[originally posted in September 2010]
But I think the Bodily Assumption is the single clearest illustration of the fact that all of Rome’s apologists are simply dishonest (or deceived, or both) when they proclaim fealty to “Scripture and Tradition.” (9-11-10)
This is a statement worthy even of the notorious arrogance and derision of White’s good buddy, David T. King, who has stated:
I already have a very low view of the integrity of non-Protestants in general, . . . most of you are too dishonest to admit what you really think. (on Eric Svendsen’s Areopagus board, 4-15-03)
It is a typical Roman Catholic tactic to misrepresent one’s opponent purposely in order to “name and claim” a victory. (on Eric Svendsen’s Areopagus board, 6-5-03; see my old web page that documented it)
Not to be outdone is their mutual friend and comrade-in-arms, Eric Svendsen:
RC apologists will do or say just about anything–true or not–to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception regularly. (on his Areopagus board: 4-27-03)
[W]e have experience with those who use the “strategy of deceit” to mislead people down the road to a false gospel. (on his Areopagus board: 6-4-03)
April and June 2003 were obviously banner months for the anti-Catholic endeavor, over on Svendsen’s board! A candid frankness was displayed that was, in its own weird and perverse way, quite refreshing. I had known they felt this way for years, but it was at least good to see them come right out and say it. Openness is a good thing. They’re honest about their accusations of massive dishonesty in theological opponents.
Steve Hays [deceased as of June 2020; please pray for his soul] is also a member of this venerable club:
I see a great deal of deception and self-deception in Catholicism. They give their alleged reasons for being Catholic, as well as their alleged reasons for not being Protestant. When we answer them on their own grounds, they become evasive and repetitive. That’s not the mark of someone who values the truth. (8 August 2008)
This is one of those dishonest tactics that Catholic epologists like [Bryan] Cross resort to. (10 August 2008)
And so is The Anonymous One (TAO), aka “Turretinfan”:
However, I did have to smile a bit when I noticed that the entire forum [Patrick Madrid’s Speak your Mind forum] has now been encased in a protective shell of registration, lest outsiders shine any more light on the deception routinely attempted there. (18 May 2009, on White’s blog)
But getting back to Bishop White: this isn’t the first time he has spoken of massive Catholic “dishonesty” or “deception”:
Rome will only get you the consolation prize of deception now, and destruction at the final judgment. (19 November 2003)
[I]nstead of blaming ignorance for his very shallow misrepresentations of non-Catholic theology and exegesis, we must now assert knowing deception. (12-31-04; directed towards Yours Truly)
I am not a Roman Catholic because Roman Catholicism is a false religion. It is headed by an imposter, a man who claims to be something he is not. . . . Roman Catholicism is a man-made perversion of the truth.
. . . There is a divine gospel whereby God glorifies Himself in the salvation of His elect, and anything less than that isn’t the gospel at all. It’s a sham, a fraud, a deception. Now that kind of thinking doesn’t sit well in a post-modern world, to be sure, where it smacks of “epistemological arrogance.” But to say otherwise is to insist that God has not spoken with clarity and that the Lord has not preserved the gospel for His people. . . .
So if you really believe the gospel, you really believe the negation of the gospel is evil. Just as the person who loves God and holiness will hate sin, so too the person who really believes the gospel will find its negation, its corruption, its perversion, an object of hatred. (12 April 2009)
And he wouldn’t be himself if he didn’t display a double standard. He can sling accusations of dishonesty (being the POSSESSOR OF TRVTH), yet at the same time, condemn it as an unworthy, silly tactic when it is done to him or his fellow Protestants (a thing I condemn along with him):
As I read the e-mail, written by someone only identified as “Charles,” I tried my best to “hear” it, despite where it was posted, by whom, and how it was lauded by the former Calvinist Baptist. But I could not get past the constant accusations of dishonesty and conspiracy on the part of all “Calvinists.” (8 June 2005)
If the book is filled with deception and misrepresentation, why not document it? Easy: what these men really are saying is “He disagrees with us, therefore, he must be deceptive.” Now, of course, that is circular argumentation and irrational, but it is the heart of their apologetic. (6 August 2005)
99% of the time these people are using the term “dishonesty” and “lack of scholarship” to refer to areas of simple disagreement. It is not that I am dishonestly misrepresenting Rome’s position, it is that they think I’m wrong regarding my response, nothing more. The few times people have called in to back up their statements, we have seen this illustrated, and it would be helpful to illustrate it yet again. The chances are not good for a simple reason: accusations of dishonesty are simply false. (14 July 2007)
Protestants, in particular, are liars, as we will see, even if they are holding a sincerely held (and perfectly defensible) viewpoint. It’s still a lie, and they are liars. . . . refusing to recognize the necessary difference between “I disagree with your position” and “you are lying.” (11 July 2008)
But as I have read the argument (which, ironically, is coming from someone in the law school, who should know better), they disagree with how I am reading Caner’s meaning (based upon our previous interactions) and are equating disagreement on that level with dishonesty and misrepresentation. This kind of muddled thinking is commonplace in our society today. We think with our hearts and emotions, not with our heads. (15 October 2009)
Photo credit: Angel Contreras: caricature of James White; posted on the latter’s Twitter page: 8-6-15.