While this answer was being given to a young person, and hence would not be as full as might be given in another context, the fact is that the reply is telling all the same. I have often been asked the same question in various venues, and my response is, Lord willing, consistent. Why am I not a Roman Catholic? Because Roman Catholicism has a gospel that does not give peace, because it fundamentally violates the Scriptural teaching on how one is made right with God. Rome has a false gospel that cannot save, hence, I have no reason to abandon the peace I have with God through Christ's perfect atonement for the treadmill of Rome's sacramental system of salvation. One would think that anyone who has purposefully crossed the Tiber because they have encountered the gospel and been changed thereby would have a similar response. Beckwith's reply is a tepid statement of taste, a general "we are very much the same but I have a few disagreements on these side issues" type of thing that while reflecting a lot of modern evangelicalism is likewise far removed from the heartfelt motivations of the Reformation.
   Having given this response, Beckwith then asked the question cited above. It likewise reflects that he was still very much in the middle of the Tiber River, for the person who has embraced the gospel of grace has not only landed his boat on the far side, but has torn the boat apart to use the wood as a pulpit from which to proclaim freedom in Christ to those trapped on the other shore. But Beckwith can speak of permanently abandoning Rome as something he could not yet actually justify! Surely this kind of statement demonstrates the thesis at hand, as no person who has found peace in the gospel of grace in contrast to Rome's sacramentalism will forget to mention that as the primary reason he or she does not submit to Rome's claims of authority.

The written history of John Calvin dramatically reveals that he was a premeditated murderer, a heretic, a blasphemer, and a liar. He forced his beliefs by fear, punishment, terrorism, and had his own inquisition. He beheaded children and justified it with an extensive discussion of the Fifth Commandment. (Honor thy father and thy mother.) Calvins temper was described as the wild beast of his wrath. In my opinion Calvinism is a cult. Like all cults it has picked those things they want to believe and eliminated the others. By this they have created their own religion with the usual half-truths. They have reinterpreted the Scriptures in an unorthodox way, and used them in an orthodox way. It is a sinful spiritualizing exegesis.

Calvinists are increasingly coming out in the open. The president of one of our seminaries, who is a Calvinist, has been quoted in Time magazine recently and if true it is absolutely a lie. The seminary president as quoted said, The moment someone begins to define Gods (being or actions) Biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist. This statement is Biblically Illiterate! He says when one seeks God they find Calvinism! At the very least this is sacrilegious or gross irreverence. To me this is a dissent from Biblical dogma and is therefore heresy. We need to speak up and out against this man. He is dangerous to the minds of our young people.

Let’s start with the first. Transubstantiation. Would the Bishops at Nicea recognize the word? No. If the concept was explained, would they agree? Absolutely. Purgatory? No. The concept, once explained? Most likely. And so on. Explaining some of the positions (i.e., thesaurus meritorum) might take some time, but I don’t think there’d be any real hang-ups. A chunk all go together (Purgatory/indulgences/thesaurus meritorum…without Purgatory, there’s no need for indulgences, nor a treasury of merit.)

But there’s a greater underlying problem in White’s argument. White is relying on Sola Scriptura, without recognizing that sola scriptura itself wouldn’t be recognized by the Bishops at Nicea. White has left himself in a bad position, because in trying to argue that the Bishops wouldn’t agree with something like Papal Infallibility (which, again, they would agree with once the concept was explained), he makes them the judges, the authorities. Ask the judges if absolutely everything that a Christian should believe is contained in the Scriptures. Explain the concept to them, and watch them reject the idea. “You think we were able to put everything needed to be a Christian into the Bible? You think everything we believe is contained in 2000 pages of text, and that by writing it down we’ve done away with Oral Tradition? HA!”

What then of the positive testimony from Athanasius? We note first and foremost the plain words from his work against the heathen:

For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth.[1]

   In this passage Athanasius begins with a fundamental tenet of his faith: the full sufficiency of Scripture for the proclamation of the truth. He immediately goes on to note that God uses other sources to teach truth as well, including godly men with an insight into Scripture. But he begins where Protestants and Roman Catholics part company: with the sufficiency of Scripture. He had learned such things from those who came before him. He even mentions the words of Antony, "The Scriptures are enough for instruction, but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words."[2]
   When writing to the Egyptian bishops he asserted:

But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.[3]

   The high view of Scripture is continued in this passage from Athanasius work on the Incarnation of the Word of God:

Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke for God.[4]

   One will search in vain for a reference wherein this Father describes oral tradition in such a way, and yet Trent did not fear to so speak of tradition. Rather than finding OBrien's idea that Scripture is not a safe guide as to what we are to believe, Athanasius said: ". . . for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources."[5] These other sources included church councils, such as that of Nicea, which Athanasius defended so strongly. Yet he realized that his sufficiency was not based upon the alleged authority of a council, but that the power of that council came from its fidelity to Scripture. Note his words with reference to the Arians:

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.[6]

   By now the phrase "for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things" should be familiar, as it is a constant thread in Athanasius writings. And it is vital to note that the weight of the Nicene Council is described in terms of the consistency of the Councils teachings with the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.

Notes
[1] Translation of the author. Greek text found in Robert Thomson, editor, Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 2. Or Migne, PG, 25:4. With reference to the term sufficiency, we note the definition provided by Bauer, sufficiency, a competence and contentment, self-sufficiency. See Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 122. The most helpful work of Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (United Bible Societies: 1988), p. 680 says of the term, "a state of adequacy or sufficiency what is adequate, what is sufficient, what is needed, adequacy. . . . In a number of languages the equivalent of this expression in 2 Cor. 9:8 may be always having all that you need or, stated negatively, not lacking in anything."
[2] Athanasius, Vita S. Antoni, 16, NPNF, Series II, IV:200.
[3] Athanasius, Ad Episcopos Ægyptiæ, NPNF, Series II, IV:225. The Greek text is found in Migne, PG, 25:548.
[4] Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, 56, NPNF Series II, IV:66. Text in Meijering, p. 10, and Migne, PG, 25:196.
[5] Athanasius, De Decretis, 32, NPNF, Series II, IV:172, Migne, PG, 25:476.
[6] Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, NPNF, II, IV:453, Migne, PG, 26:689.
[The original notes provide the Greek, as will the new edition; I don't have time to convert the font files however for this blog entry, which forced me to remove even more discussion based upon the Greek text in the notes.]

Rich told me he received a phone call yesterday asking about how to ship items that would be purchased on the Ministry Resource List. First, once again, many thanks to those who help me in my studies in this way. It is tremendously encouraging. Secondly, ironically, I have messed up buying things for folks on their gift lists in the recent past. I learned just last week that you can't use the "One Click" button to purchase things from gift lists: that will make sure the item is sent to you (rather than me!). Instead, you click the item, place it in your cart, and then you will be given the option to ship to the address I have provided for the Ministry Resource List. It's as easy as that!

Now, I put that extended life external battery I found for the live streaming computer (i.e., the one I will use to live stream my debates in the future) on the list via the "Universal" button Amazon offers. It is actually an E-bay item (which is why it costs less than half of the other I had located). I confess I'm not sure how that works, but, here's hoping someone will find out! :-)

U.S. military says Afghan bibles have been destroyed

KABUL (Reuters) - Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed to ensure that troops did not breach regulations which forbid proselytizing, a military spokeswoman said.

The U.S. military has denied its soldiers tried to convert Afghans to Christianity, after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a bible class on a base with a stack of bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages.

U.S. Central Command's General Order Number 1 forbids troops on active duty -- including all those based in Iraq and Afghanistan -- from trying to convert people to another religion.

"I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed," spokeswoman Major Jennifer Willis said at Bagram air base, north of Kabul.
ad_icon

Military officials have said the bibles were sent through private mail to an evangelical Christian soldier by his church back home. The soldier brought them to the bible study class where they were filmed.

Trying to convert Muslims to another faith is a crime in Afghanistan. An Afghan man who converted to Christianity was sentenced to death for apostasy in 2006 but was allowed to leave the country after an international uproar.

"It certainly is, from the United States military's perspective, not our position to ever push any specific kind of religion, period," chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told a Pentagon briefing Monday.

Ah yes, Algo. Spoken like someone who cannot read the Bible himself and must defer to the opinions of others.

Sorry, Charlie. I stand on the words of Scripture. i will quote them for you here so that the readers in this forum may judge for themselves what they mean.


1Cr 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.
1Cr 3:11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Cr 3:12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw--
1Cr 3:13 each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
1Cr 3:14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
1Cr 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Now I know that Protestants are truly sycophants to any one who has a degree (whether the degree is phony of not). That is because your false religions are based on human pride and arrogance.

But I think that you and your ilk need a reality check here. We are told by St. Paul that on "the DAY" (which is the day of judgment) God will confront us with fire and reward the good that we have done in the light of it while the flames burn away anything not founded in Jesus and his teaching. This is PRECISELY what Catholic teaching says about Purgatory.

The following is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Purgatory and this includes the references in the CCC to Scripture and Tradition.
[snip]
Please note that the Catechism -- a document produced by consensus of the Bishops for the Catholic Church as a whole - affirms that 1Cor 3:15 refers to Purgatory.

I stand with the Church. You are wrong.

Art

Ah yes, Algo. Spoken like someone who cannot read the Bible himself and must defer to the opinions of others.

Now I know that Protestants are truly sycophants to any one who has a degree (whether the degree is phony of not). That is because your false religions are based on human pride and arrogance.

But I think that you and your ilk need a reality check here. We are told by St. Paul that on "the DAY" (which is the day of judgment) God will confront us with fire and reward the good that we have done in the light of it while the flames burn away anything not founded in Jesus and his teaching. This is PRECISELY what Catholic teaching says about Purgatory.

Spoken like someone who cannot read the Bible himself and must defer to the opinions of others.

Kabul, 7 May (AKI) - The Taliban on Thursday threatened "harsh reprisals" if Pope Benedict XVI does not immediately intervene to stop Christians proselytising in Afghanistan. In a message posted on their official website, the Taliban made the threat against the pope and Christians for spreading their faith.

The message followed video footage aired on Arabic satellite TV channel Al-Jazeera earlier this week apparently showing Christian soldiers proselytising outside the Afghan capital, Kabul, and handing out copies of the bible in Pashtun.

"We are sending out a message to the most important personality in the Christian world - Pope Benedict XVI," read the message.

"If he does not immediately stop these stupid and irresponsible acts of proselytism by the crusaders, our reprisals and that of the Afghan people will be very harsh.

"Afghans are offended by this," the message said.

The message claimed that dozens of Christian missionaries are proselytising in Afghanistan under the guise of humanitarian non-governmental organisations.

It also said these groups are collaborating directly with American and other foreign troops in Afghanistan.

"They are taking advantage of the war and of needy Afghans, who are driven towards the religious deviance of these groups," it said.

The message cited as examples the "apostate" Abdel Rahman who converted to Christianity and gained asylum in Italy and a group of 23 South Korean missionaries kidnapped by the Taliban in July 2007.

It called on Afghans, especially religious leaders and intellectuals, to "repel the attacks on their faith which prolong the crusader war started by (former US president George W.) Bush".

Religious leaders and mujahadeen (holy warriors) must keep tabs on the movements of "enemies of Islam" and crusader occupiers" and prevent them from spreading "the propaganda of other religions in the land of Islam," the message said.

"All the supporters of (Afghan president) Hamid Karzai's regime, especially the courts the justice and Islamic affairs ministries must apologise and condemn these crusader acts.

"They must no longer allow them to take up arms against us, thus redeeming themselves before Allah," the message concluded.

Violence in Afghanistan in the past year has reached its highest level since the Taliban was overthrown in 2001, despite increasing numbers of American and other foreign troops.

Trying to convert Muslims to any other faith is a crime in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has seen bloody demonstrations in recent years after cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad were published in Denmark and after allegations emerged that US troops in Guantanamo Bay mistreated the Koran.

Dear Dr. White,

It's been a while since we've either spoken or exchanged e-mails. I hope this letter finds you in good health.

The reason why I am contacting you is to let you know that my publisher is currently preparing for publication my completed manuscript refuting Reformed Theology. My finished work places special attention on the doctrinal errors found in your Potter's Freedom book as well as R.C. Sproul's What is Reformed Theology? and John Piper's The Justification of God.

This will not be just any book. It has been fully endorsed by a well-known and highly respected acquaintance of yours. In fact, he's done me the honor of writing a Foreword for it.

Because of this, I am prayerful that this book will reach many. Just before it becomes available (in about 6-8 weeks or so) I intend to make a public challenge to you on youtube to defend the TULIP. We can debate either in person or on the radio. I, naturally, will be exposing and wilting it in a very methodical and systematic fashion.

I'll keep you informed as my publisher's work progresses and send you the link to amazon.com when the book becomes available.

Should you have any questions at all please feel free to contact me at ******.com. If you would like to speak to me on the phone, send me an e-mail and I'll forward you my number.

Your friend,
Louis Ruggiero

Our regard, generally speaking, of the lost condition of Romanists is (contrary to their complaints) a judgment of charity, because it exhibits a concern for their never-dying souls, and should always be kept in mind in dealing with them. This regard for their lost condition is not because we bear them animosity, but because we care for their souls.

You know, I wish that alleged "Catholics" would stop doing the work of the enemies of the Church and telling us what we should not do. I find the list puerile and frankly ludicrous.

White likes the list because it absolves him of having to deal with some arguments that he doesn't like.

Protestantism is false religion. Every bit of it. None of it is valid. Even the parts where they try to emulate Historic Christianity are done so tritely and with poor results. What is the use of declaring that Jesus was really God and really man when you refuse to believe it when he said "This is my body...This is my blood?"
I have no need of any such list and I advise the person who put it up to take it down and mind his own business.

Art

   A person over on the Catholic Answers forums is looking for help refuting Bart Ehrman: "will somebody who is an authority on textual criticism answer dr. bart ehrman's thesis. or please recommend sites where i can find intelligent refutations agains [sic] his writings."

   One would think, the alleged "true" church would have her top scholars working on such a project, or perhaps the Pope could say something infallible to help out. If Rome has done a detailed response to Ehrman, I'm not aware of it. However, what I found interesting was the authorities listed in the thread for a response to Ehrman were Protestant. It is ironic that the only authorities suggested on Catholic Answers were Protestant. Catholic Answers continually makes new resources available. Perhaps Mr. Staples could put out a new CD series, or now after Mr. Akin has finished his detailed work on Jack Chick, these gentlemen could focus their attention on an actual Catholic answer to Bart Ehrman.

   On a similar note, Catholic apologists have been fond of arguing that without church tradition, one could not know the authors of particular biblical books. For instance, Scott Hahn argued long ago that we need oral church tradition to know with certainty that Matthew wrote Matthew. Other Catholic apologists argue Matthew was originally written in Aramaic so as to prove the papacy in Matthew 16.

   Has Rome stated anything definitive on these issues? Well, if they have, Catholic apologist Art Sippo seems to have missed it. Like the bewildered folks looking for Catholic answers over on Catholic Answers, Dr. Sippo likewise relies on Protestants:

"I follow the opinion of Lutheran J.J. Griesbach from the late 18th Century. IMHO Matthew was written first in Hebrew for Jewish Chirstians[sic] @40 AD. Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek for Gentiles after that. He translated some passages verbatim from the Hebrew Matthew and added some additional material of his own. After that someone translated Hebrew Matthew into Greek with some of his own editorial additions. A problem arose because of the apparent discrepencies [sic] between the two Gospels. St. Peter in Rome dictated to St. Mark what he considered to be a harmonization of Matthew and Luke to demonstrate their essential unity. It is interesting that Mark's Gospel can be recited in about 2-3 hours with a natural "intermission" in the very middle of it. Fr. Walter Ong SJ has made the point that Greek Matthew was designed to be read silently while the language in Mark is more like that of something designed to be recited out loud."

   I don't think Rome is going to help out with anything infallible in the area of textual criticism any time soon. Perhaps though there is a way such answers could come forth from the Catholic apologetics community. What they need is a conversion story of a textual critic. That is, perhaps they could work on converting a textual critic, and then have him write his story on why he became Catholic. Other than that, I don't expect any detailed work from Catholic Answers responding to Bart Ehrman any time soon.

I wanted to take a few moments to write down some thoughts on the debate with Dan Barker at the University of Illinois on Thursday evening, April 30th, 2009.

When I first began involvement in apologetics in my early 20s I had the opportunity of engaging many atheists on our local talk station, KFYI. Dan Barker was one of them. This was before I had become consciously Reformed or had encountered any meaningful apologetics materials. When the ministry began, we were focused upon Mormonism, and from that point onward my emphasis was primarily upon "religious" apologetics, not upon atheism. Though I had to deal with basic worldview issues in debates with men like Barry Lynn and John Dominic Crossan, most of my debates have been with theists of one sort or another.

I am committed to the idea that debates are meant to glorify God through the proclamation of His truth. I am seeking to edify the saints, and evangelize the lost, and hence I must "do my homework" as best I can. I have to show respect for the audience and for those who have brought me in (in this case, that was pretty much myself, as A&O provided my transportation, hotel room, rental car, etc.). So, for this debate, I spent many hours listening carefully to Dan Barker's debates, often listening to them multiple times. I purchased and marked up his books. I knew my opponent's arguments and could have made his opening presentation myself. Indeed, I had responded to the vast majority of his argumentation on the Dividing Line in the weeks prior to the debate.

Mr. Barker did not read any of my books, listen to any of my debates, etc. Indeed, I do not believe he even Googled my name. Like so many before him, Mr. Barker believes his arguments unassailable, and hence does not believe it necessary to prepare for debates. He can just repeat his last debate notes and all will be well. In fact, the debate notes he used were the ones he used with Kyle Butts. With all due respect to Mr. Butts, he and I are not exactly on the same theological or epistemological page. Evidently, for Mr. Barker, it is a "one size fits all" proposition.

Now don't get me wrong: I have debated folks when I only had a general idea where they would be coming from. Sometimes you debate folks who have not published in the field, and have not produced audio or video presentations. But that was not the situation here. Anyone who wants to know what I believe, thanks be, can find out very, very easily. I haven't been quiet about it.

In any case, I attempted to craft an opening statement that would lay a solid foundation for a consistent, biblical defense of the Creator's rights in His creation. I used a KeyNote presentation. I felt that was most appropriate given the venue. The younger generation is very much visually oriented. I laid out the issue of worldviews and made the argument that by simply walking into the debate this evening Mr. Barker had lost, for his worldview is incapable of justifying his expectation that we would use laws of logic and reasoning, given his dogmatic materialism and his functionalism.

Where some may fault me (based, I believe, upon a misunderstanding of presuppositionalism) is in my presentation of "evidence" in my opening. I presented information that, given a meaningful worldview, is clear indication of the existence of an intelligent, purposeful Creator. I placed this information in the proper context: I did not claim that this was a neutral fact from which we could reason to the Creator. I presented it as a fact utterly incompatible with Barker's materialism, and one which would help us to see how his worldview would preclude him from dealing with the facts honestly. I used an animation of the F1 ATPase structure in the mitochondria. Here is a video of this tremendous structure:

Let me be very clear tonight on one thing. While our debate places you, the audience, in the position of judging, I would be remiss in a most severe way if I did not reject in the strongest possible terms the idea that we as creatures have the right to judge the existence of our Creator. The verdict of this debate was given when God said “Let there be light.” The issue tonight is whether we will live in accord with that verdict or not.