Someone informed me that James White the Baptist was continuing his rant concerning my blog on the Assumption of Mary. The guy continues to take me far more seriously than I have ever taken him. He's really just a little man full of himself an angry know-it-all who's really just a tempest in a teapot. The only reason I have ever responded to him in the past is for the sake of others reading the material. If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings, but this time his preaching is not worth responding to. Let him prattle on. I have better things to do that to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic that sets up a blog.

The greatest day is going to be when James White finally reads history, understands it (he seems to have a problem with isogesis) and, realizing his mistakes, joins RCIA and becomes a Catholic apologist.

Your testimony and work has brought far more souls into the Church than Dr. Whites blog could ever pull out of the Church. But its not about numbers but truth. Ultimately, the Truth will set us all free.

Think of the parable of the sower. Some ground is just too hard. It needs to soften up a bit. Not just him but many of those that read his site are determined not to listen to the Catholic message. They listen to poke holes but do not REALLY listen. That is in huge contrast to so many Catholic apologists who have given protestantism every chance to convince them it is true.

I dont know that I want James White to become a Catholic Apologist. I think the man does more to turn people away from whatever he is promoting, simply because the number one thing he promotes is himself.

One of the major problems in America and in the world today is the problem of people raised in dysfunctional homes that is, raised without any standard values or proper boundaries.

In observing James White and his form of rebellion and his seemingly autonomous religious existence (the man has never invoked any form of religious authority over him or made reference to any limitations his religion imposes on him and his public behavior), I cannot fail but make a connection between his approach in public discourse and the environment and values in which he grew up.

In a sense, like the radical left who grew up in dysfunctional homes, here must be an example of a radical right who was raised up badly and who inserts himself in the most obnoxious manner in conversations regarding a system he is incapable of understanding and insists that we must answer to him provide him with a certain level of refutation. I do not think a Catholic has to. I have insisted that no Protestant(who is not a seeker) has a right to make any kind of demand on a Catholic for any kind of answer. The most appropriate response to James White then is to let his matter die.

   I agree with you completely, but there are some innocent folks who might be influenced by such nonsense and it is good for them to see that guys like White and his kind are very easy to refute. If someone does not refute them, like saints have refuted heretics in the past, then others might think they cannot be refuted. Such petty, self-important know-it-alls need to be refuted so others don't fall prey to them.
   Actually James White does more for good for the Catholic Church right where he is! I know many people that have become more convinced of the Catholic Church by listening to arrogant folks like him.

   Third, if I considered White important enough and I had free time with nothing to do on my hand, I would deal with his latest rant which I haven't even taken the time to read. I responded the last few times since I did have a day or so and they were interesting topics for me to expand upon.
   Fourth, whenever one steps into a mud puddle with White one always feels the need of a shower. I took one last week and am now on to other projects more profitable and beneficial. However, if I have time this summer I may revisit his site and read his latest and edit my papers with Addendums to deal with his "critique."

I don't know why you all give Ole' Jimbo White the time of day. I own and have read all of White's books regarding Catholicism, and think they lack scholarship at best and honesty at worst. In fact, I've found so many things misconstrued, not just with his books but with what he says in debates and on his blog, I simply dismiss him. Now, a lot of times he does make honest arguments, but they are laughable at best, usually.

He's the boy that cried wolf, in my opinion.

So what I want to keep out of the academy, because it has no scientific evidence to support it, reason doesn't support it, and common sense doesn't support it: the view that the Bible is inerrant.

There are 2 different creation stories and the timelines concerning when man was created relative to the other creatures contradict one another.

In Misquoting Jesus, Professor Bart Ehrman, the former believer in the inerrancy of the Bible tells how he requires his students to see what each of the Gospels says concerning the birth and death of Jesus. In fact, they contradict each other in their differing accounts.

1. Given God exists and is personal and the Creator of all things;


2. Mankind, as the creature of God, possesses the ability to communicate;


3. God must possess the power of communication to be the source thereof in His creatures;


4. If God can communicate, He has the power to do so perfectly, in oral or written form.

I get e-mails all the time from religious people all the time who say, "I want to come to your class and talk. I want to come debate you." I'm not going to have anything to do with those people, because I don't want to give them any kind of academic legitimacy. Do we understand this? All the time I get those things. And they are always trying to sell their particular brand of truth. Yes? And the whole idea is to keep them out of the academy. If they want to have their churches, fundamentalist or otherwise, I have no problem with that, but as far as coming into the academy, I got a big problem with that, for all the reasons I just enumerated.

Someone informed me that James White the Baptist was continuing his rant concerning my blog on the Assumption of Mary. The guy continues to take me far more seriously than I have ever taken him. He's really just a little man full of himself — an angry know-it-all who's really just a tempest in a teapot. The only reason I have ever responded to him in the past is for the sake of others reading the material. If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings, but this time his preaching is not worth responding to. Let him prattle on. I have better things to do that to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic that sets up a blog.

In Acts 16:4 we find that this council delivered a binding decision which was even called a dogma (Greek here for decrees or decisions is dogma). Thus, long before a book with 27 writings was ever collected and codified the Church exercised authoritative leadership with a mandate from Christ.

These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ, the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics (ANF 1:414-415).

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she [the Church] is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth (Irenaeus, Heresies 3, 4 in ANF 1:416-417).

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him. (V:1).

Mark 13:11 "When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.

Jesus exhorts his followers to strictly adhere to the laws and commandments (Mark 10:18-19; Matt. 19:17; Luke 18:20) while Paul calls the law and commandments a curse and bondage (Gal. 2:16, 3:11, 24; Rom. 2:13).

Jesus says that atonement through sacrifice in not necessary (Mark 12:28-29; Matt. 9:13) while Paul believes that only Jesus' atonement blood sacrifice can save us (Eph 5:2; Gal 3:13; Heb. 9:26).

Mark 12:28-29 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Ephesians 5:2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-- for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE "
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Yet after all of this, Paul still has the audacity to claim: Be my followers, as I am a follower of Christ (1 Cor. 11:1)!

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Dear Friend of Catholic Answers,
Our dire financial situationhas placed a key part of our ministry at risk: our popular Internet forums.
Without a substantial infusionof money, we will be forced to curtail Catholic Answers Forums.
We need you to join us as a supporter of the extremely effective Catholic Answers Forums site.

Indeed, I've brought forth into the world over two million copies of books by the very best Catholic authors, living and dead -- authors whose holiness and wisdom continually draw souls to the Church (the perfect Church) that Christ founded 2,000 years ago.
Now, however, all this is threatened.
We may have to close our doors.
Slow sales this past summer have left us with an empty checkbook and overdue bills approaching $75,000.
If I don't pay this soon, we'll have to cease publishing.

   First, when Jesus said Farewell and ascended into heaven, he did not leave us a book. In fact, there is no record of him instructing the disciples to ever write a book, nor was there an expectation that someday there would be a collection of writings attached to the Hebrew Scripture and considered equally inspired. Nor did Jesus leave a detailed manual or cataloged tradition.

All things that are read from the Holy Scriptures in order to our instruction and salvation, it behooves us to hear with earnest heed.... And yet even inregard of them, (a thing which ye ought especially to observe, and to commit to your memory, because that which shall make us strong against insidious errors, God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures, against which no man dares to speak, who in any sort wishes to seem a Christian), when He had given Himself to be handled by them, that did not suffice Him, but He would also confirm by means of the Scriptures the heart of them that believe: for He looked forward to us who should be afterwards; seeing that in Him we have nothing that we can handle, but have that which we may read. Augustine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VII, Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 2, 1 John 2:12-17, section 1.

What DID Jesus leave as an authority for the Church He was building? He left us Twelve Menone with the Keys of the Kingdom and all Twelve with the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-19; 18:15-18). He promised them the Holy Spirit to lead and teach them (John 14:25-26; 15:26; 16:7). He also promised that the decisions and judgments they made regarding the Kingdom would be ratified by King Jesus in heaven.

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peters successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possessOrigen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenashas dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peters confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the church. The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as what is obvious to any one at first sight they did not regard the power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred on all the Apostles, as any thing peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing.

Paul has managed to contradict Jesus in almost every single area of faith and practice. Jesus says that there is no original sin (Mark 9:13-14) while Paul says there is (Rom. 5:12-14).

Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. ⁴ "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work.

Jesus says that not ALL of us are unrighteous people (Mark 2:16-17; Matt. 15:24) while Paul says that no one is righteous (Rom. 3:10, 23).

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? ¹⁷ When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Mark 2:16-17).
Matthew 15:23-28 ²³ But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." ²⁴ But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." ²⁵ But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" ²⁶ And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." ²⁷ But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." ²⁸ Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.
Romans 3:10 As it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one."
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and come fall short of the glory of God.

- Colored text highlights particles added to nouns and verbs, allowing easy recognition of new forms.
- Chapters Two (Hebrew Vowels), Nine (Pronominal Suffixes,) Seventeen (Waw Consecutive), Eighteen (Imperative, Cohortative, and Jussive), and Twenty-Three (Issues of Sentence Syntax) are revised and expanded.
- Section of appendices and study aids is clearly marked for fast reference.
- At the end of each chapter there is an exegetical or theological insight to continue to inspire and remind the student why they are studying Hebrew. The new edition includes a lengthy piece by John Piper on the importance of pastors learning their languages. It is titled, "Bitzer Was a Banker!" In addition, there is a new insight by B.B. Warfield titled "The Languages and Pastoral Ministry."
- Also the accompanied Workbook has been improved and updated as well.

"It is but natural to expect that, if the church is strong because its ministry understands and preaches the whole counsel of God, then the church will be able to protect itself best against false teaching of every sort. Non-indoctrinated Christians will easily fall prey to the peddlers of Russellism, spiritualism and all of the other fifty-seven varieties of heresies with which our country abounds. One-text Christians simply have no weapons of defense against these people. They may be able to quote many Scripture texts which speak, for instance, of eternal punishment, but the Russellite will be able to quote texts which, by the sound of them and taken individually, seem to teach annihilation. The net result is, at best, a loss of spiritual power because of loss of conviction. Many times, such one-text Christians themselves fall prey to the seducers voice."

Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.

Though many try to turn tradition in a dirty word--the dreaded T word--the Bible is not so negative. Notice these three passages in particular that mention the existence and importance of the apostolic tradition: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." (2 Thess 2:15); "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." (2 Thess 3:6); "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." (1 Cor 11:2).

At this point Mr. Palm goes well beyond the scope of a discussion of the NT usage of "tradition," and begins to engage in a good bit of special pleading for his cause. The ellipses in the quotation remove a little "however" that points us back to the discussion in Kelly of how often the early Fathers cited as yet "uncanonized" Scripture, especially that of Paul. Hence, Kelly has just indicated the high viewpoint of the written testimony to the apostolic teaching, and as a counterbalance produces the statement cited. However, he doesn't stop there. He continues on:

Logically, as it must have done chronologically, the testimony stood prior to the documents, and it would be more correct to say that the latter were valued precisely because they were held to enshrine the former. Admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament. But there is equally nothing to suggest, and general probability makes it unlikely, that Christian teachers had these books specifically in mind on the majority of occasions when they referred to the apostolic testimony. It is much more plausible that they were thinking generally of the common body of facts and doctrines, definite enough in outline though with varying emphases, which found expression in the Church's day-to-day preaching, liturgical action and catechetical instruction, just as must as in its formal documents (pp. 33-34).

Now that is quite different than reading the entire Roman concept of "Tradition" into Kelly's words as Mr. Palm does above! Remember, Mr. Palm's "Tradition" includes, of necessity, purgatory, indulgences, Papal Infallibility, and a whole plethora of Marian doctrines. Surely Kelly would be the first to admit that such beliefs were utterly absent from the Church's instruction and belief at this stage in history. Hence, to read Mr. Palm's capitalized Tradition back into Kelly's words is a misuse of a scholarly source, to be sure.
Now I will only mention in passing that Mr. Palm's reference to the early Father's struggle against the heretics begs the issue. What was the rule of faith they used to refute the heretics? Mr. Palm's infallible Roman Tradition? In no way. The "rule of faith" was far more simple, and was, in fact, derived from biblical sources, and is fully defendable from the Scriptures themselves. Hence, the idea that this rule of faith, this tradition, mentioned by men like Irenaeus, is in fact an extra-scriptural revelation, holds not the first drop of water.
   Likewise, Ray objects at one point to the assertion that Rome's claims of infallibility force her to a functional position of sola ecclesia over against sola scriptura. He writes,

But while we Catholics do not accept sola Scriptura, we also cannot be painted into a corned [sic: corner] named sola Ecclesiathe Church alone.

To which I offer this reply from this article on our website:

No RB would view himself as having "broken away" from Christianity because he is convinced the Bible teaches that baptism, like the Supper, is for believing, repentant people. When I join with my Presbyterian brothers in defending the gospel against the heresies of Rome, I will try to remember we are not fellow Christians.

When I speak of a Baptist tradition, I am speaking broadly of a basic doctrinal paradigm which reduces Christianity to a personal thing - a matter of merely personal salvation which ordinarily happens apart from any material means (i.e. the ministry of the Church in Word and Sacrament); says that one only becomes a member of the church because one has been saved outside of her rather than being saved by God through her (which is the historic Reformed position); therefore reduces the church to a mere collection of like-minded individuals, the sacraments to mere memorials of what is absent and badges of profession rather than sacred signs of what is present and actual means of grace; and thinks it is ok to break away from the rest of Christendom by claiming that they alone possess true Christian Baptism and therefore think it permissible, good, and necessary to re-baptize anyone not baptized in an age of accountability. This is what I mean by the term Baptist.

When I speak of a Baptist tradition, I am speaking broadly of a basic doctrinal paradigm which reduces Christianity to a personal thing - a matter of merely personal salvation which ordinarily happens apart from any material means (i.e. the ministry of the Church in Word and Sacrament); says that one only becomes a member of the church because one has been saved outside of her rather than being saved by God through her (which is the historic Reformed position); therefore reduces the church to a mere collection of like-minded individuals, the sacraments to mere memorials of what is absent and badges of profession rather than sacred signsof what is present and actual means of grace; and thinks it is ok to break away from the rest of Christendom by claiming that they alone possess true Christian Baptism and therefore think it permissible, good, and necessary to re-baptize anyone not baptized in an age of accountability. This is what I mean by the term Baptist.

No matter how loudly they may want to protest that they are not of the same mind with their forefathers here, they cannot get away from this underlying issue: they have taken baptism away from the church catholic and presumed the right to claim it for themselves. This is a material deviation from both Reformed and historic Christian orthodoxy.

   Not unlike the Christian missionaries of today who travel into Muslim lands dressed in Muslim garb, Paul admits that he employs the use of deception to catch fish for Christ--becoming a Jew for Jews and a Gentile for Gentiles, that he may gain the more (1 Cor. 9:19-22).

   The despicability of such treachery is something Christians have practiced for over 2,000 years and in many cases have even condoned. When it comes to clinching a convert, anything goes.

   Such immorality is demonstrated as Paul describes to the Corinthians how he stole money from other churches in order to bribe them to believe -- Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service (2 Cor. 11:7-8).
   Yes Paul, you have committed an offense--remember, Thou shalt not steal (Exodus 20:15; Matthew 19:18)?!

   Most astonishing of all is how Paul tells the Romans that as long as people continue to believe in his doctrine, he cannot be labeled as a sinner for LYING (Rom 3:6-7)?! Lying about what? The fact that he saw Jesus?

Romans 3:1-5 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? ² Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. ³ What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? ⁴May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED." ⁵ But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? ⁷ But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?

• Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin.


• Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin.


• Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.

I had seen the excitement over White's questionaire [sic] floating around the blogosphere. I really wasn't interested in it enough to visit his site, since I was pretty confident it would be nothing more than one of his typical attacks on Catholicism. I'm glad you posted it on your blog; that's the only way I would have ever read it. Interesting stuff!

Though I am not a Roman Catholic, there is much to embrace and their [sic] is much mis-representation coming from the Protestant side. I did not care for James White's smug questions.
Joseph, Don't bother with his site, I have seen enough of Mr. White to be completely turned off. I have never seen someone so sure he is right in pretty much all theological matters.

8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims ofthe Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?

I believe I have looked carefully. I do not know what Mr. White means by unanimous consent.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.

...we, therefore, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy...

At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction;

If he means that 100% of church fathers have to believe something for the Catholic claims to be valid, that would give, ex post facto, a limitless veto power to any one father (who would not have realized he was wielding this power when he wrote). I do not know if he means Papal Infallibility the way I have read it defended.

I do not know what remains to be explained about the Pornocracy et al.

The Catholics claim that the church is not free from sinful people; they say the Church is semper reformanda.

7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?

I have applied the same standards to all my analysis, thank you for asking. Regarding circular logic, I believe the Romanist would say that Christ promised us that he would give his Holy Spirit, and the Book of Acts records this very event. This, and Christs commissioning of the Apostles should give us some reason to believe that their claims to authority could be valid, certainly valid enough to identify which texts this same Holy Spirit inspired.

Rome's claims do not nearly produce harmony.

   Many walked away from Christ when he explained that His flesh had to be eaten for salvation.

Rome's criticism (in observing the factionalism of Protestantism) is that our claim that the Bible is a sufficient sole rule of faith has been disproved by reality, as we are in such wide disagreement on its interpretation, even in essential matters.

There may not be harmony, or even obedience in Catholicism about the use of, say, the Pill (an abortifacient), but at least everyone understands that their Church has spoken against it.

Incidentally, and speaking of essentials, I believe Calvin would say that Mr. White's Reformed Baptists are not part of the true church, since they do not properly attend to the Sacraments.

Regarding Indulgences and Paul's doctrine of Grace, this textual criticism does not account for the Catholic defense that Indulgences are able to relieve only temporal punishment. Eternal punishment is cured by Christs grace alone (Cf. Paul's doctrine of grace taught to the Romans).

Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Romes doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?

In fact, I have been so blessed by reading texts like these in the light of Catholic tradition. It has opened up so much greater depth of understanding of the scriptures. It has explained many verses that never madesense to my protestant way of thinking. There have just been so many more exclamation marks than question marks.

The point is not so much that I have but people much smarter and much holier than me have. Lots of saints, lots of converts, lots of amazing Christians that have an insight into the scriptures I can only dream of. They lived in many different times and came from many different culture. Catholic teaching on all of these question is massively scrutinized. To suggest that nobody has read these scriptures and remained Catholic is beyond silly. It shows a VERY narrow view of history and

Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?

Have I pondered what it means to persevere to the end? Of course. Is that such a thing to do. Nobody can snatch me Gods hand. I don't jump I will remain there. So I need to keep saying yes to God. I have the grace of the true Word of God and the true That is pretty powerful.

How many Catholics really believe the teachings of the church does not matter. What matters is if they are true or not. They are. Catholics that have the strong spiritual fruit are the orthodox ones. The rest are people who just don't influence my spiritual thinking one way or the other.

Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christs will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?

This is a common mistake. Just because a doctrine develops in a way that was not foreseen in the early church does not make it false. Remember Catholics don't believe Sola Scriptora so they dont have to find clear teaching. All that is required is to find that scripture when read and interpreted through sacred tradition teaches the doctrine.

Not the custom or the practice but the doctrine behind it. The doctrine of the papacy more than meets that standard. In fact, protestant readings of Matt 16:18 just never made sense to me.

2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in Gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?

A bit the same as the last time.You need to understand development of doctrine. I know that is foreign to the Sola Scriptora mindset where everything has to have a proof text. Even so, protestants buy doctrines all the time that have little support in scripture and no tradition behind them. They have no logical basis for new teaching to develop. Catholics do.

Understanding deepens and grows over time. The church is there to make sure no error gets introduced. So we are not constantly relearning the same truths they did centuries ago with no hope of new discovery. We are part of a living tradition that does learn and grow. The immaculate conception cannot be understood apart from some knowledge of genetics. So the apostles could not have taught it. They would never have guessed how much of a persons nature is defined at conception.

All the teachings about Mary are really about Jesus.

When we learn something about Jesus it has implications for what we can say about Mary. That is why Christology grew up before Mariology. It has nothing to do with Gnosticism. Gnostics denied Jesus was physically human.

Talking about His mother is a very powerful way to affirm that Jesus is physical and human. He not only had a body but it developed inside Mary for 9 months and therefore she needed to be prepared for such a job.

The number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of Gods elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?

This is the easiest one of all. I continue to believe in I am saved because I am in Christ. I no longer separate that from the idea of being in sacramental union with the body of Christ.just seems like you have no clue what the heart of Catholicism is. It is grace from first to last. Yes grace through the sacraments. They are part of gracenot an alternative to grace. Yes, grace by faith expressing itself through love. My Catholic faith is greatly enriched by my days as a protestant. Very little of what I learned there has been repudiated. Becoming Catholic was a refinement of my protestant faith and not a rejection of it. I am still a biblical, evangelical christian.