I noted this morning the “Keyboard Carpet Bombing” techniques of Phil Porvaznik. You have probably never heard of ol’ Phil, since Phil has a major problem standing up and being counted when he is challenged to do something more than sit behind a keyboard. He won’t do debates, won’t call in to programs where he would be challenged, etc. But he has links, lots and lots of links! And he seems to think it is funny to climb into any exchange on the net and derail it through KCB (Keyboard Carpet Bombing).
In any case, he claims to be a great expert on yours truly. Yet, after all these years of listening to my debates, listening to the Dividing Line, etc., Phil still doesn’t get it. I was just checking the combox where Dr. Beckwith posted the long quotes from the Council of Orange and where Dr. Bauman commented on his view of apostasy, and found this from Phil’s keyboard:
James White “creates” grave differences by misrepresenting Catholic doctrine. For example, he continues to say we are not “perfected” by the Catholic gospel. But we are likewise not “perfected” by the Protestant gospel either since sanctification in Protestant theology is an ongoing process. We are still being sanctified or made holy (Heb 12:14), becoming perfected. So we not “perfected” yet in either Catholic or Protestant or Reformed theology.
Notice the game plan here. First, accuse me of misrepresentation. Yet, where does he document the misrepresentation? He doesn’t. He knows that he can go to Mass repeatedly and not be perfected by so doing. So watch the bait-and-switch. He makes the (false) accusation, and then as evidence, presents an irrelevant observation that, evidently, he hopes will suffice—at least for his target audience. If Porvaznik has listened to all the debates he claims to have, he knows the vast difference between Rome’s parceled-out-through-the-sacraments concept of grace, and in particular, the limitation of the forgiveness offered in the Eucharist, and my presentation of the God-centered gospel wherein the elect are united with Christ in His death, so that His perfect righteousness is imputed to them, so that, as I explained here, for example, years ago, they are perfected by that work. He would know that the Bible uses “sanctify” both positionally (and hence in a way parallel to “justified,” especially in Hebrews) and experientially, and that he is equivocating, discussing experiential sanctification (parallel to being conformed to the image of Christ throughout our lives) as if it was identical to positional sanctification (brought about through our union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection). The knowing reader will find Phil’s attempt disingenuous and even insulting, but like so many pop Roman Catholic apologists, he doesn’t seem to be concerned about those who will detect his errors. His audience seems to be a willing accomplice in his schemes, and hence doesn’t mind the linguistic shell-game.
So is Phil just the product of his many years of suppressing the truth that is right before his eyes? Or is this willful blindness, purposeful in its intents? I do not know. But I know Phil won’t defend his claims in any context where he actually has to respond to direct criticism, because Phil knows what I know: he can’t. Let’s pray God will convict the gentleman of his ways.