answers Live (September 5) and the television program, The Journey Home (September 24). Each of these is a call-in program.

   Now, Dr. Beckwith illustrates for us how to charitably read someone's words in assuming that I was trying to convince folks that his original post, which I had linked to (uncharitably, I'm sure), was all about Catholic apologetics. The reasoning process whereby he comes to this conclusion he does not, charitably, share with us. I know it is uncharitable of me to point this out, but I can't help myself.
   Now, I have obviously attempted to insert a bit of levity, and a bit of humorous sarcasm here, for the simple reason that I'm to the point where you either have to laugh or cry. I have raised serious, substantive issues in the original posts on the STR web board. I raised serious, substantive issues in my blog articles in response to Beckwith's The National Catholic Register articles. But only one side wants to address these issues as if they are relevant to eternity. The other side wants to "share journeys in safe places." I'm sorry, but did I miss something here? Isn't Beckwith in the camp that agrees that when it comes to life and death issues, such as abortion, you don't play games with words? Hasn't he argued forcefully for life? Is the gospel less important, less definable, and less vital? So why all these silly games, all this smoke and all these mirrors? Could it be that Frank Beckwith simply doesn't have the answers?

---in the defense and confirmation of the gospel

13:45:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Hermeneutics, and the Gospel of John

08/09/2007 - Jeff Downs

Last night I had the privilege of teaching at Reidville PCA in Reidville SC. The topic was “An Overview of Biblical Hermeneutics.” If you are interested, the audio is online here. Keep in mind this was a basic overview, no heavy details. Here is a fill-in-the-blank handout that went along with the lesson.

Also, if you are interested my first Countercult Apologetics program from last year is online again. While it was the first one I did (bear with me), I thought it was one of the better ones. I interviewed Lester Hicks from Lancaster Bible College on the topic of “The Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of John.” Here is the link to the audio.

09:35:06 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

The Journey Home and Biblical Anarchy

08/09/2007 - James Swan

Catholic apologist Gary Michuta was on The Journey Home (8/6/07). Marianne from Pennsylvania called in and described her method of Bible study: she opens the Bible to any page, and then gets layers of meaning from the text. She wanted to know if this was a normal method of Biblical reading and interpretation. Here is the clip:

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

   Gary responds that it is okay to engage the Scriptures in such fashion, and yes, there are layers of meaning one can glean from the sacred text. One can read a passage through the virtues of faith, hope, or love (note, the practice of the medieval exegetes found four layers of meaning for each verse). He also notes you can consult authorities, and of course, the ultimate authority is the Catholic Church.
   If anyone in my adult Sunday School class asked this question, they would be held after class. Gary's answer would not be the answer I would give. His response is indeed a blueprint for anarchy, prompting the host, Marcus Grodi to quickly add that one must check context and actually be careful. Gary likewise has to add to his answer.
   Grodi though proceeds to take a shot at sola scriptura, as if adherents of sola scriptura would advocate the approach Marianne uses! The actual understanding and application of sola scriptura is completely misunderstood by The Journey Home. Grodi wants to make sure that Marianne, though allowed to come up with her own layers of meaning, consults the Roman Catholic Church or the early church fathers. With the later, one will be hard pressed to find total unanimity on particular passages of Scripture. With the former, Grodi goes on to point out that the Roman Catholic Church has only defined the meaning of a handful of passages.
   
Marianne is left with a bit of a dilemma. Her choice are:
   
   1. Come up with her own layers of meaning
   2. Consult a magisterium that isn't doing its job as an infallible interpreter
   3. Navigate through the differing opinions of the early church fathers
   
   Rather, I would offer Marianne a different solution. I would instruct her to become a student of the Bible. I would first explain to her what the term exegesis means. It is "to lead the native meaning out from the words." Then I would walk her through the rules of exegesis, noting such things like author, audience, historical setting, grammar, lexicography, and so on. But most of all, I would impress upon her the holiness of God, and the holiness of His Word. It is not something to be taken lightly. If she savingly believes in Christ, the words of Scripture will be the food that sustains her. Catholics can often caricature sola scriptura as a blueprint for anarchy. I ask, is not the real blueprint for anarchy the answers given by Mr. Michuta and Mr. Grodi?

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

Simply Amazing Indeed -- Updated

08/08/2007 - James White

   Jimmy Akin has joined the "stone James White" movement here. Of course, as is normal with Akin, you will not find a scintilla of interaction with what I have actually said, let alone how one can be "misinformed" by the very words you read on a page as to the content of what is in the book you are reading! Once again, "All is fair in the service of Mother Church." By the way, I listened to the BAM program Catholic Answers so often promotes, and I am very, very happy they do so. I will be playing segments on the DL in the near future, but especially the section about "baptism" that Catholic Answers so often mentions. Staples mentioned it on CA Live last week, and I played his comments on the DL. "It's no wonder James White could not respond to him" was his comment, or words to that effect. So I was fascinated to get to that point while riding this morning. They are right. I couldn't respond. But...that was because we went to a commercial break as soon as Akin finished making his claim, and when we came back out, Hank took the conversation another direction! I was never even given the opportunity to respond (another reason why calling this a "debate" is such a sham). And yet, this has been repeated, over and over, as evidence of how well things went! I was amazed. But more when we get to it on the DL.

UPDATE
   Rich was looking through the flood of "Go git 'im Jimmy" comments on Akin's blog (I saw a single person who had the ability to avoid the epidemic of Romanist Rabies long enough to go, "Uh, wait...Beckwith didn't say he had read Trent before, and, uh, you know, if you read this, it sorta sounds like....") and he ran across good ol' Guardian. You remember him. He's the fellow who talked about all my errors in my debates and, when I challenged him to call the DL, he did. When I asked for the list of my errors, he said he would provide it...in three months. So, evidently, he's hard at work. Anyway, Rich noticed something at the end of a comment he left on Jimmy Akin's blog. He's still referring to me as "ol Jimbo White." Here's the comment:

As ridiculous and however psychologically messed up Ole' Jimbo White is, there is always hope for him to come to the truth. Keep him in your prayers.

www.jamesrwhite.org

Posted by: Guardian | Aug 8, 2007 11:57:36 AM

   Go ahead. Click the link to www.jamesrwhite.org. Isn't that special? Someone is actually spending money to register my name as a domain name and send it over to...Catholic Answers. I'm honored! That someone would be so desperate as to spend their time and their money in this fashion is glowing testimony that despite all the venomous hatred spewed my direction by the hoi polloi in the CA Forums, Envoy Forums, Jimmy Akin's blog, etc., they well know that it is not the Jack Chicks of the world, the Dave Hunts of the world, that challenge them. No, they know that all their proclamations of victorious defense of Mother Church are only convincing as long as they stay far, far away from www.aomin.org and the documented, reasoned, compelling argumentation against Rome's claims to be found there. That's why Envoy filters the aomin.org URL out of all submissions. That's why someone is paying money to direct folks to catholic.com using my name. They know the "answers" they repeat endlessly amongst themselves are shallow and unconvincing, and they know those "answers" do not survive the light of day, the light of examination, the rigor of debate. If they truly believed otherwise, we would have a line of callers waiting at every DL, chomping at the bit to demonstrate the overwhelming power of Rome's proclamation. But we don't. And deep down in their hearts, the Guardians of the world know they are doing nothing more than suppressing the truth, and it makes them desperate. Desperate enough to register my name as a domain name and redirect it over to Catholic Answers. The irony is, they are redirecting it over to an organization whose primary apologists are the very ones who have turned down repeated challenges to engage in moderated, public debate!

---in the defense and confirmation of the gospel

15:15:10 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Dr. Beckwith Replies

08/08/2007 - James White

   I provide the full text of Dr. Beckwith's response:

I just couldn't help myself. Below is my reply to Mr. White's questions. Each question is preceded by a number. My answer follows the question.
   I really don't think these are serious questions, since they are not the sorts of questions that one asks if one is reading another charitably. That is, when reading another person's claims and arguments, one should always think to oneself--if I were so-and-so how would I reply to my inquiries? What this exercise does for the mind and soul is deeply virtuous. For it nurtures empathy--a moral virtue--but it also results in sharpening one's own arguments and reasons. After all, if you can come up with a plausible account of another's case, then it is that plausible account and not the original take that one must confront and assess. This helps one to avoid the straw man fallacy, which we are all prone to commit now and again.
   Nevertheless, I respond to these questions because it will give STR readers an opportunity to see what happens when one artificially detaches analytic disputation from the virtues of the soul. It harms oneself--and in this case, Mr. White's moral development--and it teaches others--his readers--to be uncharitable and mean under the mantle of biblical authority.
   1) How can a person be shocked by re-reading something they read twenty years ago. Is it your claim that you had completely forgotten everything you had read then?
   The same way one feels when one runs into an old girlfriend and then wonders what one saw in her in the first place. Before you run into her, you "remember" her in one way. When you see her again, you realize that that was puppy love and not real love. And sometimes one quivers at the thought that one could have married that person.
   It is safe to say that Paul re-read the Old Testament differently after his conversion and was shocked at what he found. After all, if he had read the OT correctly to begin with he would not have persecuted the church. A good friend of mine from graduate school shared with me how much more persuasive Christian apologetics works seemed to him after he had become a Christian. He told me, "These arguments that I dismissed prior to my conversion seem so convincing now." This is a common phenomenon among reflective souls.
   2) Or is it your claim that you were so completely prejudiced in your twenties that you could not even read the document in a meaningful fashion?
   My reading was both prejudiced and meaningful. It was shaped by my Lutheran professors and my lack of philosophical sophistication. For this reason, I read Trent more like a prosecutor looking to convict a defendant rather than a student seeking to learn. I loved my Lutheran professors, but I have since come to the conclusion that they were wrong.
   3) How can someone speak of "expecting to read" something in a document that they have already read?
   See answers to 1 and 2. As an aside, it is common for scholars to see things differently and more clearly (or more ambiguously, as the case may be) over time as one begins to get a fuller picture of a particular subject matter and its primary texts. Because I am an academic with different obligations and responsibilities than those involved in popular polemics, I am blessed with a lifestyle that allows me the time and resources (and brilliant graduate students and colleagues) to ruminate about and think through many texts and issues.
   4) Are you claiming that your prejudices were do deep that you had actually made up in your mind things like "sticking pins in your eyes" and "flagellation"?
   I was making a humorous allusion to the Opus Dei loon from the DaVinci Code. It's typical Beckwith humor. "How many Gnostic Aesthetics does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
   5) How can you find "amazing" things in a document you read twenty years ago? Did you simply not read it well enough to understand it then?
   I read it well, but not well enough. See answers 1, 2, and 3.
   6) If you read this document, how is it relevant to claim that you had not been "told" the truth about it?
   I not only read Trent. I read about it. Those commentators read the document uncharitably. That shaped my reading. Happens all the time. See answers 1, 2, 3, and 7
   7) If you read the document, how could you be misinformed about its contents?
   The same way that a Mormon can read the Bible a hundred times and still get Mormon theology out of it. A text is not like a box with things in it, "contents." It is something to be approached with humility and teachability. For example, at one time I fully accepted the notion of the imputation of Christ's alien righteousness as unambiguously biblical. And, in fact, one will always get that out of the text if one approaches it with entrenched Reformed assumptions (informed by late medieval nominalism, a philosophy implicitly hostile to Christian philosophical anthropology, IMHO). However, if one begins to reflect on the entirety of Christian history and the numerous exegetes who have seen different "contents," equally at home with the same text, one begins to have a fuller picture of the sorts of philosophical and anthropological issues that were at stake during the Reformation.

That's enough for now. (I know I've said that before. But this time I'm serious!).

Thank you for indulging me (pardon the pun).

   Now, my comments, which, in the eyes of the Catholics currently posting on the comments thread at STR, are, by nature, ridiculous and uncharitable. No, it doesn't matter what I will say, or how I will say it. The fact that I will open my mouth (move my fingers on a keyboard) is all they need to go ad-hominem.
   Let's say I said the following on a radio program. I am talking about a reading marathon I did in January of this year, and I say the following:

And let me say, if you read the Book of Mormon...which, by the way, really shocked me. I expected to read this sort of horrible book, you know, requiring people to marry multiple wives and go through temple ceremonies, and it turns out that there are things in there that are quite amazing. It talks about Jesus Christ and salvation by grace! I mean, I thought to myself, I had not been told...I had been misinformed!

   Now, would any rational, indeed, charitable person, read that to mean, "I had read the Book of Mormon before. But I was so completely unfair in my reading of it originally, so completely bigoted in my opposition to Mormonism, that I was completely blind to it, and in fact, I was so biased, that I pretty much forgot every single thing it actually said, warped it so much in my mind that I inserted all sorts of things that were not in fact in it at all, and was so completely self-deceived that I could claim to have been misinformed!"? I would never have concluded that that was what Dr. Beckwith meant which is the only possible way to hear what he said on STR Sunday night. In fact...would it be "charitable" of me to read those words in such an insulting fashion? But evidently, unless you do read it that way, you are being uncharitable. (Well, let's face it: for Rome's followers, unless you smile and applaud every convert while ignoring the realities of their claims you are uncharitable).
   Next, if I read his words in the most logical sense in which they can be taken, Beckwith now insists this is impacting my "moral development." May I suggest that the problem in moral development here is Dr. Beckwith's? You see, he has succumbed to the "Pauline Convert Syndrome." He is getting a tremendous amount of attention as a freshly minted convert to Rome (just as Matatics, Hahn, Sungenis, etc., have experienced in the past). As such, it is natural for him to embellish his conversion, or, to use his words, his "journey." Now, what he said on STR, and what he has said in other contexts, regarding Trent, was meant to allow him to emphasize how wonderful Trent's actual words are. The words he used on STR were misleading, and any semi-unbiased person who reads them knows this is the case. Instead of admitting this, and saying, "OK, well, I embellished my comments on Trent, sorry about that," Beckwith has chosen to make this an issue about me instead. Only the most hardened followers of Rome can possibly be impressed by this kind of smoke and mirrors.
   Dr. Beckwith has, for many years, insisted that words have meaning. Words are related to other words, creating a context. Now, while I truly sit utterly amazed that Beckwith is even arguing these points, as his words seem so obvious and clear, since he has done so, I need to point out where his replies fail the simplest tests of logical coherence. Let's remember his actual words:

"If you read the Council of Trent...which, by the way, really shocked me. I expected to read this sort of horrible document, you know, requiring people to stick pins in their eyes, you know, and flagellate themselves, you know, and it turns out that there are things in there that are quite amazing, that the initial grace is given to us by God, in fact, there's a condemnation in there for anyone who says that our works, apart from grace...I mean, I thought to myself, I had not been told...I had been misinformed!"

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

14:00:44 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Tomorrow on Iron Sharpens Iron

08/08/2007 - James White

   On Chris Arnzen's Iron Sharpens Iron program on Thursday I will be reviewing today's interview he did with Gerry Matatics on his views as a sedevacantist (one who rejects the current Roman leadership as valid). An e-mail account has been set up to allow folks to e-mail questions to the program at theologyradio@gmail.com. Remember, the program is at 3pm EDT, and you can listen here.

12:22:32 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Luther Myths: Q and A

08/08/2007 - James Swan

I've gotten a few responses via the Aomin mailbag from my recent Luther Myths material.
   
First, Shelly asks: "Someone told me that Martin Luther hated Jews and even wrote about this hatred towards the Jewish people. Is this true?" This came up on the ISI broadcast as well. I refer Shelly to the broadcast, as well as the detailed article I wrote on this. Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than modern day anti-Semitism. He had nothing against Jews as Jews. He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. In other words, his opinion on the Jews was not biological, but rather theological. This defense though does not excuse his harsh comments.
   
Next, Chris comments:

"Luther was a drunk- the defense is One needs only to survey the massive output of work that Luther produced to settle the matter that he was not an alcoholic, nor did he have a drinking problem. Really? Do names like Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Dickens, and Carroll mean anything? What a lame defense."

As to Luther's degree of alcohol consumption, I have no evidence one way or the other, nor do you. My only point is the defense offered by the A&O website, the idea that if Luther were a drunk he could not have produced what he did, is completely lame.

   There is no record of Luther ever being drunk (whereas, documentation does exist with those others you mention). At least, we can agree, I think, that if there were such historical documentation that Luther was drunk or often drunk, we could grant the possibly he was a high-functioning alcoholic. But such documentation does not exist. Coupled with the fact that he led a highly productive life, we can at least rule out that he was a low-functioning alcoholic. The burden of proof though really rests on those who claim Luther was a high-functioning alcoholic. Without any evidence to the contrary, one can only make judgments based on the information available, and in terms of information available, Luther and those around Luther wrote a lot about Luther. It is not as if we can't come up with a historical picture of the man due to lack of information. Luther led a highly productive life, and was not an alcoholic.
   
And finally, Rob wrote in and said,

"Your attempt to dispel what you believed to be the more popular Luther myths fell short at best. I especially loved the last myth which Mr. Arnzen set up as, 'Here's one that is very important. Did ML on his death bed convert back, to Roman Catholicism or reconvert as you will.' And you responded with something to the effect of this topic comes up on Catholic discussions boards all the time. Oh really, which boards are those. I've never read anything of the sort on any RC board. All the RC's I know all agree that once ML fell from grace and left Mother Church, he never reconverted back. Mr. Swanson, can you point me to one RC board where a RC wrote that ML before he died reconverted back to Mother Church?"

   Let's dispel the myth about my last name being Swanson. It is not. I've spent about ten years reading Catholic materials (including Catholic discussion boards) about Luther. I have yet to read a published Catholic apologist claim Luther recanted on his deathbed. On the other hand, I have read Catholics asking about this. Here are links to two blog entries I did reviewing this myth, brought about by Catholic discussion boards:
   
Luther's Deathbed Re-Conversion to the Roman Catholic Church
   
Did Luther Recant on His Deathbed?
   
In both entries links are provided to Catholic discussion threads on this topic. Particularly humorous was a Catholic participant who argued "the friends of Luther who recorded his last hours took liberties in describing the details of Luther's death for posterity" and they had "...interest in presenting a tidy record of Luther's death." In other words, conspiracy!

11:18:37 - Category: Mail Bag - Link to this article -

Beckwith Claims to Have Read Trent

08/08/2007 - James White

   Let's make it clear. Frank Beckwith claims to have read the Council of Trent prior to January of this year, and, seemingly, he is going to use my pointing to his comments about Trent as his sole means of avoiding the dozen or so issues I have raised since yesterday (in the materials below, such as Canon 13 at Nicea/Canon 6, the actual development of the complex of beliefs giving rise to indulgences, patristic citations---all the things he has avoided even commenting upon even though he raised the issues to which they are relevant) and as his sole means of covering his retreat. And yes, I use the term retreat for the simple reason that it was Dr. Beckwith who has made particular theological and historical claims, but, when challenged, for some reason, refuses to back them up. Evidently, in the minds of many in the Roman communion (as evidenced by their comments on Jimmy Akin's blog, the Catholic Answers forums, and the STR comments thread), he doesn't have to back up what he says. That is only something those outside "Mother Church" have to do.
   He likewise is referring to this statement as the genesis of "internet midrash," which I find an interesting use of the term. He has said so on the Catholic Answers forums. So I would like to offer Dr. Beckwith all the space he needs right here on my blog to explain how, if he in fact read the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent in his twenties, he could say the following Sunday evening on Stand to Reason 42:37 into the program:

"If you read the Council of Trent...which, by the way, really shocked me. I expected to read this sort of horrible document, you know, requiring people to stick pins in their eyes, you know, and flagellate themselves, you know, and it turns out that there are things in there that are quite amazing, that the initial grace is given to us by God, in fact, there's a condemnation in there for anyone who says that our works, apart from grace...I mean, I thought to myself, I had not been told...I had been misinformed!"

   Specifically, if Dr. Beckwith wishes to provide replies to the following, I will gladly post them:

1) How can a person be shocked by re-reading something they read twenty years ago. Is it your claim that you had completely forgotten everything you had read then? Or is it your claim that you were so completely prejudiced in your twenties that you could not even read the document in a meaningful fashion?
2) How can someone speak of "expecting to read" something in a document that they have already read? Are you claiming that your prejudices were so deep that you had actually made up in your mind things like "sticking pins in your eyes" and "flagellation"?
3) How can you find "amazing" things in a document you read twenty years ago? Did you simply not read it well enough to understand it then?
4) If you read this document, how is it relevant to claim that you had not been "told" the truth about it?
5) If you read the document, how could you be misinformed about its contents?

Finally, would not a perfectly fair minded reading of these statements lead any rational person to the conclusion that this was, in fact, your first reading of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent?
   I will gladly post Dr. Beckwith's response here on this blog for all to read, should he wish to respond to this "Internet midrash."
   While reviewing the thread on the Catholic Answers forums I saw no meaningful response to any of the issues raised in the materials cited in the previous blog entry (from the comments thread on the STR blog). ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

A Great Example of Roman Obscurantism

08/07/2007 - James White

   I have often commented on the fact that comments sections in blogs are rarely helpful. In fact, they invite the worst of the Internet to show up to attempt to gain a very brief audience for their viewpoints. And it seems that when it comes to Rome, those who post in defense of that system believe they have no reason to actually listen to what anyone else has to say, let alone do they need to do any reading in sources other than their own. Here are two examples.
   First, Steve Camp actually decided to post over on Jimmy Akin's blog. The replies are classic "we see nothing beyond our very narrow realm" types of ad-hominem filled invective. Read at your own risk.
   Over at the STR blog, the number of comments have doubled fairly quickly. And since I linked to the blog this morning, a number of other folks have showed up, and, as normal, led by some of my regular RC Internet stalkers like David Waltz, the "you are so mean!" ad-hominem has taken over, ending the usefulness of the thread. This is a common tactic: ignore the substance, go personal, and you will have the admiration of the majority of mushy-thinking modern readers. But those who are not so easily thrown off track can see what happened in that commentary thread. To help others, I am collecting the comments from Frank Beckwith, to which I replied, and putting them together here in the order in which they took place. I will let the readers judge: who brought up important, meaningful questions, and who ignored those issues?

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

15:42:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Beckwith Interview Review Part I on the Dividing Line Today!

08/07/2007 - James White

   As promised, I began my review of the interview with Frank Beckwith today, even extending the program by ten minutes. I likewise responded to the "Yes, I had read Trent, even though my comments would lead any reasonable person to think I had not" issue as well. I am half way through the interview, but more than halfway through the material I wished to comment upon, so on Thursday, especially if we add on another ten minutes, I should have plenty of time for callers who wish to comment on what they have heard. So make sure to make plans to be with me on Thursday, 7pm EDT. For now, here's the program (free/high quality).

14:01:59 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

The Beckwith Saga Unfolds

08/07/2007 - James White

   I have been commenting on the Stand to Reason blog in response to claims being made by Frank Beckwith. You can see the comment thread here. As I noted yesterday, I will be reviewing the STR interview today on the DL. One of the issues I will be discussing early on is the fact that I felt Beckwith, at one point, took advantage of Koukl's friendship in launching into a complaint that he didn't feel the interview was going the direction he had expected. He wanted a "safe" place to "share" his "journey." While that sounds wonderfully fluffy and warm, I do wonder---would either Beckwith or Koukl let a person who had once been a leader in the pro-life movement, who switched and become pro-abortion, come on the program to just "share their journey," and use such reasoning to avoid direct, fair, relevant questions? I would surely hope not. Yet, that is what Beckwith was asking. As the President of ETS the man took an action that had implications far beyond himself (to whom much is given, much is required). This isn't about Frank Beckwith's feelings. It's about the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. So Dr. Beckwith, if you don't want to be challenged, do not put yourself in the position of acting like a Catholic apologist. You can't seem to make up your mind if you are going to try to take on that mantle or not. But Greg Koukl was right up front in the very first comments he made on the program. He said there was going to be disagreement. It is hardly fair to get into the discussion, demonstrate that you simply don't have any meaningful answers (let alone biblically compelling ones), and then complain that you were just looking for a "safe place" in which to "share your journey."
   Jimmy Akin has picked up the "Koukl was unfair to Beckwith" drum here. Beckwith, whose presentation lacked any kind of biblical foundation, and who struggled to even remember where Paul spoke of "working out your salvation" (Philippians 2:12-13, Koukl had to help him out with it) let alone provide a meaningful context for the passage, complained that Koukl was "steamrolling" him, using an unfair tactic in debate. It is a given that a biblically-based Protestant is going to be far more biblically oriented in his own self-definition of his views than a Roman Catholic. It is really hard to use the Bible to express so much of Rome's unique theology, at least in a meaningful, contextual fashion. So it is hardly surprising that Koukl's presentation contained far more Scripture than Beckwith's. But if Koukl's use of Scripture is wrong, then why didn't Beckwith provide a succinct, compelling refutation of his misuse of those texts? Because that is not what Beckwith is trained to do. He is not a theologian. He is a philosopher. I think one of the things that has surprised him in the response to his action is that he cannot understand why anyone would see this as such a big thing. For him, this is mainly a philosophical "paradigm shift." Let's face the facts here: Beckwith was raised in Roman Catholicism, and I have never once heard him speak of a soul-shattering, repentance bringing, heart changing conversion to the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ. Instead, we have a man who was Jesuit trained in his schooling, who admits that he continued to hold Rome's view of man and law and nature all along, who existed in "evangelicalism" for a number of years. Given the sad state of affairs in "evangelicalism," he was never challenged on these matters, but eventually found it more comfortable to re-adjust his paradigm and go back to communion with Rome. I do not see any reason whatsoever to believe that he ever had a heart-felt commitment---coupled with any level of serious knowledge of the issues involved, theologically, historically, and biblically---to sola fide. Remember, he had never even read the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent! He surely never associated himself with an emphasis upon the doctrines of grace.
   In any case, I surely felt for Greg Koukl while listening to that interview. I will say this in light of the final comments I heard on the mp3 currently available at str.org: much was made of the friendship between Koukl and Beckwith. It is just here I guess I get my reputation for being so "hard nosed" in the current post-modern situation, even in the church. Friendship that includes a common commitment to the gospel is something completely different than friendship without it. I may have cordial relationships with non Christians, but I cannot think of anyone I would call a true friend who is not a fellow believer in Christ. And I could never call a man a "friend" who was leading others to trust in a false hope, leading others away from the truth in Christ. Pretending to confess the truth of the gospel, and then denying that confession, has lasting results.

07:44:01 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Final Portion of the London Televised Predestination Discussion

08/07/2007 - James White

   This is the last portion of the program I am posting, and it is what probably most of this audience would like the previous nine to have been like! We finally got a caller who was able to enunciate his objections with passion and clarity. This clip is just over seven minutes in length, and brings to a close my posting of this material. Hope you found it useful! I am very thankful for opportunities such as this one.

00:01:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Tomorrow on the Dividing Line

08/06/2007 - James White

   This past weekend Frank Beckwith joined Greg Koukl on Stand to Reason. Koukl and Beckwith are friends, having worked together closely in the past. But Greg Koukl is a former Roman Catholic by conviction, and it comes out in his understanding of the issues relating to how a man is made right with God, and how Rome's answer to that question is not the Bible's answer to that question. Being a former Roman Catholic may or may not mean that a man actually understands, not just with the head, but with the heart, why Rome is to be rejected. That is why I refer to Koukl as a former Roman Catholic by conviction. Such are few and far between, sadly.
   In any case, for two hours Koukl and Beckwith chatted, along with a handful of callers. What I heard was very consistent with what I have read from Beckwith thus far, and fell very much in line with the commentary I have offered in reference to his stated reasons for his reversion. Given the (mis)use of Beckwith that is surely to be seen on the part of Rome's apologetic community (he is already scheduled to be on EWTN, to be writing for This Rock, etc.), it is appropriate to examine his claims closely and, when truth requires it, refute them. This we will do this week on the Dividing Line, starting tomorrow with our Tuesday program. Join me then!

18:19:22 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Luther Myths and Our Very Own TQuid

08/06/2007 - James White

   For those who would like to listen in to Chris Arnzen's interview of James Swan (for channel rats, JavaMan's interview of TQuid), here's the program. Enjoy! Well done, TQ! Just wait till you see the wacky e-mails this will produce. There seems to be an entire group of Roman Catholics out there who absolutely hate Martin Luther. I mean, they are simply unhinged. MLDs at heart! (Moonbat Luther Detesters). If anyone tries to reason with them, as TQ does here, they run to the closest keyboard and start spitting at you. It's amazing to watch, it really is. I am sure this program will bring out some of their best.

13:41:58 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

"Luther Myths" on Iron Sharpens Iron

08/05/2007 - James Swan

I am scheduled to be on Chris Arnzen's Radio show, Iron Sharpens Iron (August 6, 3-4 PM) discussing "Luther Myths." The station, WNYG AM 1440, can be heard in the New York area. The station also live-streams online. Their webpage can be found here. Here is their Real Player broadcast link. To call in on the air, the number is 1-631-321-WNYG (9694).
   
   The topic will be limited to my recent entries on Luther Myths:

Ten Martin Luther Myths
Five More Luther Myths

   Obviously, the subject of Luther and the Reformation is a vast subject. You are welcome to call in, but please have a Luther-specific question drawn from the material contained in the links above.
   
"No slander against Luther has ever gone unanswered. As the charges against Luther have become stereotyped, so the rejoinder cannot hope to bring forward any new facts. But it seems necessary that each generation in the Church Militant be put through the old drills, and learn its fruitful lessons of spiritual adversity. Thus even these polemical exchanges between Catholics and Protestants become blessings in disguise. But they do not affect Luther. The sublime figure of the courageous confessor of Christ that has stood towering in the annals of the Christian Church for four hundred years stands unshaken, silent, and grand, despite the froth that is dashed against its base and the lightning from angry clouds that strikes its top."[W.H.T Dau, Luther Examined and Reexamined (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917) p.5-6]

20:07:18 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

London Televised Predestination Discussion #9

08/05/2007 - James White

   Second to last portion of discussion on the subject of predestination from Revelation TV in London on May 16, 2007.

00:01:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

The Watchtower Tightens the Leash on "JW Apologists" Once More

08/04/2007 - James White

   Almost a decade ago I presented a paper at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Orlando, Florida, on the topic of Greg Stafford and the relationship that exists between the Society and those who seek, outside of her official publications, to give a defense of her beliefs. Back in the 1970s the Watchtower Society disfellowshipped an early "Jehovah's Witness apologist" for "running ahead of the brethren." I said then that how the Society dealt with Stafford, who was not only publishing materials on his own, but likewise citing from the very publications the Society forbids its followers from reading, would give us insight into how they were going to deal with the broader issues presented by the growing impact of the Internet, cable television, and the greater availability of information. The Society has had to attempt to keep control over what information individual Witnesses are exposed to for the simple reason that cults have to do that. They have so often changed their teachings, altered their views, and then tried to cover these changes up, all while claiming to be "Jehovah's only organization on earth," that having an open policy on access to information would be self-detrimental. So having folks like Stafford out there doing their own thing would only serve to incite other Witnesses to start looking into "things" that they would rather just keep out of the sphere of notice of their followers.
   Since that time there have been conflicting signals coming out of Brooklyn. A few times they have "snapped the whip," so to speak, holding a hard line on the whole idea of doing "apologetics" and putting up websites, etc., in defense of the Society. I noted earlier this year that Stafford had gone on an anti-Calvinism crusade, and had ended a period of relative inactivity with a bang. At the time I wondered if he had been given the "green light" so to speak by a contact in Brooklyn.
   Well, the September, 2007 Kingdom Ministry publication (known as the "KM" in Witness terminology) has tightened the leash yet once again. Here is the text that has just been distributed to all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world:

QUESTION BOX

* Does "the faithful and discreet slave" endorse independent groups of Witnesses who meet together to engage in Scriptural research or debate?–Matt. 24:45, 47.

   No, it does not. And yet, in various parts of the world, a few associates of our organization have formed groups to do independent research on Bible-related subjects. Some have pursued an independent group study of Biblical Hebrew and Greek so as to analyze the accuracy of the New World Translation. Others explore scientific subjects related to the Bible. They have created Web sites and chat rooms for the purpose of exchanging and debating their views. They have also held conferences and produced publications to present their findings and to supplement what is provided at our Christian meetings and through our literature.
   Throughout the earth, Jehovah's people are receiving ample spiritual instruction and encouragement at congregation meetings, assemblies, and conventions, as well as through the publications of Jehovah's organization. Under the guidance of his holy spirit and on the basis of his Word of truth, Jehovah provides what is needed so that all of God's people may be "fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought" and remain "stabilized in the faith." (1 Cor. 1:10; Col. 2:6, 7) Surely we are grateful for Jehovah's spiritual provisions in these last days. Thus, "the faithful and discreet slave" does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight.–Matt. 24:45-47.
   It is commendable for individuals to want to use their thinking ability in support of the good news. However, no personal pursuit should detract from what Jesus Christ is accomplishing through his congregation on earth today. In the first century, the apostle Paul warned about getting involved in exhausting, time-consuming subjects, such as "genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith." (1 Tim. 1:3-7) All Christians should strive to "shun foolish questionings and genealogies and strife and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile."–Titus 3:9.
   For those who wish to do extra Bible study and research, we recommend that they explore Insight on the Scriptures, "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial," and our other publications, such as those that discuss the prophecies found in the Bible books of Daniel, Isaiah, and Revelation. These provide abundant material for Bible study and meditation, whereby we can be "filled with the accurate knowledge of [God's] will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension, in order to walk worthily of Jehovah to the end of fully pleasing him as [we] go on bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the accurate knowledge of God."–Col. 1:9, 10.

   It did not take long for Greg Stafford to comment on it. He analyzes the commentary (as he well knows, there is something called "Society speak," and it has to be interpreted to be understood), and concludes,

Of course, I believe the Society is completely wrong in their views and in their application of texts to almost everything that they say in this Question Box, and I believe they are stifling growth and the defense of Jehovah’s name and other Bible teachings, or possibly attempting to insulate their followers from facts that they believe will create disloyalty to their organization. But Witnesses loyal to the Society cannot say that, and so those who go against their recommendations are running ahead or running along a different path than that recommended and walked by those whom they consider to be the anointed body of Christ, representing Jehovah’s will on earth today. Thus, such ones are not listening to those whom they consider Jehovah’s “faithful and discreet slave.”

   Stafford does not use a "normal" blog format, so you have to go here and scroll down to entry #925 for the source of this citation.
   In any case, we will have to keep our eyes on developments in this area. The Society is really between the proverbial rock and the hard-place on this topic. They really cannot insulate their people as they once did, but at the same time, they struggle to explain their history and the objections to their beliefs. We will see what develops.

18:48:20 - Category: Jehovahs Witnesses - Link to this article -

Romans 9 Transcript (II of II)

08/04/2007 - James White

   "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh," (and then we have another citation of another Old Testament text) "'For this very purpose,'" (God had a purpose, it wasn't Pharaoh's purpose) "'For this very purpose I raised you up,'" - I did this. "oh but Pharaoh had all these choices. Yes. And "For this very purpose I raised you up.'" [We might go a little bit long today because it is going to be hard to stop.] "For this very purpose I raised you up." Now, folks if you're zoning out, tune in here a second because I have got to challenge any of you who are listening today. You, if you want to understand what the Scriptures teach about this, you need to have the same priorities that God has. And you have to ask yourself the question, "What is most important to me?" Because God said the reason he raised Pharaoh up was " to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."
   So I want to ask everyone that calls himself a believing Christian in the audience today, where in your priority list is the demonstration of God's power and the proclamation of His name throughout the whole earth? Nothing in there about the free will of man, is there? Nothing in there about making men feel good about themselves, nothing in there about meeting their felt needs. The demonstration of God's power and the proclamation of His name, those are not big priorities for the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians today. So it shouldn't surprise us in the least that the vast majority of those folks do not like what Romans 9 has to say.
   God had a purpose. He raised Pharaoh up. He used Pharaoh. Now if you… people go "Oh how can He do that? I just wont worship a God like that." Really? Was Pharaoh in Adam a rebel sinner? "Well, yeah". And so God could have brought His wrath to bear against Pharaoh at any point and brought him to judgment for his sins? "Well, yeah." And so because God does not choose to bring Pharaoh to judgment immediately, but instead uses him to demonstrate His power and to make His name known throughout all the earth that somehow makes God unjust? Surely not!
   "How does Paul interpret this text? Well what's the apostolic interpretation? Well this is just talking about how God used Egypt." Well, you tell me. What does verse 18 say? You can't cut it out of your Bible, you've got to deal with what it says. "So then, those whom He wishes, He mercies and those whom He wishes He hardens." Yeah, it says hardens right there. You go, "I don't want that in my Bible!" But it is right there. Because we know that Pharaoh, his heart was hardened. And people go "well yeah but he first hardened his own heart" except before, look back at Exodus 4: 11 & 12 before Moses ever stood in front of Pharaoh, God said "I am going to harden his heart." "Yeah, but he wanted to harden his own heart." Yes he did because he was a sinner and all sinners want to do that. And God was actually restraining Pharaoh from being worse than he was. But the point is God had a purpose. And if your theology is such that God could not have a purpose and Pharaoh could have gone, "You know what? I repent." So that God's entire purpose for the Exodus, the Passover, the picturing of Christ, the demonstration of His name and His power throughout the whole earth, and the spoiling of the Egyptian gods; if your theology is "Well you know God may have wanted to do all that but all Pharaoh had to do is repent and it would have been just fine." Then I say to you, you are not talking about the God of the Bible. You have made up a god in your own image; don't call it the God of the bible. Because the God of the bible needs to be defined on the basis of the bible, not what you like about Him, okay? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

18:07:51 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -

Romans 9 Transcript (Part I of II)

08/04/2007 - James White

   One of our regular DL listeners, justrozie, transcribed my exegesis of Romans 9, and Algo proof-read it, so I am providing it here. Here is the audio. As this is a bit longer than our current blog software allows for a single post, I have broken this up into two sections.
   But, let's look at Romans chapter 9 and let's start off with the context. Specifically beginning at verse 1. Paul says "I am telling the truth in Christ" now remember, back up and hold on a second. I apologize. Romans chapter 9 again chapter and verse divisions were not a part of the original text of Scripture. And so what have we just had? We've had the Golden Chain of Redemption, Romans chapter 8. In fact, it might be well to go back and to remind ourselves of what has come before. "We know that God causes all things to work together for good for those who love God, for those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren." (Romans 8:28-29)
   I just stop long enough to challenge in the minds of anyone who thinks that this term foreknew as a verb is the same thing as the noun to simply have foreknowledge, that you are wrong. And that you need to look at the text of Scripture and realize that this is an active verb. This is something God is doing and every time God is the subject and this is the verb in the New Testament, the object is personal it is never actions. To simply say God knew who was going to believe, there is no example of that statement in the New Testament. It is not there. It is not an untrue statement but it doesn't answer anything and it doesn't tell us what it means for God to foreknow someone. It says God foreknew Christ, does that just mean God had knowledge of what Christ would do? No. This is an active verb. It is something that God does. So, "For those whom He foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren. And these whom He predestined He also called. And these whom He called He also justified. And these whom He justified He also glorified." Here is the Golden Chain. God is the one doing every single verb. Foreknew - predestined - called -justified - glorified. God does each one. It is the exact same audience in each one. Those whom He foreknew he does all the other things that result in their glorification. It is a certainty. It is all to God's glory.
   Now, we know for example that one of those things is justification. And we know that the bible says we're justified by grace, we're justified by the blood of Christ, and we're justified by faith. So obviously, the means by which these things then come into play, they come into our experience are included in God's sovereign capacity and power to do these things. And so having said this, then verse 31 "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us who is against us?" Notice those terms that are used there. Us. Follow the pronouns. Follow the pronoun. "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" If the 'us' here is all humanity, you are going to be forced into the position of absolute universalism here. You will not be able to affirm the existence of those who are saved and those who will be lost.
   Who is the us in Romans chapter 8 verse 33? "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? " God's elect. God is the one who justifies. Justifies who? Justifies the elect. Who is it that is justified in the Golden Chain? Foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified. "Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised to the right hand of God." Who also does what? "intercedes for us." ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

18:07:13 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -

As Simply as I Can Put It

08/03/2007 - James White

   Recently Dave Armstrong has been, once again, melting down. Our favorite dendrophilic apologist (my thanks to TQuid for that wonderful term, and please note, "dendrophilic apologist" is abbreviated "da," so, it is doubly fitting) has, of late, become rather free in his insults, racking up an impressive list of ad-hominem commentary, which puts his oft-proclaimed ecumenical kindness in a bit of a bad light. But those of us who have known Armstrong for years are hardly surprised. If you address him, and begin to examine his claims, he responds either in this fashion, or, with the "I'm so hurt, I will never talk to you, or about you, again" ploy, all of which is designed to allow him to avoid having to do serious research and argumentation. His recent use of Peter's addressing the body of a dead girl and commanding her to rise (Acts 9:40) as defense for communication with the dead is just the most recent example of the kind of "apologetic" material he produces.
   In any case, Armstrong is so impressed with his own standing that he seems to think he can make up definitions for words as he goes along. It has been his practice for some time to arbitrarily define the phrase "anti-Catholic" so that he can use it of others but, due to a modern reading of Roman doctrine so as to allow for "separated brethren" to be called "Christians" while still anathematizing their theology, he can't be called an anti-Protestant. So, he arbitrarily defines the phrase so that since I deny Rome's gospel saves, I am an anti-Catholic, but since he can affirm, in some inconsistent and nebulous fashion, that I am a "Christian," then he is not an anti-Protestant.
   Aside from the less than impressive coherence of such arbitrary definitions, Mr. Armstrong has, once again, in his zeal, and in his anger, missed the point. Let me see if I can clarify it, if not for him ("ears to hear"), at least for someone else.
   There are anti-Catholics in the world. That is, their entire "ministry," their entire theology, is defined by their negative reaction to Catholicism. In the same way, there are anti-Mormons, anti-Jehovah's Witnesses, anti-Muslims, anti-Hindus, etc. and etc. Such folks are rarely stable in their faith, and are rarely deeply involved in the worship and service of the church, either. Most are ex-members of the groups that continue to define their lives. I've met them. We all have. And, may I add, there are anti-Protestants as well. There are Roman Catholics who are so focused upon denouncing non-Catholic theology and perspectives that they clearly can be identified with this phrase.
   Now, I am a Protestant apologist. As the term Protestant is so very widely defined today, I prefer a little more specificity: I am a Reformed Baptist apologist. What I do I do not because I am focused upon any one group, but because I am focused positively upon my own profession of faith, and, I consistently defend that positive profession against those who deny its truthfulness. I am an elder, involved in the regular ministry of the church and the teaching of the Word. I have written numerous books on a wide variety of topics. I have defended Christianity in debate against Muslims and atheists; I have defended the Trinity against Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals. I have taught, in formal seminary settings, such courses as Systematic Theology, Christology, Philosophy of Religion, Church History, Greek, Hebrew, special studies in Patristics, and numerous apologetics classes. Anyone who would insinuate that my life, my ministry, my writing, my entire ministry, is somehow defined by a negative stance toward a particular religion, or by Roman Catholicism in particular, is engaging in clear and gross falsehood.
   Further, to be consistent, anyone who would insist upon calling me an "anti-Catholic" would have to likewise refer to me as an anti-Mormon, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Muslim, anti-unitarian, anti-fill-in-the-rest. But who does this? And even if someone were to do so, would the effort not prove, by its ridiculous nature, that it would be far more logical to identify such a person positively by what motivates them and defines their teachings and ministry?
   So, just as I refer to Roman Catholic apologists, Mormon apologists, Islamic apologists, etc., the honest person will refer to me as a Reformed Baptist apologist. As soon as you hear a person, or group, doing the "let's define our critics by our own theology" routine, you need to consider that they may well be using such language not to aid in understanding, but to diminish it through poisoning the well, prejudicing the thinking of especially their own supporters and followers. That is what Catholic Answers is up to. That is what Dave Armstrong is up to. And this activity says much about their motivations and the truthfulness of their teachings.

15:57:22 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

London Televised Predestination Discussion #8

08/03/2007 - James White

   I have finished recording clips from the May 16th London program on predestination, so I now know that including this one, there are only three left. Interestingly, the most intense discussion takes place in the last clip with a caller named Tom on the ever-central topic of God's love. In this clip I finally get to launch into Romans 9...only to be interrupted by the observation that I was using my Greek text. I was carrying my Reader's Greek New Testament (yes, I know, a new edition is due out soon...I have it on pre-order!) and I had a wonderful cover made for it from Renaissance Art so that it survives all my traveling much better. In any case, here is the next (fairly brief) segment:

00:01:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Ministry of the Word at PRBC

08/02/2007 - James White

   I see that I forgot to mention that I am currently ministering the Word in the Lord's Day services at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. Last Sunday I spoke on contentment, service to Christ, and the attitude that should be ours as a result. Hate to explode the myth that RB's only preach "high doctrine sermons," but anyone who actually takes the time to listen with any regularity to Reformed Baptists knows that is a dishonest caricature anyway. Here is the link for the sermons page. Of course, I regularly teach the adult Bible Study lessons as well, and we are currently working through John 5, here.

19:22:18 - Category: Pastoral Theology - Link to this article -

Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Debates, Discussions, and a Dozen Years...on the DL Today

08/02/2007 - James White

   Started off the Dividing Line with a brief chat with Mike O'Fallon of Sovereign Cruises on the subject of our October cruise and the fact that there is still room to join in but time is passing us by. Once the ship fills up, we can't guarantee anyone a spot, so now is the time to get on board!
   Then we moved to Tuesday's Catholic Answers Live program, playing some of the commercials and commentary regarding the Steve Gregg/Tim Staples radio discussion (which they like to call a "debate"). We noted that in their commercials, and even in their live discussions, I'm "anti-Catholic" James White, but Steve Gregg is just...Steve Gregg. I wonder...if I'm an anti-Catholic (and the only meaningful use of such a phrase would be to describe someone whose entire faith is defined by its opposition to Rome), why is my next major debate with Shabir Ally? Strange. Anyway, we then reviewed their comments, took a call on a completely unrelated, but interesting, subject (the London Baptist Confession of 1689), and then played a section from the Bible Answer Man broadcast, which CA likes to call a "debate," featuring Akin and yours truly. In it I pointed out that in the very first topic discussed Akin avoided my claim, falsely charged me with eisegesis, and put up a straw man. I may just have to go back through that program from 1995 and demonstrate that it seems someone is doing the "if you say something often enough people will believe it" routine. In any case, here's the program (free/high quality).

17:56:54 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Christ in the Early Church

08/02/2007 - Jeff Downs

A new book that will be worth your time:

For Us and for Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church , by Stephen J. Nichols (Crossway, Aug. 2007).

Table of Contents:

Introduction
“Who Do People Say That I Am?”: Christ’s Crucial Question
1 - In the Beginning Was the Word: Christ in the Early Centuries
2 - In Their Own Words: Select Documents from the Early Centuries
3 - The Triumph of Athanasius: The Battle for Christ at Nicea
4 - In Their Own Words: Select Documents from the Fourth Century
5 - The Wisdom of Leo the Great: The Battle for Christ at Chalcedon
6 - In Their Own Words: Select Documents from the Fifth Century
Epilogue
Jesus: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
Glossary
Appendix 1: The Doctrine of Christ in Scripture
Appendix 2: A Guide for Reading the Church Fathers

Here is an excerpt from the introduction:

The early church fathers wrestled with the same problems presented by The Da Vinci Code phenomenon and its fanciful speculations about Jesus. They wrestled with the same problems presented by Islam and its adamant denial of the deity of Christ. And they wrestled with the same problems presented by the scholars working in the Jesus Seminar or in gnostic texts like the Gospel of Judas who quickly dismiss the four canonical Gospels as God’s true revelation to humanity. In the days of the early church, the names of the opponents were different from those faced by us today, but the underlying issues bear a striking resemblance. When the church fathers responded with the orthodox view of Christ, they did the church of all ages a great service.

and one more...

The early church was right in spending so much time and effort on the doctrine of Christ. They were right to contend that Christ is the God-man, very God of very God and at the same time truly human with flesh and blood. They were right to contend that Christ is two natures conjoined in one person without division, separation, confusion, or mixture, to use the language of the Chalcedonian Creed. They were also right to contend that the gospel collapses without this belief. In the words of Athanasius and the Nicene Creed, Christ is the God-man “for us and for our salvation.”

By the way, if you are not familiar with Stephen Nichols, he and James White spoke at a conference together a few years ago. The audio for that conference is available here.

Nichols is also the author of the following books:

The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World (Crossway), Heaven on Earth: Capturing Jonathan Edwards's Vision of Living in Between (Crossway), An Absolute Sort of Certainty: The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of Jonathan Edwards (P&R), J. Gresham Machen A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought (Crossway), among others.

08:26:08 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

On Being a Respecter of Persons

08/02/2007 - James White

   A brief study from PRBC's Wednesday evening service on the subject of God as a "respecter of persons."

00:01:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Wednesday Afternoon...Stuff

08/01/2007 - James White

   Next Wednesday Gerry Matatics will join Chris Arnzen to explain his adoption of the sedevacantist position and his assertion that that the current leadership of the Roman Church is invalid. You will want to be listening to Iron Sharpens Iron at 3pm EDT for this program. You can listen live here. Then, on Thursday, I will join Chris to review his discussion with Matatics. Remember, I debated Matatics on the subject of the Papacy in Denver during World Youth Day in 1993 (I had previously debated him on the subject in 1990 in Tempe, a debate moderated by Scott Hahn, who stormed out of the room in anger after it was over). It remains one of the clearest refutations of Rome's claims to papal primacy we offer. A full seven hours worth of debate (real debate, not radio programs with callers, commercials, and the like, debate---the real thing) during which Matatics defended the very institution he now claims is in apostasy. It should be an interesting program!
   For those interested, I would direct anyone to every single one of the debates we have done on the Papacy in general, and papal infallibility in particular, which includes debates against Matatics, Sungenis, Staples, and Pacwa. The Staples debate in particular is an example of why, it seems, Catholic Answers prefers informal discussions to formal debates, to be sure. (And please note a standing, open challenge to Hahn, Keating, Akin, Madrid, and Staples to debate any aspect of the claims of Rome regarding the Papacy, along with the dogmatic declarations of Rome regarding the Marian dogmas).
   Speaking of which, I will be playing clips from the 7/31 Catholic Answers Live radio program. They are now advertising the Steve Gregg/Tim Staples "debate" (it was a radio program, not a debate) along with the "Bible Answer Man Debate with noted Anti-Catholic James White." Note that I'm an anti-Catholic, but Steve Gregg isn't. Starting to get an idea of just how malleable, and in fact, simply dishonest CA is about its use of such slurs? When your worldview and faith requires you to support godliness in sexual morality, that makes you a "homophobe," right? And if you proclaim the historic Christian faith against the later claims of Islam, you become an "Islamophobe," right? And, if you deny such man-made dogmas as Papal Infallibility or the Bodily Assumption of Mary, beliefs utterly unknown as dogmas to the early centuries of believers, you are now an "anti-Catholic" (I think they'd use "Catholiphobe" if it didn't look so downright silly). Staples makes some very interesting claims about the BAM radio program that illustrate why I refuse to call un-timed discussions interrupted by commercials and news breaks and driven by callers "debates."
   I will also be joined at the beginning of the program by Mike O'Fallon. A number of folks have been asking if there is still room to take the class on the Cross and go on the cruise in October in preparation for the Ally debate, and the answer is yes, but time is running out! Mike will be getting us up to speed at the top of the program on that.
   Next, I note that the folks over at Steve Gregg's board are highly confused as to the meaning of the phrase "respecter of persons" (KJV) or one "showing partiality" (most modern translations) in reference to a comment I made in my replies to Gregg on Romans 9. I will actually be speaking on this particular issue this evening in our Wednesday evening service, and will bring my mp3 player along, record it, and post it, to provide a fuller discussion. In brief, look at James 2 for a great example of what it means to show respect for persons, to act in partiality. My point was simple: if God responds to men due to their being better, more spiritually sensitive, pliable, etc., than others, then He is showing partiality; that is, His response to man is based upon something in the man. This is the essential nature of synergism: the final decision as to who will, and who will not, experience forgiveness and eternal life, is man's, not God's. Therefore, there is something in the man that determines the final outcome of salvation. Only in monergism (Calvinism) do you have God's mercy and grace acting freely and without being bound by the actions and dispositions of man. Hence, when the accusation is made that Calvinists make God out to be a respecter of persons, the ones making the accusation are simply not thinking through what the phrase actually means, and how it applies to synergists such as themselves, not to monergists.
   Finally, I note that Robert Sungenis has promised, again, to amend his ways regarding his anti-Jewish polemics. For those who have not been following that saga, Sungenis began veering off the path years ago, jumping not only into geocentrism, but into the promotion of some pretty wild-eyed theories regarding the Jews. I honestly have had little interest in following the goings-on, but to say that the sparks have flown and that he has been denounced as harshly as he is given to denouncing others is to put it mildly. He likewise made some brief comments about yours truly, and alleged my Reformed Baptist beliefs are far more self-contradictory that Matatics' beliefs (that one is so self-evidently in error I can let it stand as its own refutation), and I'd love to ask him more about that, but...it would cost me. See, to get answers from Dr. Robert Sungenis now you have to...put the question in the PayPal comments box along with your donation. I quote, "If you have an apologetics question you would like to ask Dr. Sungenis, please write the question in the 'comments box' provided in the Paypal transaction process." So, it will cost you $3.00 now. I wonder if Mr. X will shell out some bucks to get some answers? I sorta doubt it.
   Finally, just to get off the Roman Catholic topic before I sign off...I have been listening to a good bit of Jamal Badawi of late, and I have often heard him attempt to make the case that there was a great deal of confusion in the early Christian church over the crucifixion of Jesus. One of his most often used examples is that of the Basilideans. They taught that Jesus was not crucified and that instead, Simon the Cyrene took his place. This fits perfectly with the currently accepted understanding of Surah 4:157 in the Qur'an. And yet, if someone would just stop to ask the question, "Who were the Basilideans, and why should I believe they have anything relevant to say to the historic situation in AD 30 in Jerusalem?" they would quickly come to question the integrity of anyone promoting their name in relation to the crucifixion. Why? Simple. Here are the facts. Basilides was a gnostic teacher who flourished around 130 AD or so in Alexandria. So, he's teaching a century after the events. He claims to have been taught by a disciple of Peter. But what did he teach? Well, that's a good question, since his followers were so few, and his impact so small, that all we know about him is what was written about his teachings and his followers by men like Irenaeus or Hippolytus. But taking that material, we know that the Basilideans followed a supreme god named "Abraxas." Is anyone going to argue that this was the original message of Jesus and His disciples? And Jesus was viewed as a phantom, a non-corporeal being, sent to earth by Abraxas. This movement was influenced far more by eastern religions than it was by the Jews or Jesus, to be sure. So could someone explain why a tiny group of gnostic influenced people in Egypt a hundred years after Christ should be relevant to overthrowing the combined and unanimous testimony of all of the original followers of Christ? When it is said, "Oh, they didn't believe Jesus died on the cross," of course they didn't! Have you ever tried to crucify a phantom? It was their docetism (denial of the physical incarnation of Jesus, the very error warned against by John in his epistles) that led them to have to come up with an explanation for why everyone else was testifying to the reality of the crucifixion. Since they denied the incarnation, they had to come up with something to fill the gap, and they did so on the basis of the canonical gospels and their reference to Simon the Cyrene! There is nothing historically useful in the Basilideans outside of giving us a glimpse into the varied forms of gnosticism in the second century. Surely, as far as the historical reality of the crucifixion is concerned, such sources are irrelevant.

16:38:09 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

London Televised Predestination Discussion #7

08/01/2007 - James White

   Now, in television, you can go from a discussion of theodicy straight into a caller who thinks if you are not a premillenial dispensationalist you are anti-Semitic and into "replacement theology." Oh well, that's how it goes when you open the phones, to be sure! I am still thankful for the opportunity to say even the few things I was able to sandwich between the calls.

03:01:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives