Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
|
Private Interpretation of Scripture for Roman Catholics
12/29/2011 - James Swan
Here's a tidbit I came across from Roman Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1990), p. 142.
Here's another comment from the same writer, Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist, 1981), pp. 39-40.
15:33:26 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Another Example of the Self-Imposed Ignorance of the CA Forum Participants
12/26/2011 - James White
I'd be interested in how James White answers the questions that we've all discussed on this forum dozens of times. How does he justify sola scriptura, when it is so easy to show that it is the tradition you use to interpret scripture that dictates how you understand it? How does he justify eternal security when it is so obvious that sin does indeed matter?
Is he that great of a debater that he can make the truth seem to be false and the false seem to be true?
Consider this: Numerous published and readily available books on the topic. Three dozen moderated, public debates with the leading Roman Catholic apologists. A twice weekly webcast with a toll-free phone number. And….Google! If someone wanted to know, would it be all that difficult to know? Could anyone have made it plainer? It is amazing to read this kind of thing.
By the way, I notice Ignatius has been challenged to back up his claim about edited debates. We will see if the Roman Catholics insist he provide his evidence. He will have to admit his error, just as MarcoPolo had to. Most likely the topic will just fade into silence, and Ignatius will be allowed his libel. But, of course, he knows he has lied--but, if it is in the service of Mother Church, does it matter?
18:12:16 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
A Few More Amazing Statements from the CA Forums
12/20/2011 - James White
You would think that when faced with facts even normal folks would step back and go, "Oh, sorry about that, I guess we were completely wrong about those issues." But no, not when you serve Mother Rome. Infallibility seems to be endemic. After exposing all the errors in the afore-mentioned thread, do we find "mea culpas" and the like? No, instead, we have one complaint about my using the term "Romanist" (and what is the central aspect of Roman Catholicism? Rome---hence, Romanism is a great descriptive term) along with the amazing assertion that I have a persecution complex. Let's ponder that a moment: when you serve Rome, you can lie about folks, accuse them of misdeeds for which you have no evidence, make up fantastic stories about them, and if they correct you, they have a persecution complex! Ah, the glories of Rome!But most interesting was a comment by someone we have had reason to note before, a "MarcoPolo." It seems MarcoPolo wanted to prove the point that I have made numerous times, that is, that the folks at the CA Forums simply have no interest in being accurate, or thorough, or even truthful, in their comments. I had mentioned that I did one radio debate with Jimmy Akin. If MarcoPolo had listened carefully, or cared about being accurate, he would know that this debate took place on a radio station in, as I recall, Texas. It was on the subject of "eternal security." I have noted it many times over the years, as Akin used an argument based upon the Greek that was easily refuted---even he has admitted, on Catholic Answers Live, that his use of it was in error. This is the only debate we did. [Here is a reference to that debate from 2007]. I have repeatedly said the encounter on the Bible Answer Man was not a debate, and I did not say otherwise in my previous article. But, MarcoPolo, showing that when it comes to the opponents of Rome there is no reason to even listen carefully, just opined on the CA Forums:
At least White is admitting his appearance on BAM with Jimmy Akin was a debate. Regarding that single appearance with Akin, White has now stated the following:
"[It] was not a debate." – James White, ca 2002.
"Akin did one radio debate." – James White, 2011
Sincerely,
Your friendly CAF Truth-Starved Denizen
The two statements are both true, as anyone who cares enough to look at the facts knows, as the BAM program is other than the radio debate we did on eternal security. Thank you, Marco Polo, for making my point for me.
15:57:08 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
The Truth-Starved Denizens of the Catholic Answers Forums
12/19/2011 - James White
Recently a thread at the CA forums has illustrated yet once again how incredibly truth-challenged that particular corner of the Internet can be. As we have noted many times, in the CA Forums, anything will be believed, as long as it is 1) supportive of Romanism, and 2) at least negative, or better, slanderous, concerning yours truly. Some of the things that people have posted there have truly left me breathless as to how outrageously ridiculous they can get. This thread contains some real whoppers. Let's take a look at them.The thread started on August 10th when Cruxis117 asked,
I was on the chatroom of his ministry, and he listed off Keating, Staples, Akin, and others as not wanting to debate him. It appears that he think that it's because they can't handle that the (in his words) "facts are the facts". Why won't Catholic Apologists such as the ones I've mentioned and others not debate James White?
The answers received were, at the very least, entertaining. The first response, from James224, was "They have debated him so many times already." Of course, Keating has never debated me. Staples did last year, but Catholic Answers has done its best to ignore the existence of that debate. And Akin did one radio debate that he himself admits involved at least one "silly" argument on his part, aside from the Bible Answer Man broadcast where he was given significantly more time to comment than I was. Then DavidFilmer opined,
What, the guy seriously doesn't remember Patrick Madrid taking him behind the woodshed on Sola Scriptura? He wants a second chance?
I doubt he got a chance to listen to the lengthy series we did dissecting every single point of said debate. Or, more likely, he would not care even if he was aware of the series.
The standard silliness ensued with all sorts of folks who have never bothered to listen to the other side chiming in about this or that, all out of ignorance. But what was amazing was the simple falsehoods that were trotted out. DavidFilmer, for example, waxed eloquent:
WHAT??? James White has debated Scott Hahn at least a half-dozen times. Search YouTube for "James White" "Scott Hahn"
Dr. Hahn is the MOST frequent debater of James White that I can discern from a cursory scan of YouTube video posts. And Dr. Hahn is (IMHO) THE Catholic "Big Gun." And (as you can see from these posts) Hahn demolished the poor guy.
Does James White want MORE a**-whupping? Is he asking for a second chance?
Of course, I have never debated Scott Hahn. Though we have offered to Dr. Hahn numerous opportunities to engage in debate, and have encountered him at other debates, such as when I debated Mitch Pacwa in San Diego and Jerry Matatics in Phoenix, he has consistently refused our challenges. In fact, back in the mid-90s, a Roman Catholic attorney attempted to arrange a debate in Texas between us. I agreed to do so, and sent him a box of my books that very day along with other documentation. The next day he called, very apologetic. He had faxed Scott Hahn with the news that he had found someone to debate him. He gave my name. Hahn's return fax, according to the attorney said, “If White is there I am not.” He had to withdraw his invitation.
So one must wonder what color the sky is in DavidFilmer's world. Thankfully, someone else tried to find the YouTube videos which, of course, do not exist. When challenged, DavidFilmer had to admit that, well, I will let him say it:
Wow, you are right. Neither can I. I swear that I had found many video posts with these terms, but I closed this browser tab. When I searched again, I found none.
Either this is some giant conspiracy (which I doubt) or I am a complete idiot (which is far more likely).
I withdraw my claims (until I can find them substantiated in some other place).
See the pattern? As long as it is negative about James White, well, it must be true, no matter how absurd it is. We have documented this malady afflicting the folks of the CA Forums many times before. Remember “Guardian,” the fellow who opined about all my errors? He even called in, and asked for six weeks (as I recall) to put together his list. That was about three years ago. Never got that list, for some odd reason.
But the “Dishonest Romanist” award has to go to “Ignatius.” First he writes,
He is being dishonest, Keating, Staples and Akin, among others, have debated him. So he is not being honest.
Again, Keating has never debated me. He has had a standing challenge for coming up on two decades. Staples has, and the results have been…interesting, to say the least (just where did that purgatory debate go?). Akin did one radio debate. Period. Those are the facts. Those facts are available to any honest person. So why can’t Ignatius take the time to speak the truth? But, it gets worse, and this is the real reason why I invested a few moments to respond to this thread:
Ok, so what' this nonsense about no one will debate him then?
Fr Pacwa debated him and it was reported the video was doctored so badly that you can actually see where they cut out Fr. Pacwa's answers.
Madrid did debate him and did very well.
Sungenis destroys White in 5 separate debates so White refuses to debate him any more.
Even Gary Machuta trounced White handily in the debate on the deuterocanonicals.
Eventually it will be "White? who is White" He's no white, he's always wong!!
Aside from the depth of these comments, let’s begin with the slanderous (OK, it was written, so, libelous) accusation. “Fr Pacwa debated him and it was reported the video was doctored so badly that you can actually see where they cut out Fr. Pacwa's answers.” Has Pacwa made this allegation? No. Who has? We make all of our debates with Mitch Pacwa available. Except for the first two, they are available in video format as well. No one, and I mean no one, has ever made such an astoundingly false accusation before, since, of course, it is far too easy to refute it. We could even show the video of the first two, if, of course, they were not being suppressed by Roman Catholic apologist Scott Butler, who refuses to let those videos see the light of day. But the fact of the matter is, Mitch Pacwa walked out of the debate we did in San Diego carrying an unedited master of that very night’s debate. He received unedited masters of all the others we recorded (unlike the first two recorded by Scott Butler). The idea that we have ever edited, or changed, or altered, any of the debates with Pacwa, or anyone else, is a libelous charge that “Ignatius” well knows is a bold-faced lie. If there is an honest person to be found in the CA Forums, Ignatius would be challenged to back up this outrageous claim, or withdraw it with apologies.
Next, I guess Ignatius doesn’t get out of the CA Forums very often. I guess the three debates I did with Bob Sungenis in 2010 escaped his notice (that makes a total of eight debates so far)? Including the one on the Bodily Assumption? Here is a snippet from that debate that has been available on YouTube for months:
Yeah, you rarely see those being discussed in the CA Forums, just like you rarely see the debate with Tim Staples that Catholic Answers has done its best to bury being discussed. Just not what those forums are for, I guess.
Given the accuracy and truthfulness of Ignatius’ words, I am hardly overly surprised he is so incredibly fair in his analysis of the few debates he seems to claim to have actually watched or listened to.
Once again I will offer to “Ignatius” an open forum on The Dividing Line to substantiate his libelous allegation of alteration of debate recordings (a real tough thing since, of course, both sides get unedited masters). I often invite those who lie about me on the CA Forums to call, toll free, to back up their allegations. We have a long, long history of…silence from those folks, and for good reason. If you are looking for truth, and for those who love it, you won’t find either in the CA Forums.
18:07:55 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
James Swan Challenges Voris' Use of Luther
12/09/2011 - James White
I did not check the citation of Luther yesterday (just didn't have time, and checking Luther quotes is James Swan's calling in life---I would not wish to barge into his field of expertise!), but here is Swan's analysis of Voris' use of Luther.07:54:35 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
OK, How Many Lies Can You Pack into One Video? Ask Michael Voris!
12/08/2011 - James White
40,000 Protestant denominations? Wow, we have proven the 33,000 number a bold-faced lie many times in the past, but hey, I guess it is just a matter of inflation! Hard to take promoters of Romanism who repeat these absurdities seriously...but it is even worse when they will stare into a video camera and claim that no one...NO ONE, ever accused Mary of sin until the Reformation!? I mean, the Immaculate Conception was not even defined as a dogma until the middle of the 19th century, and it is just too simple to provide citations proving such claims to be outright lies. I think today's DL just became a jumbo again! We will tackle this topic right at the start. Join us!12:50:21 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
|
