Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
How to Defend the Indefensible
08/15/2007 - James WhiteI have to admit, this is one of the most amazing performances I've ever seen. This is Gerry Matatics at his best. The number of straw men and non sequiturs in the following ten minutes is limited only by how fast Gerry can talk, which is not much of a limitation (in fact, I notice he went nearly 10% over his time, something he has done many times in our debates in the past). This is Gerry's response to my comments on the "Queenly Coronation" of Mary. By Gerry's own demand, I had had to go first, for some reason, in both defining, and then denying, the Roman concept at this point. I will post that presentation a little later. Now Gerry has a great advantage, for I have had to define and rebut in the same presentation. Now he gets to respond. Will he respond to what I said? Well, listen to it.
First, he begins with a personal experience, saying that since he converted to Rome, this means that I am wrong to say that the only way for a person to believe in these Marian dogmas is to first accept Rome's authority claims. But clearly, Gerry had already given in on sola scriptura before he ever embraced these concepts. Most Roman Catholic writers say nothing more than I had said. And yet Gerry spends time refuting me on a point that really isn't even at issue. This is normative for him: he will spend much of his time trying to impress the audience with this kind of rhetoric, "proving" he is right on other topics, as if this proves he is right on the topic he is supposed to be defending. He has ten minutes here (plus the time he normally steals for himself beyond that) to do one thing: prove the Queenly Coronation of Mary. How much time does he really spend on that topic?
Next, he speaks of the Davidic king, "not a democracy, Mr. White." I had not, of course, said a word about democracies, had I? We will see later another example of this "put words in his mouth and hope no one notices when you then refute the straw man you just built" maneuver that is so very common in these debates.
Notice another Matatics-ism. He refers to Bathsheba sitting on the "right hand" of Solomon, and then cries out, "That's the very phrase Mr. White found so offensive! His problem is with the Bible!" Of course, I had referred to the idea of exalting Mary to the right hand of Christ in heaven, not to Bathsheba sitting on the right hand of her son. But any refutation is a good refutation, even if involves ignoring the context of the original statement!
Then you will note that the fact that Bathsheba failed in her intercession with Solomon is dismissed because Bathsheba was a sinner, and Solomon was a sinner. I guess an assumed principle of interpretation here is "all parallels and analogies Rome wishes to use are valid only in so far as we wish to apply them, and any and all contradictions will be dismissed on any principle we jolly well please to introduce." Of course, Mary was a sinner too, but we had already debated that part.
Note as well that once you establish a parallel, then anything that person did Jesus will do even more so. Can you imagine the carnage that would result from consistently applying these kinds of arguments? Thankfully, Rome doesn't bother searching for consistency on that level.
"If Mr. White wants to deny (that we will sit at Christ's right hand) then he has to deny the entire teaching of the Book of Revelation." More "I think I'll make up a position my opponent has never taken, and would not take, and refute him anyway. That will make me look good to my followers." My objection is not against anyone being at Jesus' right hand. My objection is to facile arguments putting Mary there and then making her the object of "hyper-dulia," prayers, intercessions, etc.
He says I have problems with this teaching because it developed slowly over time. No, I said I have problems with this teaching because it is simply unknown to the early centuries. His simply blasphemous parallel of this non-existent teaching with the divine truth of the Trinity, deity of Christ, etc., which is witnessed so clearly in the Scriptures, is another example of the Alice-in-Wonderland form of Roman thinking in this area.
Next we have the amazing twisting of my words regarding the judgment of God. Honestly, I am left wondering how Gerry pronounces these words without chuckling, or at least smiling. He well knows what my point was. He well knows what I actually believe. But those things cannot be allowed to get in the way of his defense of Rome.
Then listen carefully to Gerry say that he hopes I won't fall into the old trap of the liberals in saying the OT God was harsh and stern and the NT God is loving. But, having said that, he then attributes such an absurd position to me, and refutes me, addressing me directly as if I had ever said anything remotely like that! This is why I have often said that debating Gerry Matatics is exhausting because he uses every single kind of cheap debating trick known to man. Again, it seems as long as he is saying "you are wrong, Mr. White," it doesn't really matter to him if the position he has attributed to me is even remotely truthful or not.
In fact, the entire period of time (well over 15% of his time) he spent on this was irrelevant. He knows I have no objections to the wrath of God: my point was that Mary had become a mediator with the mediator, and that a person who fears Christ so as to need a mediator with Him is a person who has no knowledge of the believer's standing in Christ. Of course, Rome robs her followers of the truth about that, too, but my point was quite specific, and Matatics did not even touch my actual argument.
Next, he insists that no Catholic work will insist that Mary is divine and human in one person. Again he addresses me directly, pointing to me. And again, I had said absolutely positively nothing like that. In fact, I had very clearly emphasized Rome's denial of an assertion that Mary is somehow "divine" already. So again, a refutation of a straw man, by name, directly. As I said, Matatics at his best.
So there's a great example of the kind of argumentation Rome requires her followers to use to defend her dogmas. Oh, thanks be, I have been delivered from ever being in slavery to her falsehoods.
---in the defense and confirmation of the gospel