"If someone says they are an 'authentic interpreter' of the Bible, then that leads to the question of infallibility. If they are an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then they must be infallible. Yet, most Protestants... will never claim to be infallible. So, that puts them in a predicament. Plus, if they claim to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then the logical question is: Who appointed you to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible? If they say the Bible did, then you ask them for chapter and verse as to where their name appears so that you might believe them. If they say anyone else, then you ask by what authority that person or persons appointed them authentic interpreters of the Bible. If they don't claim to be an 'authentic interpreter' of the Bible, then that means their interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be fallible- in other words, they have to admit their interpretation could be wrong. And, if they could be wrong, then why should you, or anyone else, risk the salvation of your soul on what this person is saying?"

"What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you're discussing. Don't hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there. If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out- I don't see any problem, as long as you're doing it in private correspondence."

"I don't know of any Catholic apologist who would mind if you quote them without citation- not for the purpose of self-aggrandizement or for profit- but for the purpose of saving a soul. After all, I don't know of any Catholic apologists who are coming up with original stuff. These arguments have been out there for hundreds of years. I always tell people that if there is anything original in any of my stuff, it's quite by accident."

An anti-Catholic recently put up a pathetic YouTube video criticizing my recent radio show where I talked about the Apostolic Fathers and how Catholic they really were. Some of these angry anti-Catholics try to twist the early Christians into pretzels — ridiculously trying recreate them into Reformed Baptists or other such nonsense. I recently wrote a blog quote quoting professor and a self-confessed “proud, dispensational, conservative, born-again fundie” from Moody Bible Institute that wrote a book entitled "Getting to Know the Church Fathers" who said the early Church Fathers "were not Evangelicals."

If you are interested in such debates you will find these two YouTube presentations below very interesting. I consider such anti-Catholic sophists as a huge waste of time, but I appreciate the fine work of William Albrecht as the Catholic Legate. He has actually posted many such YouTube videos that are very worthwhile watching. I will post links to others when I get home and get the time.

The Sophist and St. Ignatius Part I

The Sophist and St. Ignatius Part II

By the way, a VERY reputable theologian wrote to me yesterday saying,

"I just wanted to bring to your attention James White’s analysis of your use of Ignatius of Antioch. White’s analysis may very well be the worst form of sophism I have ever heard. In fact, I began feeling really sorry for him. I was embarrassed for him. "You should be proud of your work and the fact that your strongest critics wind up making your case even better! Keep up the good work!"

To watch another video concerning St. Jerome click here. I've always felt sorry for this man myself and often said that he makes people who get too close feel like they need a shower. More later. I am in Israel now, leaving for Jordan tomorrow. Will follow up on this all more when I get home.

Be sure to catch Bishop James White's mocking, ridiculous "commentary" on this very interview, on his Dividing Line webcast (2-19-08). It's quite entertaining. I'll give White that much. He even features (Rush Limbaugh-like) a portion of a Three Dog Night song. Guess which one?! Oh, and then (filled with ingenious satirical ideas) White plays a Billy Joel song that starts with "h". Just think of an accusation that anti-Catholics almost always make against Catholics (that I do not reciprocate). Whew . . . The good bishop ended his "rebuttal" with a flourish:

I'm certain that I will see, within the next two days, a long blog article about how terrible and horrible and everything else that I am . . .

   Sorry to disappoint you, Your Eminence, and to wreck your prophetic prowess, but I just ain't interested anymore in dealing with fools and intellectual cowards who consistently refuse to defend their positions when challenged in writing again and again. This is strictly humorous stuff, no more, and so I am glad to post it for my readers to listen to if they're in the mood for a good laugh. We all need comic diversion now and then

My own record with White is abundantly clear. Anyone can examine it for themselves. The man has been running, evading, mocking, and making a fool of himself for over twelve years.

I don't have time anymore for his nonsense. I've done my duty as an apologist by refuting his facile inanities off and on all those years. Many many papers are posted, and he has never once sustained an intelligent discourse with me without fleeing for the hills long before we actually accomplished anything or descending into imbecilic mockery and insult.
Most critiques I make of his arguments are completely ignored. I've documented this many times. No need to do it again now.

I suggest that he stick to liberals, KJV-only nuts, Mormons, and Muslims, where he does good and very helpful apologetics, and I link to that work and even recommend it. But Catholicism? Nuh-uh. He has shown himself to be in massive error and unwilling to be corrected on anything, time and again.

I never denied that some Protestants are attempting to respond to Catholics. I made it very clear that I was generalizing and that there are exceptions. One wearies of reiterating the obvious and having to explain what was already made quite clear in the interview itself.

But the overall trend is definitely toward dismissing and mocking rather than engaging Catholic apologetics. I've documented this many times, too. I speak from experience, as a veteran of over 400 written debates, and constant apologetic work on the Internet for now 12 years and running (and no end in sight). Many of our Protestant opponents come right out and say this. It's not even speculation. Look at what they say and what they do.
Dave Armstrong | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 3:36 pm | #

I should add that there is also a distinction between writing something about Catholics as a potshot and being willing to actually interact with them in a back-and-forth fashion (i.e., serious intellectual discussion, where someone is actually challenged and has to defend their POV). I was referring more so (though not totally) to the latter.

It was simply an informal, off the cuff interview. I had no preparation (other than reading the salvation sections of my new book). I didn't know specifically what I was gonna be asked. This is what White loves to attack, because he knows full well that it isn't remotely as precise and prepared as any writing that I do. So he can pick at things and take them out of context. He is a master at that, but it is sophistry.

White himself will write plenty about Catholics, assuredly (filled with personal attacks, as with his recent spate of hit pieces against Steve Ray), but as soon as one of these Catholics responds at length, he will ignore it or mock and dismiss.

That is what I mean. Kevin Johnson is another sterling example of that. He writes plenty about Catholics, but if a Catholic dares to try to interact with him and reason with him and show him where he is in error, it is all mockery and ridicule. And of course I was banned from his site two or three years ago. I guess I asked too many difficult questions.

I was banned from White's chat room after a few appearances recently for no reason other than that I was a wicked Catholic (I was getting along fine with the people who were actually there, except for David T. King: the rudest Christian I have ever met on the Internet).

Because of that I challenged White and his sidekick James Swan to a live chat debate. They both turned me down. I later challenged four other anti-Catholics to the same debate and they all replied similarly (most with insults). I had done the same with another anti-Catholic before that (Matt Slick). That made it seven straight refusals to do a simple chat about the definition of "Christian." Very basic stuff. But these guys are all petrified of discussing it with me "live", with everyone watching.

That doesn't sound like a willingness to interact with Catholics to me: at least not with this Catholic . . . Since the same people, almost to a man, say repeatedly how stupid and dumb and clueless I am, one wonders why they are so reluctant to jump at this golden opportunity to prove that claim to everyone. But I proved that no one was willing to do so. It's all on the record now. That was the last straw for me. Apart from the Luther quote thing that I got into heavily, because I wanted to defend my friend Steve Ray, I decided at that point that these clowns were not worth any more of my time.

White used to allow Catholics in his chat room, and engage in lengthy exchanges with them (several of which are still posted on his site). But I guess he now thinks it is better to ban them. He used to have Catholics in a discussion list about sola Scriptura, that he actually invited me to, way back in 1996, before I even had a website yet. He doesn't do stuff like that anymore.

I can also cite many examples of folks who used to vigorously debate actual Catholic human beings and no longer do. Jason Engwer is one. Eric Svendsen is another. He does it occasionally, but nothing like before.

I've tried to engage Steve Hays, who is intelligent enough, to a sensible exchange, but it is all mockery and foolishness and hee-hawing among his adoring sycophants. Oh well. I did try.

There was another guy who called himself "the Pedantic Protestant" who is now off the Internet, far as I can tell.

There are a number of other nicer Protestants, who weren't anti-Catholics, whom I very much enjoyed dialoguing with in the past (I have two in particular, in mind), but who decided to basically cease dialoguing with Catholics on the usual topics that divide us.

There is Josh Strodtbeck: another sharp tack who is constantly running down the Catholic Church and Catholics; but try to have a serious dialogue with him? Impossible. It's all mockery and ludicrosity. At least with me. And I don't see him doing so with any other Catholic, either. But he is a master of the quick insult and the propagandistic caricature of what he imagines Catholicism to be.

That provides several concrete examples of what I was referring to.
Dave Armstrong | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 4:20 pm | #

"Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn't say he wasn't. Just as the New Testament never says, 'Peter then went to Rome,' it never says, 'Peter did not go to Rome.' In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles, Peter included, in later years."

"Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the 'superfine apostles' who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts." [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30].

"But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go show these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place."

"Throughout Augustine's works, the disputed books are used as nothing less than inspired canonical Scripture indistinguishable from the other books of the Bible, save only that they are not accepted by the Jews. Augustine's positive viewpoint was later enshrined in the decrees of the councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage I (AD 397) in which he participated" (Michuta, pp. 159-160).

About Esdras and the Books of the Maccabees.
After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all. For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ is the Truth. From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils" [NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustin, City of God, Book XVIII. 36].