Randy wrote:
Regarding today’s Dividing Line, you *do* use “Anti-Calvinist” quite a bit, along with “Anti-Trinitarian,” and “Anti-Reformed” rather than calling them by their “postive” terms. So, stay consistent as to whether people should be defined by what they are positively (Arminian, Oneness believers) or whether it’s fair game for folks to call each other Anti- whatever. Because, you do it too, which I’ve found unfortunate at times.
I note that David Armstrong, Catholic Apologist and Graphic Distorter Extraordinaire, likewise did a search for “anti” on my website.
Of course, what I was referring to is the use of the term “anti-Catholic” as a buzz term meant to poison the well. When I refer to Roman Catholic apologists I refer to them as just that: Roman Catholic apologists. I refer to Mormon apologists, Islamic apologists, etc. I do not make my position the norm and then define everyone else thereby. While there are some who could be rightly described by such very limited phraseology (those who never make a positive presentation of their own positions, and are focused solely upon a single “error” to which they respond constantly), the Roman Catholic use of this phrase “anti-Catholic” is so constant and so transparently meant to conjure up images of Jack Chick that I feel my meaning was quite plain.
What is more, there is, obviously, a world of difference between identifying a statement by someone as “anti-Reformed” (as you can identify many such statements from the likes of Dave Hunt or the leadership of Calvary Chapel) and engaging in the mantra-like repetition of “anti-Catholic” that one hears on EWTN. This is a simple matter of contextualization and not engaging in basic category errors.
Next, we get some real doozies when it comes to e-mails, especially from our Roman Catholic friends. Months ago I got this one, was going to post it, but never go around to it. Since I got another interesting one this morning, I thought I’d dig it up. Julie wrote in:
ALthough Mr. White has a fair amount of knowledge, it is quite apparent (not only from his writings but from watching him speak) that his spiritual life is not very deep and is over reliant on emotion. Interestingly, the famous Carl Jung said “I have treated many hundreds of patients, the larger number, being Protestants, a smaller number Jews and not moire than 5 or 6 believing Catholics”. His observations where confirmed by others: Catholics who followed their faith had less anxiety and turmoil inside then Protesants. You all need the sacraments, my friends. The Last Supper was prefigured by the wedding of Cana; a substantial change happens at both. Jesus was very anxious to have SUPPER with his disciples, not just to talk with them. It is a memorial of his sacrifice, for the pain and lacerated body are not present on the altar at Mass, but His glorified body, presenting his sacrifice forever to the Father. Jesus wants to get as close to your heart as He can. You are what you eat. Mr. White can become another Christ, but it is his chose. His calvinism probably psychological influences his lack of decision on this matter. Some of his arguments are sound, but in general he is wrong and leading people astray. May God have mercy on his soul…
I wasn’t aware Rome granted to its followers the ability to read hearts and minds! In any case, this next one came in this morning from a “proud convert to the Universal Church of Christ” (ever noticed how rarely these folks talk about being converted to Christ, but instead, to Rome?) named Charles:
I notice that at the top of your page you cite Luther’s 5 solas. Does Mr. White also believe in the real presence of the Eucharist, Baptismal grace, and the Immaculate Conception? From my reading this website I would say not. So if not Luther, who has interpreted the Bible without error? Anyone? Are only those who are as smart as Mr. White able to discern what the Bible really means? At one point, Mr. White has to realize that he is fighting a war, not for God, but for his own personal beliefs about God. What makes him feel good inside is what must be the truth. I for one, thought not nearly as educated as Dr. White, am happy to follow, without question, a Church that at least states that Christian Dogma has little to do with an exercise of the mind, but rather an exercise of the soul and heart.
A Proud Convert (2 years) to the Universal Church of Christ.
This website is just plain ridiculous in it’s premise that the Catholic Church hasn’t gotten anything right. I’d rather trust the Holy Spirit than a man, no matter how brilliant and well-researched his positions.
One can only hope and pray such glib blindness will be removed by sovereign grace so that the gospel of Jesus Christ may become clear to Julie and Charles.
