2017-04-24T19:04:30-04:00

Last updated on: April 24, 2017 at 7:04 pm   By
Mary17

Madonna and Child, by Filippo Lippi (1406-1469) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * * * *

Original title: “Live Chat” Dialogue on Patristic Consensus (Particularly, Mariology) (vs. James White)
(original exchange: 29 December 2000. “Footnotes” added shortly afterwards. Revised on 4 December 2002)

The following live exchange (with an “audience”) occurred in the chat room of the website of Reformed Baptist anti-Catholic apologist James White, on 29 December 2000. White asked to dialogue with me. This was absolutely spontaneous and not pre-planned at all. I was unable to cut-and-paste excerpts from my website while I was in the room (nor did I wish to: I wanted informality and discussion as it would occur in someone’s living room, over tea and crumpets). Bishop White’s words will be in blue. 


The dialogue is unedited, excepting chronological changes to make it clear what question a reply was responding to, comments about time limits and rules, and inadvertent factual error (e.g., White cited Ignatius when he meant Irenaeus). I will add some commentary and links separately from the actual chat at the bottom of this paper, footnoted and hyper-linked to the dialogue text, so that later elaboration will be easily distinguishable.


* * * * *

Mr. Armstrong, care to dialogue a bit?

“no, no more than it was for the Fathers who appealed to apostolic Tradition.” 


Remember that statement Dave?

yes.Dave: The earliest reference in all patristic writing to something “passed down from the Apostles” that is not in Scripture is Irenaeus’ insistence that those who knew the Apostles confirmed that John 8 teaches that Jesus was more than 50 years of age at his death. Rome has rejected this idea.[Footnote 1] If “tradition” can be corrupted in its first instance, upon what basis do you affirm the idea that such doctrines as the Bodily Assumption, without witness for over 500 years, is truly apostolic? [Footnote 2]

who claims that this is the first instance of Tradition passed down? Now we are in areas that require research to answer, so I can hardly do that on the spot.

Well, if you can find an explicit statement that is earlier, I’d like to see it. To my knowledge, it is the earliest example.

I doubt that…..the principle is explicitly biblical in the first place. If indeed the notion [Tradition passed down] is in the Bible, then that is the earliest instance, not Irenaeus.

I’m sorry, I must have been unclear: I was referring to a statement by an early Church Father concerning an alleged extra-biblical tradition passed down from the Apostles. And I believe Irenaeus’ claim is the earliest….but that point aside….

Okay, that may be (I don’t know).

I assume, then, you are not familiar with this particular issue? Okay, then let us use another example. Basil said that it was an apostolic tradition to baptize three times, facing east, forward. Upon what basis do you reject his testimony, if you do?

Patristic consensus over what period of time? For example, the “patristic consensus” through the end of the fourth century was that Mary had committed acts of sin. That is no longer
the “view” taken by Rome.

the patristic period is generally considered to go up to John Damascene, no?

That all depends. :-)

no; some Fathers thought she sinned, but I don’t believe they were the majority, by any means.

Would it follow, then, that you believe the “patristic consensus” up through John Damascene supports such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption?

Can you name 5 or 10 who thought that?

Yes. Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil. Big names. :-) Even Anselm held Mary was born with original sin.

how about western fathers? Those are all eastern guys. :-)

Anselm isn’t. :-)

Anselm was not a father.

Let’s hope not. :-) He was under orders…. just kidding.

all you’re doing now is helping to support Roman primacy and orthodoxy. The east had a host of errors. They split from Rome five times, and were wrong in every case by [the criteria of] their own later “orthodox” beliefs. [Footnote 3]

Hmm, so you are switching now to a Western “consensus”?

no, but your citing of only eastern fathers hardly suggests that this is overall “patristic consensus,” does it?
I would dispute that, actually, but I’d like to stick to the issue I’ve raised here. Is it your belief that these two dogmas are apostolic in origin?

first name me western fathers who thought Mary sinned, since you brought this up.

Actually, Augustine’s influence regarding the universality of original sin had to be overcome for the Immaculate Conception to be contemplated and codified, sir. :-)

but that’s a separate issue. Did Augustine think Mary sinned?

No, not in her personal life. But he did believe she contracted original sin, correct?

There is the distinction between actual sin and original sin in Mary’s case.

Do you consider Tertullian a Western?

yes.

Would you include Hilary? J.N.D. Kelly lists them both in that category. I think that makes six, does it not?

I’m not sure, but you started by discussing acts of sin, now you are switching to original sin.

Actually, for both Tertullian and Hilary, it would be acts of sin.

okay, so you have two?

Yes, two. May I ask how many you have that positively testify of the later Roman belief in the same time-period?

one second….consulting some papers.

Be that as it may, does it not follow from these considerations that there is no positive consensus upon this issue? The only relevant answer to that would be to ask, “Who wrote on the specific question of Mary’s sinlessness? Not many.”

was this in Tertullian’s Montanist or semi-Montanist period? About how many fathers were there, in your estimation?

The Tertullian citation is De carne Chr. 7. [Footnote 4]

how many say she was without sin? That’s what you are asking? Actual sin?

I think you can see my point, can you not, Mr. Armstrong? If these concepts were, in fact, passed down through the episcopate, how could such widely differing church leaders be ignorant of these things?

the same way Luther was ignorant about baptismal regeneration, and Calvin of adult baptism. :-) Neither got it right, according to you.

Well, it would seem that if you wish to substantiate a dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the task would be rather easy to demonstrate a positive witness to the belief in the patristic period, would it not?

I think this can be done, but probably not to your satisfaction.

Does it follow, then, that you parallel individual Reformational leaders with the early Fathers, the very ones entrusted with “apostolic tradition”? Or was that rhetorical?

I was making a point about noted leaders and teachers differing. We would expect that in the Fathers to an extent, being human; nevertheless, there is still overall consensus.

Have you ever listened to my debate with Gerry Matatics on the subject of the Marian dogmas, Mr. Armstrong?

no. Did you win that one? :-)

It’s on the web…..Gerry said I did, actually. :-) As did Karl Keating. Does that count? :-)

I can name names as to who believed in sinlessness, but I don’t have it at my fingertips……

Be that as it may, during the course of the debate I repeatedly asked Gerry for a single early Father who believed as he believes, dogmatically, on Mary. I was specifically focused upon the two most recent dogmas, the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption.

of course, if you are looking for a full-blown doctrine of Immaculate Conception, you won’t find it. [Footnote 5]

How would you answer my challenge? Did any early Father believe as you believe on this topic?

the consensus, in terms of the kernels of the belief [i.e., its essence], are there overall. I would expect it to be the case that any individual would not completely understand later developments.

So many generations lived and died without holding to what is now dogmatically defined? [Footnote 6]

Did any father of the first three centuries accept all 27 books of the NT and no others? [Footnote 7]

Three centuries…..you would not include Athanasius?

I think his correct list was in the 4th century, but at any rate, my point is established. How many fathers of the same period denied baptismal regeneration or infant baptism?

The issue there would be how many addressed the issue (many did not). But are you paralleling these things with what you just admitted were but “kernels”? [Footnote 8]

if even Scripture was unclear that early on, that makes mincemeat of your critique that a lack of explicit Marian dogma somehow disproves Catholic Mariology.

I’ll address that allegation in a moment. :-)[Footnote 9] By the way, would you like that specific Irenaeus reference to look up? Just in passing?

I can look it up…I have enough resources. The question of this dialogue is whether we are gonna address topics which require heavy research….. That is more appropriate for a paper. If I were answering all your questions in a paper I would have spent a good three hours already. [Footnote 10]A guy like Joe Gallegos could instantly address questions about particular Fathers’ beliefs……. but I’ll still give you names who taught Mary’s sinlessness, if you like.

I was thinking of the others looking on. :-) It is chapter 22, section 5, of Irenaeus’ work, Against Heresies, Book 2, I believe….

so where do we go from here?

Anyway….You seem to think that if there is disagreement on any issue, this means the Scripture is unclear, correct?

no; rather massive disagreement on many issues seems to me to fly in the face of this alleged perspicuity. I think Scripture is clear, by and large, actually, but human fallibility will lead to “hermeneutic relativism,” thus requiring authoritative interpreters.

What do you do with Peter’s words? 2 Pet 3:15-16:

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (NAS)

a good description of many Protestants! How does this bolster perspicuity?


If the untaught and unstable distort the Scriptures, then what can the taught and stable do, of necessity?

it doesn’t follow logically that if the unstable distort the Scripture, that the stable will always get it right, does it?

()()() James is Away. Lord willing, he will return. :) ()()()

Footnotes
 

1. Early Patristic “Extra-Biblical” Citations Without too much trouble, I managed to find what I believe to be an earlier reference, in this instance, to what the writer describes as “Scripture” (I assume he would hold that the Bible was “passed down from the Apostles” and that Bishop White would grant the point). The writer is St. Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (aka First Clement), dated 95-96 A.D. In 23:3, he writes:

Let this Scripture be far from us where he says . . . .

Then he proceeds to cite a passage which is not in present-day Scripture (it is also cited in 2 Clement 11:2-4 – not considered to have been written by St. Clement, but perhaps the oldest Christian sermon extant: c.100 A.D. -, where it is described as “the prophetic word”). The famous Protestant scholar J.B. Lightfoot speculated that it was from the lost book of Eldad and Modat mentioned by Hermas (Vis. 2.3.4). Now how is it that a prominent Church Father in the first century can be so ignorant as to the contents of “Scripture,” when Bishop White and Protestants must believe Scripture to be apostolic in order for it to be inspired and the rule of faith, over against both Tradition and Church?
 

But Bishop White’s argument suffers from an additional fallacy, viz., what shall we consider to be “scriptural” or conversely, “extra-biblical” in the first place? How do we ultimately determine that? This inevitably becomes at least partially a subjective affair. In addition to not properly knowing what Scripture is, St. Clement also urges his readers to conform to the glorious and holy rule of our tradition (7:2). Bishop White, of course, rejects any “tradition” as a rule of faith; Scripture Alone is the rule of faith, according to Protestants. So St. Clement, by White’s criterion, is referring to an “extra-biblical” notion. In point of fact, however, Sacred Tradition (even oral Tradition) is indeed an altogether biblical and Pauline concept (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2, 2 Pet 2:21, Jude 3).
Furthermore, moving on about a dozen years later to the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, dated c.105-110 A.D., we find a host of doctrines which Bishop White would consider “extra-biblical.” Again, it is a matter of definition as to what is biblical, and what should be considered “orthodox” in Christianity. In our extensive 1995 debate by US Mail, Bishop White wrote:

How do you know you are in company with, say, Athanasius or Ignatius or Irenaeus? In the final analysis, is it not because Rome tells you so?

Well, I submit that my Catholic views are far closer to those of Ignatius than are Bishop White’s Baptist views. If allegedly “extra-biblical” views are so prevalent among the earliest Church Fathers, what becomes of Protestantism’s vaunted, mythical “early (quasi-Protestant and ‘biblical’) Church”? So let us briefly examine a few of the “extra-biblical” teachings of St. Ignatius (emphasis added, with my comments in brackets):
 
Denominationalism

“It is, therefore, advantageous for you to be in perfect unity, in order that you may always have a share in God.” (Eph., 4,2)

“Let there be nothing among you which is capable of dividing you . . .” (Mag., 6,2)

“Flee from divisions, as the beginnings of evils.” (Sm., 8,1)

“Focus on unity, for there is nothing better.” (Pol., 1,2)

“If anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Ph., 3,3)

[Bishop White can’t even agree with Protestant Founder Martin Luther, concerning baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or with John Calvin concerning the legitimately Christian and covenantal status of baptized Catholics, let alone attaining “perfect unity” and abolishing sinful denominational divisions. Quite unbiblical, or “extra-biblical”. . . ]

Bishops

“You must all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father . . .” (Sm., 8,1)

“Let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s council and as the band of the apostles. Without these no group can be called a church.” (Tr., 3,1)

“It is good to acknowledge God and the bishop. The one who honors the bishop has been honored by God; the one who does anything without the bishop’s knowledge serves the devil.” (Sm., 9,1) 

“It is obvious, therefore, that we must regard the bishop as the Lord himself.” (Eph., 6,1)

[Bishop White, being a Baptist, of course doesn’t believe in bishops, which is strange, seeing that it is an explicit biblical office. He can hardly call this an “extra-biblical” idea. Why, then, does his affiliation expunge it? Perhaps, then, we should invent the term “sub-biblical” or “anti-biblical” to describe the myriad subtractions and omissions of various Protestant Christianities?]
 
Bishop White later strongly objected to the paragraph above, as an inaccurate statement, in his mind proving that I knew “nothing” about either “biblical” or Baptist ecclesiology (he is not renowned for understatement) [and he claimed to be a “bishop” himself]. I, of course, offered a counter-response.

Real Presence

“I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ.” (Rom., 7,3)

“They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” (Sm., 6,2)

[Bishop White denies the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. How could St. Ignatius become so “extra-biblical” in such a short space of time from the Apostles?]

Vicarious Atonement (A Species of Penance)

“I am a humble sacrifice for you.” (Eph., 8,1)”May my spirit be a ransom on your behalf.” (Sm., 10,2)
“May I be a ransom on your behalf in every respect.” (Pol., 2,3)

[Bishop White would consider these beliefs outrageously “extra-biblical.” So here is yet another instance of such teaching occurring very early on. Were there no “evangelical Christians” to be found at such an early date?!!]
2. Development of the Doctrine of Mary’s Assumption This is a false analogy, because by Bishop White’s criteria of “orthodoxy,” “tradition” could not possibly have been first corrupted by St. Irenaeus. But be that as it may, I have dealt with the question of the slowly-developing tradition of Mary’s Assumption elsewhere. White’s rapid-fire questioning and constant switching of topics and subtle changing even of terms within topics hardly allowed me to deal adequately with such a complex subject, so I refer readers to a previous exchange with Bishop White, from 1996:

“Dialogue on Whether the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary are Legitimately Part of Apostolic Tradition”

3. Eastern Heresy / Roman Orthodoxy See my paper: “A Response to Orthodox Critiques of Catholic Apostolicity.”

4. The Fathers on Mary’s Sinlessness Sure enough, The Flesh of Christ (dated 208-212 A.D.) is from Tertullian’s semi-Montanist period. Protestants often fail to note the different theological periods with regard to citing Tertullian. Many will conveniently ignore this if a Tertullian quote suits their purpose (or else some are ignorant of the dating and/or of his later heresy altogether). Whichever the case with Bishop White, he failed to answer my question during the dialogue, thus illustrating another reason why these clarifying notes are important and useful. What I suspected turned out to be true. Whether Bishop White knew this beforehand or not, we don’t know, as he didn’t say.
 
As for Hilary of Poitier’s views concerning the Blessed Virgin, in the book Mary and the Fathers of the Church, by Luigi Gambero (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999, p. 186) the author (a priest with background in philosophy and also author of a 4-volume work on Marian thought) wrote:

Hilary always considered it normal for Mary to have had some small imperfections . . . Our author does not mention any specific defect or imperfection in Mary’s conduct but seems to hold that some such flaw exists, if even Mary must face the judgment of God. However, this is an isolated observation [Tractatus super Psalmum 118,12; PL 9,523], to which Hilary does not return.

So Bishop White offers one western father (who held a quite “mild” opinion on the subject – not exactly a spectacular, bold dissent), and another in his heretical period, plus four eastern fathers (which I was already generally aware of – one always finds exceptions to the rule). This is what he considers a “patristic consensus.” I consider it a pathetic argument. Ludwig Ott states that the western patristic consensus was “unanimous.” Thus, Bishop White is trapped by the facts of history, not any rhetorical brilliance on my part. 

As for Church Fathers who refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New Eve (Eve was originally sinless or immaculate), Second Eve, sinless, spotless, pure, without stain, immaculate, the Ark of the Covenant, or (negatively) who never attributed any actual sin to her, we find the following:
 

Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Jerome, Eusebius, Ephraim, Ambrose, Augustine, Proclus, Theodotus, Peter Chrysologus, Andrew of Crete, Fulgentius, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Germanus, John Damascene.
 
That makes at least 22 fathers in the affirmative, compared to 5 who attributed sin to Mary (not counting the Montanist heretic Tertullian). By this broad reckoning, that is about 81% of the fathers (and these are only the major ones), which is more than enough to achieve a “consensus,” as even the phrase “unanimous consent of the fathers” never literally meant all of them, as Catholic apologist. 
5. Development of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception Nor would we expect to, according to the normal course of doctrinal development.
 
 
6. Development of Doctrine in General As is, unfortunately, so often the case with Protestants, Bishop White betrays a great lack of understanding of development of doctrine.

In my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, I wrote:

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The doctrine of the Godhood, or Divinity of Jesus Christ was not formally defined until the Council of Nicaea in 325, and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was proclaimed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was made official at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. We’ve already seen how the Canon of the New Testament was also very much a “developing doctrine” itself, finalized only in 397. Original Sin was a slowly developed belief. Many other examples could be brought forth.

And I cited the great Protestant apologist C. S. Lewis:

Change is not progress unless the core remains unchanged. A small oak grows into a big oak; if it became a beech, that would not be growth, but mere change . . . There is a great difference between counting apples and arriving at the mathematical formulae of modern physics. But the multiplication table is used in both and does not grow out of date. In other words, whenever there is real progress in knowledge, there is some knowledge that is not superseded. Indeed, the very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . I claim that the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power, elsewhere found chiefly in formal principles, of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them . . . Like mathematics, religion can grow from within, or decay . . . But, like mathematics, it remains simply itself, capable of being applied to any new theory.

[From:, God in the Dock, ed. Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970, pp.44-47. Originally from “Dogma and the Universe,” The Guardian, March 19, 1943, p. 96 / March 26, 1943, pp. 104, 107]

Furthermore, the “kernels” or essential elements of all the Catholic Marian beliefs can be found in Holy Scripture, to a much greater extent than most Protestants would ever imagine, and often fairly explicitly. If this is indeed the case, then these beliefs are all quite apostolic and early: all deriving from the first century A.D. or earlier. 

And to see how “Catholic” a Protestant can get, with regard to Mariological views, see my paper: “Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary.”
 

7. Lack of Patristic Consensus on the NT Canon This is precisely the point. Bishop White thinks he has found a “patristic consensus” when a mere five Church Fathers claim that Mary sinned. That supposedly shoots down Catholic Mariology in one fell swoop. Yet when I point out that no father from 0-300 A.D. accepted all 27 books of the New Testament and no others, as inspired and part of the Bible (Bible Alone being a crucial pillar of Protestantism – one cannot have the Bible without knowing which books belong to it), he offers no reply – and for very good reason, as there is none. The canon of the New Testament is necessarily dependent on Church Authority. Even the well-respected Calvinist R.C. Sproul admits that Protestants possess a “fallible collection of infallible books.” The analogy is an exact parallel, and devastating: if five fathers disprove Catholic Mariology, then not a single father getting the NT right for 300 years refutes sola Scriptura. So Bishop White must either drop his fallacious argument, or his acceptance of sola Scriptura, and with it, his Protestantism, which rests upon that formal principle. Silence was a wise course in the midst of such a serious dilemma.
That being the case (and I think he knew it full well), he asked, rather, whether I included Athanasius in this period (the “first three centuries,” as I stated). Well, no, since he lived from 296-373. He first listed our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367 A.D. (which is more than 300 years beyond even the death of our Lord Jesus). Disputes still persisted concerning several books after that, almost right up until 397, when the Canon was authoritatively closed at the Council of Carthage, so that the present-day “perspicuous” NT canon took longer to finalize than trinitarianism and the divinity of the Holy Spirit! But I guess a “consensus of one” in the year 367 is good enough for Bishop White, provided that it is harmonious with his own largely 16th-century-derived Baptist version of Christianity. This is all doctrinal development, pure and simple. But Protestants – for some odd reason – so often wish to ignore it when it touches upon their own peculiar doctrines.
 
How is it that Bishop White is so concerned about five fathers attributing fairly minor and very rare sin to the Blessed Virgin Mary, while in the “late” period from 250-325, the “perspicuous” biblical books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were still being widely disputed in the Church Universal? Is that state of affairs not far more fatal to Protestant claims concerning Scripture Alone, than minor dissent on Mary is to the Catholic position? 
 
8. Fathers’ Unanimity on Baptismal Regeneration Bishop White cleverly avoided the issue I was raising, in terms of the live chat, but he can’t escape the logic of it, for the fathers taught baptismal regeneration with virtually literal unanimity. Yet White, of course, rejects both infant baptism (over against Calvin and the great majority of all Christians of all times) and baptismal regeneration (over against Luther and Wesley and Anglicanism, as well as Orthodoxy and Catholicism). It doesn’t seem to trouble him that no one in the whole patristic period could “get it right,” just as we saw was the case concerning the canon of the NT and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. On the other hand, his non-answer perhaps suggests that he is troubled – down deep – by all these “little” historical anomalies in his position, which I am discourteous and rash enough to point out.
9. The Unanswered Challenge I wish he would have. That might have been very interesting. But soon, there were some technical problems with the Undernet; Bishop White departed and never returned, even though I hung around for perhaps an hour or more after our exchange ended. But I’m thankful for the time I was able to spend with him in dialogue. I think his answers and non-answers strengthened the Catholic case considerably. :-) A few days later,Bishop White refused to debate me in any format, about anything (even though I offered to let him question me all night long, if I could question him for 90 minutes), and stated that he wanted nothing to do with me anymore (see Note #1 above – section on “Bishops”). So we’ll never know what his larger case might have been.
 
10. Written vs. “Oral”/”Live” Dialogue Indeed, I’ve spent a good many more hours than three preparing these notes, and I think they are all quite relevant to the questions dealt with in the dialogue. My point, then and now, is that the written and “oral” (or “live”) dialogue formats are vastly different. Bishop White seemed to require me to give rapid answers to his lightning-quick and ever-changing technical questions concerning particular patristic beliefs. That was not possible (I wouldn’t be able to type fast enough even if I had all the answers in my head), but I believe I managed to “de-fang” him by the use of analogy, which has been fleshed out to full effect in these notes.
2017-04-24T19:07:30-04:00

Last updated on: April 24, 2017 at 7:07 pm   By

Cover (555 x 838)

My book (2013, 395 pages; available for as low as $1.99).

* * * * *

James White is the most influential anti-Catholic polemicist today. He’s written a ton of books (though not all about Catholicism), does lots of oral debates, and has had a website for some 20 years now. Hang around anti-Catholics much and you’ll hear his name pretty soon, and often. He’s their big champion. The anti-Catholic is one who thinks that Catholicism is not a species of Christianity; that one cannot be saved while being a good Catholic (accepting all that the Church teaches). One can be saved, however (so they tell us) by being a “bad Catholic” (i.e., picking and choosing Catholic doctrines).

In 1995 I ran across his name in a directory of cult researchers (that I was also listed in, since specializing in cults was one of my first major apologetics projects). I discovered that he was anti-Catholic, along with some others in the book, and so decided to write a form letter to several, about the issue (snail mail; I was not yet on the Internet). He responded back with a lengthy letter, to which I replied very fully. Then he wrote back again, in a far more acerbic tone, and I replied with a 36-page, single-spaced letter. At that point he resorted to severe personal insult and ceased the debate altogether. This all occurred in March-May 1995. I have the hard copies of the typewritten replies he sent me in my possession.

This was the most in-depth writing I have ever done concerning the fundamental question of the Christian status of Catholicism. I’ve never been able to get an anti-Catholic to fully deal with the issue, in an honest debate. In fact, in 2007, I was so tired of trying to get into such a discussion, that I challenged six or seven prominent anti-Catholics (including Mr. White) to a “live chat” debate on the question. They all refused: most of them with rank insults. Because of that, I decided that I would no longer seek to engage anti-Catholics in theological debate (apart from very few exceptions), since they refused to grapple with the root issue of what Christianity is, and why they think Catholicism isn’t Christian. One can’t really have a true dialogue until fundamental differences are addressed.

Ever since 1995, White would occasionally critique something of mine: especially from my books or radio interviews. It was always the same: he started out with ostensible argument. I refuted what he wrote, then he came back with personal insults. It never went more than one round. He’s simply not interested in real, substantive debate, where the two parties actually interact with each other’s arguments. In his oral debates, he merely preaches his message, and obfuscates and spins and special pleads regarding whatever the other guy says. We’ve had exactly one “live chat” debate, which took place in his venue on 29 December 2000: about Mary and the Church fathers. I immediately posted it on my site. He never has. He’s never posted or linked to this debate, either, whereas I have had it on my site for 19 years running.

My other interactions with Mr. White can be read on my web page devoted to him, and also in my 400-page book that collects the major “exchanges” (if we can even call them that. They were mostly my refutations and his insults back or heading for the hills).

The “snail mail debate” I link to below takes up 103 pages in my book devoted to Mr. White. Needless to say, he has utterly ignored the book: never said a word about it, ever (that I am aware of). I can fully understand why . . .

My good friend Phil Porvaznik has posted the entire debate in neat, presentable html-linked form on one web page on his site. Enjoy!

2024-05-13T09:00:37-04:00

Last updated on: May 13, 2024 at 9:00 am   By
0 Comments

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

These are my replies to the James White portion of the legendary (notorious?) debate on this topic with Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: “Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?” It took place live on 28 September 1993, at the Bayview Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Chula Vista, California. As I always do when commenting on a debate that had included another Catholic, I won’t be reading or defending the Catholic side. Pat made his particular arguments, and did a fine job, as always. I will be concentrating on giving my replies to White’s remarks. The Right Rev. Bishop White’s words will be in blue. I use RSV in my Bible citations.

***

There have always been those who have refused to give the Scriptures their proper place.

Indeed. Ignoring the abundant data that Scripture provides about the Church and tradition (also necessary parts of the rule of faith) isn’t doing that. It’s pretending that what we may not personally care for is not in Holy Scripture. That’s not deferring to or respecting God’s inspired revelation, but rather, making ourselves the arbiters and judges of what portions of Scripture we will follow, and what parts we will minimize or ignore. “Pick-and-choose” theology, in other words, which is precisely what the heresies of history always did, too.

There have always been those who wished to add to Scripture their own authority and the unique teachings that set them apart.

Exactly what I was just saying that Protestants must do, if they abide by the man-made, unbiblical tradition of sola Scriptura . . .

White then contends that because St. Basil the Great appealed to Scripture in arguments with heretics, he must have believed in sola Scriptura. It’s not true. The two are not the same thing. The Bible — or the reverence of and recourse to it — is not equivalent to an outlook — sola Scriptura — whereby the Bible is considered the only infallible authority in Christianity (Church and tradition being excluded from such infallibility). Basil did not adhere to sola Scriptura, as I have documented several times (including in reply to White himself). Basil the Great accepted the authority of sacred tradition (in a way utterly at odds with sola Scriptura):

The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine” is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. (The Holy Spirit, 25)

Now one of the institutions of Gregory is the very form of the doxology to which objection is now made, preserved by the Church on the authority of his tradition; . . . (The Holy Spirit, 29)

Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture concerning It as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. (The Holy Spirit, 9:22)

[T]hey clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. (The Holy Spirit, 25)

While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; – which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; . . . (The Holy Spirit, 27)

But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” (The Holy Spirit, 27)

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. . . . For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. . . . the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence . . . Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. . . . While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness” is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;—which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;—a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery? (The Holy Spirit, 30)

He believed in apostolic succession (in a way that Protestants have rejected):

[T]hat doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day. (The Holy Spirit, 30)

That faith we have received; that faith we know is stamped with the marks of the Apostles; to that faith we assent, as well as to all that was canonically and lawfully promulgated in the Synodical Letter. (Letter #92 to the Italians and Gauls, 3)

He believed in the binding authority and infallibility and even a sort of quasi-inspiration of ecumenical councils (anathema to Protestantism):

[T]he same Fathers who once at Nicæa promulgated their great decree concerning the faith. Of this, some portions are universally accepted without cavil, but the homoousion, ill received in certain quarters, is still rejected by some. . . . To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency. (Letter #52 to the Canonicae)

Y]ou should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicæa, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, . . . (Letter #114 to Cyriacus, at Tarsus; NPNF2-8)

Therefore, he did not believe in sola Scriptura; period!

Is the Bible the sole and infallible rule of faith for the Church?

No; according to that same Bible.

Or must we have other revelation from God?

Other revelation isn’t required; only other authoritative and infallible teaching: from the Church and tradition and apostolic succession and ecumenical councils and popes.

Do we need . . .  the so-called Apostolic unwritten traditions of Rome?

Yes, just as Basil reiterated over and over. He clearly didn’t believe in the non-biblical notion of “inscripturation”: as White does.

Does the Bible teach its own sufficiency to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church?

No; it denies its own formal sufficiency for that purpose.

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. . . . That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. . . . Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. . . . the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church.

It follows that councils and popes and tradition and the Church are not infallible and thus are not part of the rule of faith, according to Protestantism. And it also logically follows that whoever believes that any of these non-scriptural things are infallible, must by the same token deny sola Scriptura. I have shown by this method, that some twenty-five or more Church fathers all denied sola Scriptura: using White’s own definition, which is a pretty standard one. I was — arguably — utilizing an even more full and concise definition of sola Scriptura a year before this expression from White, in a treatise written on 9-14-92: later included in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (p. 4):

The concept of sola Scriptura, it must be noted, is not in principle opposed to the importance and validity of Church history, Tradition, ecumenical councils, or the authority of Church Fathers and prominent theologians. The difference lies in the relative position of authority held by Scripture and Church institutions and proclamations. In theory, the Bible judges all of these, since, for the Evangelical Protestant, it alone is infallible, and the Church, popes, and councils are not.

FOOTNOTES:  Luther, Martin, On the Councils and the Churches, 1539; Sproul, R.C., “Sola Scriptura: Crucial to Evangelicalism,” in Boice, James Montgomery, ed., The Foundation of Biblical Authority, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1978, 109; Brown, Robert McAfee, The Spirit of Protestantism, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961, 67.

We begin by noting that Scripture is theopneustos, “God-breathed.”

No Catholic has ever denied this. But it’s irrelevant to the discussion of sola Scriptura, which entails the question of whether other sources of authority are infallible and binding. They need not be inspired in order to disprove sola Scriptura. White then trotted out (like every other apologist for sola Scriptura) 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I replied to this in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, as follows:

For example, to reason by analogy, let’s examine a very similar passage, Ephesians 4:11-15:

Ephesians 4:11-15  And his gifts were that some should be apostle, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,

If the Greek artios (Revised Standard Version [RSV], complete; King James version [KJV], perfect) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Timothy, then teleios (RSV, mature manhood; KJV, perfect) in Ephesians would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers, and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15, the Christian believer is “equipped,” “built up,” brought into “unity and mature manhood,” “knowledge” of Jesus, “the fulness of Christ,” and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the “perfecting” of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.

Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all nonscriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense. (pp. 15-16)

It also can be noted that in 2 Timothy, Paul also makes reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14).

The authority of the Church then, in teaching, and rebuking, and instructing, is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims to the contrary, from Scripture itself.

We don’t deny that. We deny that the two things ought to be pitted against each other in a — typically Protestant — false dichotomy.

Surely, here Paul would have to direct us to any and all other rules of faith that we would need to be complete but, he does not.

He certainly does, as I just documented, including in the verse just two verse before our passage, and in the first and second chapters, too:

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it

Now, Mr. Madrid, do you not believe that it is a good work to pray to Mary? Yet, the Scriptures nowhere teach this.

Scripture teaches (from Jesus Himself) that the rich man petitioned Abraham in prayer three times (Lk 16:24, 27-28, 30). Abraham nowhere rebukes him or tells him to pray only to God. Jesus is telling the story, in inspired Scripture, therefore it must be true theology. Thus, if Jesus taught that men can pray to Abraham, there is nothing stopping them from praying to (i.e., petitioning or asking to intercede) Mary the Mother of God the Son. If one creature and holy person can be prayed to, so can another, by the same token. Have at it!

Do you not believe that it is good to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven? Yet, the Bible does not teach this.

It doesn’t list its own canon, either, or teach sola Scriptura, or sola fide (faith alone). That doesn’t stop Protestants from believing in all three. But Mary’s Assumption is completely  consistent and harmonious with Scripture (being simply an early example of the resurrection of the body, promised to all of the elect; why not Jesus’ mother first?). Sola Scriptura and sola fide, on the other hand, are not. They’re contradicted by many other biblical passages (which would, I guess, explain why virtually no one believed in them until some fifteen centuries after Christ).

Do you not believe that the man of God should teach, in the Church, that the pope, in Rome, is infallible in his teaching office? Yet, the Scriptures know nothing of such a concept.

It certainly does. St. Peter exercised his infallibility at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). He gave the primary speech and provided the guiding principle (based on a direct vision from God regarding the Gentiles, that he recently experienced), which caused the assembly to be silent (15:12); then the letter based on it was described as “good to the Holy Spirit” (15:28). No less than St. Paul then went all through Asia Minor (Turkey) delivering “for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (16:4).

So we had an infallible pronouncement by the first pope and leader of the new Church, in conjunction with a council of important figures in the Church (apostles and elders), that was protected by the Holy Spirit, and binding on Christians far and wide. After Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, it made sense for the Church to then be centered in Rome, since it was the capital of the empire. Peter and Paul both ended their lives there as martyrs. Sound familiar?

Paul here [2 Tim 3:16] teaches that the Bible is a rule of faith.

Yes, “a” rule of faith, but not the sole one.

For he says the Church’s function of teaching and rebuking and instructing is to be based upon God-inspired Scriptures.

It certainly is, but just not exclusively so. It doesn’t say “only Scripture” is the rule of faith, etc. That’s simply read into the passage by wishful thinking Protestants (eisegesis), in order to be force-fit into their arbitrary man-made tradition. It states that the Bible is profitable (of course) and is inspired (yep; who denies it?). Neither is the same thing as a rule of faith. And I’m sick and tired of Protestant apologists not recognizing this self-evident fact.

We see that Paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith

False. He refers to tradition (including oral) three times in the same letter: once in the immediate context.

Therefore, I assert that the doctrine of sola scriptura is taught plainly in this passage. Mr. Madrid must be able to fully refute the information I have provided to you to win this evening’s debate.

I’m sure he did. It’s not difficult at all to do. Basically, it’s simple logic and citing obviously related biblical cross references. I certainly did so, too, in my replies above and will continue to do so in what remains of this reply.

Now, one might well ask, “Is this the only place where sola scriptura is taught?” Most certainly not, though it is the clearest.

Thus is manifest the Protestant difficulty in desperately attempting to prove this false doctrine from Scripture. If this is the best they can come up with (and most of them say it is), how pathetic and pitiful indeed is the case, since this proves nothing whatsoever of what is required to be proven. That being the case, Protestants simply pretend that it proves what it doesn’t prove, and go on their merry way. It would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.

Mr. Madrid is going to have to prove that these oral traditions are “theopneusto” [God-breathed; inspired] or they cannot function along with God-breathed Scripture.

This is the same fallacy again. Not all binding authority is required to be inspired Scripture. Scripture never says that it is the sole authority or rule of faith. And it presents other things beside itself as quite authoritative. For example, “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). When one unpacks the meaning of that verse (as I did), it’s quite profound and unmistakable. I’ve already brought up the Jerusalem council, recorded in Acts 15 (I’ve written about it many times), which was guided by the Holy Spirit.

That wasn’t “the Bible” when it happened. Parts of it were recorded in the Bible. But it itself was a council, not a written revelation. The Holy Spirit confirmed what was decided. That may not be literally “God-breathed” but it was very close, if not. If something is led and overseen by God, then in a large sense it is inspired and “God breathed”. But in any event it was authoritative, which is why St. Paul proclaimed its decree far and wide.

let’s take a look at 2 Timothy 2:2. . . . “But you my child, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these things entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others. Join in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” Did you hear anything in there that denies sola scriptura?

Yes. It’s authoritative oral tradition, rather than the Bible. So it’s describing a rule of faith contrary to sola Scriptura.

Well we’re told, “You see, well you’re supposed to entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others those that you’ve heard from me.” And you need to listen to every presentation that is made by the Roman Catholic apologists because there is an underlying assumption, you see. As soon as you hear all these passages–and we’re going to take the time to look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and all the rest of that–here’s the assumption, that if you hear about a spoken tradition, if you hear about, for example, here Timothy hearing things in the presence of Paul, those things must contain information, like maybe the Immaculate Conception or Bodily Assumption of Mary, or Papal Infallibility…they must contain some different data that is being passed on, rather than what’s in Scripture. There’s the problem.

It’s not a problem because we don’t believe it “must contain information” other “than what’s in Scripture.” It may or it may not. It’s silly for White to pretend that this is what we believe.

I challenge Mr. Madrid to show us any bit of evidence that any time that the term “tradition” is used in Scripture, where the Christian Church is passing it on, that it means that what is in that tradition differs from what’s in the New Testament. That’s the assumption that must be proven by the Roman Catholic for these citations of these passages to be relevant at all.

This accomplishes little in this debate, since White has the same task in the opposite direction. He has to prove that every tradition mentioned in the Bible, or generic, broad apostolic tradition is the same as what we have in the Bible. He can no more prove that than we can prove the opposite (even though it’s not our burden to do so in the first place, as white vainly imagines). But being a sophist as he is, he plays up our supposed responsibility, while ignoring his own, that is even more pressing than our task, since it inexorably follows from his own viewpoint on the rule of faith. The Bible arguably presents tradition as synonymous with the gospel, the Word of God, the truth, the faith, the gospel, the teaching, etc.

Paul obviously has in mind a concrete body of teachings that he taught the churches that he established. It’s not just one thing. If that were the case, he would have specified it. But he doesn’t do so in almost all cases. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon (Strong’s Greek word #3862) states that the same word (παράδοσιν – parádosis — tradition) means “a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing what is delivered . . . instruction . . . the substance of the teaching” in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, whereas he thinks it refers to “particular injunctions of Paul’s instruction” in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. He holds that the word can refer to “precepts received from the fathers, whether handed down in the O. T. books or orally” (Gal 1:14: “the traditions of my fathers”): with some restricting or including the reference in that passage to “extra-biblical traditions”.

In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) it’s used for “the law [of God]”: Ezra 7:26. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition, p. 168, also, like Thayer, not a Catholic work, affirms that it refers to “written as well as unwritten traditions” in Galatians 1:14, and is equated with “Christian teaching” (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15); also deducing from 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. and 11:23 ff., “that it is older than Paul and is already acquiring a fixed form in his day.” Any way we look at it, there is plenty of tradition in the sense that Catholics refer to it (including oral) in the New Testament.

Now, did Paul teach something different in the presence of many witnesses that he taught in his epistle to the Romans or the Galatians?

Undeniably, that is entirely possible, and White can make no argument that proves that it is impossible. So his claim has no substantive content. I agree that most of it would likely be basically the theology we have in the New Testament; but no one can prove that all of it would be that.

here’s one of those passages that talks about tradition, or teaching. 2 Thessalonians 3:6, “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother that is idle and does not live according to the teaching or the tradition you received from us.” Oh, well, here’s this oral tradition, this oral tradition we need to keep! Really? No. Look back at 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 14 as well as 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. Paul is referring back to the tradition he had already delivered to them, that is, in writing.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:14 Paul tells them to “admonish the elders.” But that doesn’t cover the whole content of 2 Thessalonians 3:6. It’s only a secondary matter. The relevance of the latter verse is the second part, which refers to “the tradition you received from us.” Nor can White prove that whatever is in 1 Thessalonians 4 is identical to what he is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 3:6. He simply cannot do so.

As we will see, the term “tradition” normally refers to that which was orally preached, but it’s the same message.

Well, it passes along part of the entire deposit of faith: some of which is not in Scripture, or not explicit there. Again, White can’t prove otherwise. Catholics can assert that authoritative tradition existed because the fathers massively bear witness to it.

In fact, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . it’s talking about the gospel.

White appears to have in mind the verse before: “To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But this doesn’t necessarily have any direct correlation to the next verse: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Nothing there requires the reader to equate the “traditions” and the “gospel” altogether. In any event, all of it together comprises the apostolic deposit, passed down through apostolic succession. The linguist Thayer, as I noted above, thinks that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to “particular injunctions of Paul’s instruction” — not the gospel per se. I submit that he is more of an authority on the biblical text than White is.

the teaching of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome is a traditional teaching. It comes from tradition primarily. It is not found in Scripture. You’ll never find a reference to the Bishop of Rome or anything even regarding that in Scripture. The early Church didn’t believe it, and I’ve debated that, and would be glad to have more debates on that.

It’s there by analogy. See:

Infallible Individuals: Scriptural Examples & Analogies [2009]

Inspired & Infallible Prophets: Analogy to Infallible Popes [2-2-10]

Papacy & OT Infallible Prophets Analogy (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [3-14-24]

*
***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this book of mine.

Summary: I comment on anti-Catholic Baptist apologist James White’s arguments, from a debate with Pat Madrid in 1993, and show how they are poorly argued and insufficient.

2024-05-09T21:14:17-04:00

Last updated on: May 9, 2024 at 9:14 pm   By
0 Comments

Including St. Athanasius’ Rule of Faith & the Indefectibility of the OT “Proto-Church”

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

The debate was entitled, “Is the Bible the Only Infallible Rule of Faith?” and it occurred on July 23, 1996. White described it as “The single most lively and revealing debate on Sola Scriptura yet. . . . in Fullerton, CA, in front of a large, highly partisan (RC) audience . . . proves clearly that the Roman Catholic believes in Sola ecclesia, (the Church Alone).” Listen to the debate on White’s blog or on YouTube.

I will be responding to one of White’s typically arrogant, boorish, and obnoxious post mortem analyses of his own debate: “An Open Letter to Tim Staples” (11-19-96). Bishop / “Dr.” [???] White — by the way — has always made a big deal of his debate opponents not (in some cases) publishing their debates with him (since he thinks this suggests a lack of confidence of having prevailed). So, for example, he wrote:

I have seen my opponents use many tactics to cover over poor performances in debates. . . . But never before have we seen such complete and utter admission of defeat than we are seeing from St. Joseph Communications regarding the July debate with Tim Staples on Papal Infallibility in Fullerton, California . . . amazingly, we have learned that Saint Joseph’s is still not selling the audio tapes of the debate, and that more than two months after the encounter.  We have been making the tapes available since the week after the debate.  We made it available as soon as we possibly could. (“Saint Joseph Communications Admits Defeat“)

I debated James White by means of typewritten letters in March-May 1995. The complete transcript of that has been on my website from its beginning, in February 1997. It has never been posted on his website. I would guess that’s because he split, leaving my last 36-page (single-spaced) reply completely unanswered. So his performance certainly left a lot to be desired, by virtue of that fact alone — if nothing else.

Also, the transcript of our only “live” (chat) debate — on the Blessed Virgin Mary —, from 29 December 2000, has been posted on my site ever since it occurred, and has never appeared on his. He left that one early, too (citing technical problems). I added footnotes to it (which he highly objected to, for some unknown reason). Then I later analyzed his relentless techniques of sophistry in the exchange. Both also appear in my book, Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the “Undefeatable” Anti-Catholic Champion (Nov. 2013, 395 pages; read the introduction): which, of course, White has utterly ignored, too (what a shock!) for now over ten years.

White’s words will be in blue.

*****

11/19/96

TO: Tim Staples, St. Joseph Catholic Radio

FROM: James White, Alpha and Omega Ministries

RE: The Debate in Review: An Open Letter to Tim Staples

. . . I was much less excited, however, by a number of things that detracted a good bit from the debate, at least from a professional viewpoint. While the moderator took great pains to be fair, you took advantage of him many times, and went over your time limit again and again and again. I have found this a common thing amongst Roman Catholic apologists: . . . I hope in the future you will show more respect for your opponent, and the audience, by paying attention to that issue.

I have found it common amongst almost everyone who does debates. Now, maybe Bishop White’s behavior is, without exception impeccable in this regard, and maybe Tim did do some of this. I don’t know. But the sweeping generalization of Catholic apologists (as if — it’s insinuated — Protestant ones never exhibit this fault) just doesn’t fly. Nice try.

On a personal level, I was quite simply shocked at the amount of ad-hominem argumentation you utilized in our debate.

Yes, he always is, even though he has lobbed 37 trillion insults at Catholics en masse, and Catholic apologists (see some of his more fun, notable, and colorful insults, sent my way) for over thirty years. White complaining about insults is sort of like a fish complaining that it is in water.

Of course, I find such tactics indicative of a lost cause, . . . 

Yeah, me, too. And I’ve always pointed out — including scores of times with White himself — that this is why they are used.

I also get the feeling that you were doing what you had been instructed to do by folks like Patrick Madrid, who likewise uses the “insult, deprecate, and impugn your opponent” means of debating. I had honestly hoped for something better.

If White has to stoop to the level of making this ridiculous claim about Patrick Madrid — of all people –: one of the most courteous, gentle, level-headed, easy-going apologists of any stripe (and a great role model for all of us in that respect), it shows how truly desperate he is to broad-brush.

Throughout the debate you accused me of misrepresentation, out-of-context citation, and toward the end, direct “misquoting” of Augustine and Athanasius. Sadly, you never proved those accusations, nor, as we both know, could you.

This is an utterly plausible claim to me, as one who has dealt with White over the past 29 years. I’ve seen it myself, times without number. And if he gets specific about Church fathers in this open letter, I will prove it.

I saw what resources you had, and you did not have the original contexts of any of the citations I gave. 

Those are easy enough to get, especially if they are online, as most are these days.

I saw your list of short quotes from the Fathers-it was all you had with you.

I had no notes whatever in my live chat debate on Mary with White, because it was spontaneous and unplanned, after Reformed apologist Tim Enloe (now retired from debates with Catholics) prematurely departed our own live chat debate in White’s chat room. Even so, once White didn’t have quick pat answers, he got out of there as soon as he could.

I, on the other hand, had the entire Eerdman’s set on my hard-drive, the volume of Athanasius sitting on my desk, . . . 

That’s all online now. We can easily and quickly check out-of-context quotes form anti-Catholics.

I’m sure your followers will accept your claims without question, and will never bother to look up what Athanasius actually said. 

I’m equally sure that Bishop White’s followers will accept his claims without question, too, and will never bother to look up what Athanasius actually said. This is not a trait unique to Catholic listeners of debate, either. 95% of each side automatically thinks that their guy “won.”

However, what of those who are not your followers, Tim? What of the person who is simply seeking the truth?

That works both ways.

You see, the fair and scholarly thing to say would be, “I believe you are misrepresenting Athanasius’ entire doctrine of authority and tradition, and here is a citation that supports my assertion.” But, of course, your citation didn’t provide that kind of basis, 

I’ll take White’s word for that. But I certainly have done exactly this (beginning almost 21 years ago):

St. Athanasius’ Rule of Faith (NOT Sola Scriptura) [6-16-03] [includes lengthy citations of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman about St. Athanasius’ rule of faith, from his Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Volume II, 1844 (his Anglican period) ]

Did Athanasius Accept Sola Scriptura? (vs. Bruno Lima) [10-14-22]

If White is pretending that St. Athanasius believed in sola Scriptura, he is lying, pure and simple, and deceiving his audience. He knows too much to simply be incompetent.

I cited from Athanasius’ letter to Serapion in that article, and provided a strong passage indicating his assertion of the self-sufficiency of Scripture, 

Self-sufficiency in this context (a debate on the rule of faith) means the formal sufficiency of Scripture, which means that the Bible is sufficient in and of itself to function as the rule of faith, without the addition of an infallible Church and/or infallible tradition. White, elsewhere, stated this himself:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church. (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59)

But Athanasius affirmed infallible Church and conciliar pronouncements, the Catholic rule of faith, and the binding, infallible nature of doctrines received through apostolic succession and apostolic tradition (all expressly contrary to sola Scriptura):

The confession arrived at at Nicæa was, we say once more, sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 1)

But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 2; in NPNF2, IV:489)

For that of Nicæa is sufficient, agreeing as it does with the ancient bishops also, . . .  the testimony of the ancient bishops, . . . (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 9)

But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, . . . in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so hold them fast 1 Corinthians 11:2.’ (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 10)

For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nicæa by the whole Ecumenical Council; . . . they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, . . . (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 5)

Who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few in number, they . . . would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenical Council? (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 7)

It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. (Letter No. 59 to Epictetus, 3)

What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church . . .? (De Synodis, I, 3)

But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, . . . (Fragment from Letter No. 29 [Migne, xxvi, p. 1189] )

J. N. D. Kelly, the Anglican patristic scholar, wrote about Athanasius’ views:

Athanasius, disputing with the Arians, claimed that his own doctrine had been handed down from father to father, whereas they could not produce a single respectable witness to theirs. . . . [T]he ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian . . . Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he flung the charge that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the . . . Church’s peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: HarperCollins, revised edition, 1978, 45, 47)

I quoted four passages from Athanasius. I here provide you not only with the passages themselves, but with the immediate context, in Greek, of each one. I look forward to the demonstration on your part, Tim, of how any of these passages is “out of context.”

I now provide the four, best as I can make them out, since White gave the Greek texts, not the English ones:

Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. 2. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 56, 1-2)

It’s not out-of-context so much as it is a non sequitur (irrelevant to the debate), which it is because Catholics and Protestants wholly agree on the unique inspired nature of Holy Scripture: God’s revelation to us. That’s not at issue. A Catholic has no issue whatsoever with the above statement. It’s completely harmonious with our view. The issue in dispute in this debate is not the nature of Holy Scripture; rather, it’s the rule of faith: that is, whether any given Church father thought there were infallible authorities in Christianity apart from Holy Scripture, and whether the Bible is formally sufficient as the rule of faith.

Athanasius — as I have already proven from his own writings — clearly agrees with the Catholic position, not the Protestant one. White has simply selected portions of Athanasius that might (prima facie) be thought to support his view (sola Scriptura), but in fact do not do so at all. And he ignores the quotations such as what I have produced (it’s the old, tired standard anti-Catholic methodology of pick-and-choose and highly selective, “half-truth” presentation).

. . . the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources . . . (De Decretis, 32)

No problem for Catholics at all . . . De Decretis is a defense of the Council of Nicaea (325). I’ve already provided, above, six citations from Athanasius, detailing what he thought of that council. It was “sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy,” and set forth “the word of the Lord” so sufficiently that it “abides forever.” It was “an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenical Council.” That’s an infallible council, folks: contrary to sola Scriptura, and Luther’s proclamation of erring councils at the Diet of Worms. This isn’t rocket science. It’s rather straightforward. St. Athanasius also wrote about the Nicene Council in this treatise:

Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? (4)

. . . let them not utter complaints against so great a Council. (5)

. . . the definition of the Council against them, if accurately examined, will be found to be altogether a representation of the truth, . . . (18)

. . . surely the Council was sound in its doctrine and correct in its decree. (23)

See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but you, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can you assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council , for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. (27)

White’s third citation is Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, which uses the word Scripture[s] 35 times. I cited the same document twice (where Athanasius referred to the Nicene Council). All things have to be considered together. That’s what fair scholarship and research method attempts to do, and what White apparently didn’t do in one of his articles that he refers to in this open letter.

1. The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius , come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth — while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know — still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them — the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith. in Christ unreasonable. For this is what the Gentiles traduce and scoff at, and laugh loudly at us, insisting on the one fact of the Cross of Christ; and it is just here that one must pity their want of sense, because when they traduce the Cross of Christ they do not see that its power has filled all the world, and that by it the effects of the knowledge of God are made manifest to all. (Against the Heathen, 1-3)

See my above comments about the unsavory nature of this selective methodology. In the same work, Athanasius also writes:

But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith [1 Timothy 1:19], they also wrongly think that evil has a substantive existence. But they arbitrarily imagine another god besides the true One, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that he is the unmade producer of evil and the head of wickedness, who is also artificer of Creation. But these men one can easily refute, not only from the divine Scriptures, but also from the human understanding itself, the very source of these their insane imaginations. (6:3)

This conceit of theirs, then, being evidently rotten, the truth of the Church’s theology must be manifest: . . . (7:3)

But that the soul is made immortal is a further point in the Church’s teaching which you must know, . . . (33:1)

The word truth appears 32 times in this work. A few times it is directly connected to the Bible, but most times, not. In other words, he’s not contending that the Bible is the only source of truth. It can be obtained in other ways, too.

I also note, Mr. Staples, your citation of Basil . . . I shouldn’t be surprised: This Rock cited the same passage (I’m sure Patrick [Madrid] was behind that, too), . . . How good it would have been, Tim, had you taken the high road and attempted a meaningful critique of my own citation of this entire passage as it is found in my chapter in the book on sola scriptura-how much more meaningful that would have been! I would truly have been impressed by someone who would have attempted to deal with my citation of Jurgens’ own words with reference to “things written and things not written” (p. 38, footnote 17). 

Be that as it may, St. Basil the Great didn’t believe in sola Scriptura any more than Athanasius did, as I have written about five times through the years

Basil the Great (d. 379) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]

David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Part II: St. Basil the Great [11-11-13]

Vs. James White #16: St. Basil Held to Sola Scriptura? [11-19-19]

Self-Interpreting Bible & Protestant Chaos (vs. Turretin): Including Documentation that St. Basil the Great — Contrary to Turretin’s Claim — Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura [8-29-22]

Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura: Reply To James White Claims: Myths Regarding Cyprian, Augustine, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius [3-16-24]

Have you ever considered why you have such a vested interest in turning the Scriptures into a “dead letter” rather than a living one? Is it not because you believe in sola ecclesia, and hence must adopt this stance?

Plain stupid and silly . . .

Also, with reference to your statement, which truly caught me by surprise, that despite the losing of the Scriptures and their discovery under Josiah, “The Church went right along without the Scriptures,” I must admit I have to wonder what you were talking about. Do you not recall that the people were wandering in darkness, violating God’s laws, and that they endured His wrath as a result? The “oral traditions” and “magisterium” of the day failed to lead the people aright. The “Church” did not “go along” without the Scriptures: she stumbled right into the pit of wrath, in point of fact.

The Old Testament is a sad record of the continual forsaking of the Lord by the Israelites, but also their (God-caused) revivals and return. The question here — which I think Tim was likely emphasizing — is whether the OT “proto-church” ever completely died (just as White thinks the Catholic Church did). St. Francis de Sales, in his book, The Catholic Controversy, makes some solid arguments that this did not happen (my bracketed interjections):

Exodus 32:26 [RSV] then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, “Who is on the LORD’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him.

Did not Aaron the High Priest adore the golden calf with all his people? [Protestant argument for complete defectibility] Answer: Aaron was not as yet High Priest, nor head of the people, but became so afterwards. And it is not true that all the people worshipped idols: — for were not the children of Levi men of God, who joined themselves to Moses? (pp. 60-61)

2 Chronicles 15:3 For a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law;

Elijah lamented that he was alone in Israel (1 Ki 19:14) [“I, even I only, am left”]. Answer: Elijah was not the only good man in Israel, for there were seven thousand men who had not given themselves up to idolatry [1 Ki 19:18: “I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Ba’al”], and what the Prophet says here is only to express better the justice of his complaint. It is not true again that if all Israel had failed, the Church would have thereby ceased to exist, for Israel was not the whole Church. Indeed it was already separated therefrom by the schism of Jeroboam; and the kingdom of Judah was the better and principal part; and it is Israel, not Judah, of which Azarias predicted that it should be without priest and sacrifice. (p. 61)

Isaiah 1:4-6 Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. [5] Why will you still be smitten, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. [6] From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, . . .

. . . these are forms of speaking, and of vehemently detesting the vice of a people. And although the Prophets, pastors and preachers use these general modes of expression, we are not to understand them of each particular person, but only of a large proportion; as appears by the example of Elijah who complained that he was alone, notwithstanding that there were yet seven thousand faithful. [1 Ki 19:14, 18] S. Paul complains to the Philippians (2:21) that all seek their own interest and advantage; still at the end of the Epistle he acknowledges that there were many good people with him and with them. [4:10, 14-18] (p. 61)

Psalm 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. [cf. Ps 53:1-3; 143:2; Is 64:6-7; Rom 3:10-12]

Who knows not the complaint of David . . . — and who knows not on the other hand that there were many good people in his day? [see Ps 7:10; 11:2, 5, 7; 15:2-5; 18:23, 25-26; 24:4; 31:18; 32:11; 33:1; 34:17, 21; 36:10; 37:14, 16,  18, 21, 25, 28-32, 37, 39; 52:6; 55:22; 58:10-11; 64:4, 10; 68:3; 73:1; 75:10; 84:11; 92:12; 94:15; 97:11; 101:6; 107:42; 111:1; 112:2, 4-9; 118:20; 119:1, 10; 125:3-4; 140:13; 141:5; 142:7: “upright,” “good,” “righteous,” “blameless,” “pure”] These forms of speech are frequent, but we must not draw a particular conclusion about each individual. Further, — such things do not prove that faith had failed in the Church, nor that the Church was dead: for it does not follow that if a body is everywhere diseased it is therefore dead. Thus, without doubt, are to be understood all similar things which are found in the threats and rebukes of the Prophets. (pp. 61-62)

Likewise, Isaiah states: “all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment . . . There is no one that calls upon thy name,” (Is 64:6-7), yet makes frequent reference to the righteous (that word, or righteousness, appears 56 times in the book, in RSV) just as in the Psalms (1:17; 3:10; 26:7; 33:15; 38:3; 51:7; 56:1; 57:1-2, 12; 64:5). Isaiah 64:6-7 is typical Hebrew hyperbole. But Protestants, and especially Calvinists with their unbiblical notion of total depravity (not understanding the literary genre) interpret it and similar passages literally. In context, clearly it is not intended to be so. In the passage immediately before (Is 64:5), the prophet states: “Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness.”

Therefore, White’s claim of “OT defectibility”: is not at all unquestionable. It has to be seriously argued, with all of the relevant biblical data taken into account. White is the “master” of the selective Bible citation and corresponding argument based on this sort of half-truth.

I might note as well, Tim, that when you spent half of your closing statement discussing Papal infallibility, you made a few statements that were way out of line. First, you discussed Vigilius, when I never mentioned him.

White didn’t have to mention him for it to be relevant, if it is related to the topic. Where did White get this silly notion? Would he claim that he has never mentioned in his umpteen debates anything that his opponent didn’t mention first? It’s asinine. Vigilius clearly is relevant to the topic of papal infallibility, since his case is an objection to it that critics of the Catholic Church often bring up. But it’s a failed objection. See:

Pope Vigilius (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Was Pope Vigilius a Heretic? (Mark Hausam, Where Peter Is, 4-12-20)

Popes Vigilius and Honorius I (David J. Pollard, Worldwide Catholic Solidarity, 2-7-14)

But please keep this one thing in mind: I do not debate for “my side.” I realize that there will be “X” number of people at a debate who will agree with me, and there will be “Y” number of people who will agree with my opponent. Those folks are going to sit there and listen, and hopefully be blessed, but their minds are already made up. I debate for the person who is truly seeking answers-the best possible answers. I seek to convince the person who is going to check out everything I say, and critically analyze my arguments.

This is true, and my goal as well in my many written debates. Nice to end on a note of agreement!

*
***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Summary: I offer critical analysis of Baptist anti-Catholic James White’s post mortem of his 1996 debate with Catholic apologist Tim Staples on the subject of the rule of faith.

2020-05-23T15:39:13-04:00

Last updated on: May 23, 2020 at 3:39 pm   By

[book and purchase information]

***

[originally from 1-1-05]

***

My Introduction to the Series [12-29-04]

Part I: Binding Tradition [12-30-04]

Part II: Rabbit Trail Diversion [12-30-04]

Part III: Ad Hominem [12-31-04]

Part IV: I’m an Ignorant Convert? [12-31-04]

Part V: Deceiver Dave [1-1-05]

Part VI: Penance and Redemptive Suffering [1-2-05]

***

I know what many of you are thinking (scratching your head and shaking it in amazement): “this nonsense is a critique of Dave’s book???!!!” Yes, all of this personal attack is in the midst of a supposed “critique.” It is an exercise in intellectual self-destruction. The latest installment from Bishop “Dr.” [???] White is his “Quick Thought Regarding DA and Exegesis” (12-31-04), where he expresses his confusion and clueless noncomprehension of the replies I have been giving. Here are some highlights (his words in blue):

 . . . it seems to be pretty difficult to follow where he’s going.

. . . [he] simply assumes the Roman interpretation, ignores the need to do any exegesis at all, and after all that, does not avail himself of counter-exegesis when it is only two pages away from passages he cites in his book . . .

I’m confused as well by the fact that when I mentioned looking for an exegesis of Romans 4:6-8 (which seemingly is not forthcoming: I’m sure I’m not the only one who would like to see Mr. Armstrong’s exegesis of the text) in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism he accused me of changing the topic; but now I am told to look there for the positive exegesis of these passages from the Roman Catholic side. Which is it? Sorta hard to figure out, isn’t it? Indeed it is.

To which I reply: read my explanations again. It’ll come to you if you keep trying. Moving on, the next post White has blessed his readers with, is “Armstrong’s Reading List” (12-31-04), in response to my last post, where I had to prove that I had done some serious reading as a Protestant (!!!). This is an absolute classic gem of Bishop White’s finely honed art of personal attack, obfuscation, and sophistry. I shall cite it in its entirety:

Mr. Armstrong has provided a reading list on his blog.

[see the previous installment in this series for my lengthy list of books I have read or own]

No; I provided a list of books I had read, and which are in my library: heavily-used for research (because White had ridiculously denied that I was well-read as a Protestant).

In essence, this means that instead of blaming ignorance for his very shallow misrepresentations of non-Catholic theology and exegesis, we must now assert knowing deception.

At this point, White has descended into virtual self-parody and high comedy. Having seen that his contention of my “ignorance” was blown out of the water by a simple citation of the books I have read and/or own, he faced a dilemma: the choice was (1) “admit that Armstrong actually knows something about Protestantism, so that I have been lying about him all these years,” or (2) “deny that he is telling the truth about his reading and books.” He chose (1) (well, the first clause, anyway), and decided to switch to the tactic of accusing me of “knowing deception,” so as to “save face” (so he thinks).

So far, DA has been unable to provide even the slightest meaningful defense of his own published statements and their refutation.

No refutation has occurred (White has almost totally ignored the arguments in the book); what need of defense, then? So, mostly I have been clarifying simple logic and facts.

Which is really only marginally relevant to the real issue: hopefully, aside from demonstrating the exegetical bankruptcy of The Catholic Verses, . . .

Can I help it if White continually shows his inability to grasp the very nature and purpose of the book?

. . . answers are being given to all those observing and learning how to speak the truth to those who likewise would handle the Word from the vantage point of tradition rather than allowing it to speak for itself with its own voice.

Failing any logical argument, simply distort the other’s belief and assert your own radically circular position . . .

*****

Total words: White: (minus his citation of my words): 492
Total words: Armstrong: 377 (or 77% as many as White’s)

Grand Total thus far: White: 4762 / Armstrong: 2001 (or 42% as many as White’s words, or White outwriting Armstrong by a 2.38 to one margin)

My percentage of words over against White’s, compared to his “average” prediction: 0.04% (2001 actual, compared to a predicted 47,620 / 24 times less)

Note Bishop White’s statement on 12-29-04, in commencing this present discussion:

Now, of course, DA will respond with text files (liberally salted with URL’s) that will average 10x the word count of anything I have to say. That’s OK. I shall . . . let him take home the bragging rights to verbosity and bandwidth usage.

 

***

 

2020-05-23T15:40:05-04:00

Last updated on: May 23, 2020 at 3:40 pm   By

[book and purchase information]

***

[originally from 12-31-04]

***

My Introduction to the Series [12-29-04]

Part I: Binding Tradition [12-30-04]

Part II: Rabbit Trail Diversion [12-30-04]

Part III: Ad Hominem [12-31-04]

Part IV: I’m an Ignorant Convert? [12-31-04]

Part V: Deceiver Dave [1-1-05]

Part VI: Penance and Redemptive Suffering [1-2-05]

***

This is my reply to White’s article, “The Catholic Verses: 91 Reduced to 87 (Part I)” (12-30-04). White later removed it (without retraction or apology: needless to say), so I had to retrieve it at Internet Archive. I reproduce the whole thing, with his words in blue.

One other thing to remember before we move to Armstrong’s comments. Armstrong is identified as a “Protestant campus missionary” on the back of his book prior to his conversion. I do not know what that involved, but one thing that it probably did not involve was a great deal of study of the Puritans, reading of Edwards, or even of someone like Spurgeon.

Calvinist or Reformed theology is not the whole of Protestantism. It is White’s position which is ludicrous, since I have demonstrated that, by his very statements, C.S. Lewis, Philip Melanchthon, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John Wesley, even Martin Luther himself and St. Augustine, could not be Christians at all (according to him, they denied both sola fide and sola gratia)!!! See our initial 1995 debate, where I made this argument at length.

With intellectually vacant baggage like that (which he has never explained), it is beyond laughable for him to accuse me of ignorance and insufficient former “Protestant” status (as he has before), due to not reading, for example, the vehemently anti-Catholic Spurgeon (I did, however, have some of his books in my library).

So when we encounter his views of “suffering” in Protestantism, we need to remember that they are not coming from someone who was, in fact, much more than a layperson, and one who has given very little evidence, in fact, of having done a lot of serious reading in better non-Catholic literature to begin with. In fact, I would imagine Armstrong has done more reading in non-Catholic materials since his conversion than before. In any case, this lack of background will resound loudly in the comments he offers, to which we will turn in part 2.

White merely exhibits here his profound ignorance of my background, and usual condescension. He knows virtually nothing about this (and has forgotten whatever I did tell him). In fact, I read many many good books as a Protestant, including the following by Protestant authors (asterisked writers are Reformed / Calvinist, as far as I recall and know offhand):

Have-Read List:

Bernard Ramm (Baptist), Eastman, Walvoord, Michael Green, R.C. Sproul*, Stott, Van Impe, Hal Lindsey (6), C.S. Lewis (5), Josh McDowell (5), A.W. Tozer, Duane Gish (young earth creationist), Henry Morris (young earth creationist), Francis Schaeffer* (7), Harold Lindsell (2), Os Guinness, Roland Bainton — leading biographer of Luther (2), Tim LaHaye, A. Skevington Wood (biographer of Wesley), Ron Sider, Franky Schaeffer* (2), Merrill Tenney, James Montgomery Boice*, Neuhaus (when Lutheran), Lorraine Boettner* (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination), Dave Basinger (editor: Predestination and Free Will), Oswald Allis*, George Marsden* (2), J. Gresham Machen*, Howard Snyder, Kierkegaard (Lutheran philosopher) (3), John MacArthur*, J.I. Packer*, Billy Graham, Walter Martin.

I also listened to many tapes from Walter Martin, as I was involved in counter-cult research, and a ton of Christian talk radio, went to many many Bible studies and other Christian talks and conferences, etc. I was friends with three Baptist pastors: one of whom was a Reformed Baptist.

These are just people whose books I have read in their entirety (in my Protestant period). I have many many more Protestant books in my library to this day. I may not have read every page of these, but I used them a lot for research, then (1977-1990) and since my conversion (reading very large portions; oftentimes the lion’s share of the book):

General:

G.C. Berkouwer* (3), F.F. Bruce (11), D.A. Carson, Gerhard Maier, Ryken, Edersheim (2), R.D. Wilson, Wenham, Arndt, Ladd (2), Albright (biblical archaeologist) (5), Augustus Strong, Charles Hodge*, D. Guthrie, Archer (2), Woodbridge, Jack Rodgers, John Gerstner*, A.A. Hodge*, Warfield*, Dunn, Alford, Westcott, Oswald Chambers, Richard Foster, Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr (4), Goodspeed (2), Paul Maier (3), J.B. Lightfoot (5), Peter Berger (6), Os Guinness (3), Enroth (2), Walter Martin (2), Thomas Oden (4), Ankerberg, Billy Graham (4), Dobson (6), Bonhoeffer (13), John Wesley (6 about him), Jonathan Edwards* (two of primary material and one biography), Ronald Nash*, Carl F.H. Henry, R.C. Sproul* (2), LaHaye, Charles Colson* (9), Swindoll, Yancey (3), John Macarthur* (2), J.I. Packer* (2), Sire (2).

Church Historians (emphasizing the 16th century):

J.N.D. Kelly, Roland Bainton (4), Jaroslav Pelikan (4), Philip Schaff (4), Kenneth Scott Latourette (9), Dillenberger (3), Martin Marty (3), Oberman (2), McGrath (2), A.G. Dickens (2), Hillerbrand (2), Harbison (2), Pauck (2), Spitz (2), Henry Chadwick (2), Steinmetz, Rupp, Althaus, Owen Chadwick, Perry Miller (perhaps the leading scholar on Puritanism) and other works about Puritanism (8)

Primary and Secondary “Reformation” Literature:

Martin Luther: 13 volumes from Luther’s Works, [I have since obtained the entire 55-volume set] + 15 more primary works or collections, and 15-20 books about him.
John Calvin: 10 large primary works (Institutes, Letters, Commentaries, etc.), + four biographies.
Melanchthon: two collections of primary writings.
Zwingli/Bullinger: important primary writings.
Anabaptists: important primary writings.
Book of Concord (Lutheran).
Book of Common Prayer (Anglican).

Apologists and Philosophers:

C.S. Lewis (virtually every book by and about him — my favorite writer –, filling up an entire large bookshelf), Norman Geisler (7), William Lane Craig, J.W. Montgomery (5), Josh McDowell (7), Cornelius Van Til*, Bernard Ramm (3), Alvin Plantinga* (2), J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, Kierkegaard (18), Dorothy Sayers (2), Carnell (2), J.N.D. Anderson, Strobel (2).

Scholarly References:

25 or so versions of the Bible, A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures, + one additional), Vine (Expository Dictionary of NT Words), Vincent (Word Studies), Kittel, Thayer, Gesenius, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Nave’s Topical Bible, New Bible Dictionary, Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Eerdmans Bible Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary, New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Oden; 3 volumes), Dictionary of Christianity in America (IVP), Strong’s and Young’s Concordances, NRSV Concordance.

Suffering:

I have these Protestant books in my library concerning suffering (and I read the Lewis, Plantinga, and Silvester books):

The Problem of Pain (C.S. Lewis)
Arguing With God (Hugh Silvester)
God, Freedom, and Evil (Alvin Plantinga)
Theodicy (Leibniz)
Till Armageddon (Billy Graham)
Portraits of Perseverance: 100 Meditations From the Book of Job (Henry Gariepy)
Good Grief (Granger E. Westberg)
A Grief Observed (C.S. Lewis)
A Loving God and a Suffering World (JonTal Murphree)
God on the Witness Stand (Daniel T. Hans)
How to Find Comfort in the Bible (Herbert Lockyer).

My lengthy paper, “Christian Replies to the Argument From Evil (Free Will Defense): Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?”, draws heavily on the work of Leibniz, Lewis, and Plantinga.

I think, then, any reasonable person will lay to rest White’s asinine assertion that I have shown “very little evidence, in fact, of having done a lot of serious reading in better non-Catholic literature.” I don’t think this is a bad showing at all for a non-formally-trained layman who has had relatively little money to invest in books through the years (most of these having been obtained used). I may not spout my knowledge of all these writers all the time (like someone else I know, who also talks constantly about his vaunted — but questionable — educational credentials), but that doesn’t mean I have not incorporated what they taught me into my overall Christian worldview.

I owe these writers a tremendous debt and deep gratitude for my formation in Christian theology and apologetics. Who could be anti-Protestant with all these treasures to be had? But White manages to dismiss all the wonderful Catholic literature and scholarship, as of little or no value. My position is that both Christian traditions can learn a great deal from each other, in many ways. Those who take the exclusivistic, tunnel-vision approach greatly impoverish their learning and understanding of the totality of Christianity and the Lord’s working on this earth and through salvation history.

*****

I consider this a “footnote” so I won’t do the word count thing this time. This (necessary) aside illustrates, however, how difficult it is to reply with less words than one’s opponent, when said opponent is lying through his teeth about one. To say that I have shown “very little evidence, in fact, of having done a lot of serious reading in better non-Catholic literature,” takes all of 18 words. Lies are like that. How can you disprove this in less than 18 words? To refute the ludicrous charge clearly takes many more words (and effort; I’ve just blown a few hours). In this case, I had to list the books I read or have partially read and used for study and research. If White will stop the needless, groundless personal attacks and ignorant stupidities like this, maybe we can get back to his compelling critique that scarcely even interacts at all with what it purportedly critiques! :-)

***

2020-05-23T15:40:23-04:00

Last updated on: May 23, 2020 at 3:40 pm   By

[book and purchase information]

***

[originally from 12-31-04]

***

My Introduction to the Series [12-29-04]

Part I: Binding Tradition [12-30-04]

Part II: Rabbit Trail Diversion [12-30-04]

Part III: Ad Hominem [12-31-04]

Part IV: I’m an Ignorant Convert? [12-31-04]

Part V: Deceiver Dave [1-1-05]

Part VI: Penance and Redemptive Suffering [1-2-05]

***

This is my reply to White’s article, “Interesting Replies” (12-30-04). He later removed it (of course without any retraction or apology), so I linked to the archived version. His words will be in blue. I reproduce his entire post.

Interesting Replies

DA has replied to my first comments on his book [see previous installment]. They were…predictable. Armstrong says his book is not “primarily” exegetical. Quite true. It is not secondarily exegetical. It is not exegetical in a tertiary manner. It simply isn’t exegetical at all.

It does contain some exegesis, but here’s the heart of my purpose (from my Introduction):

. . . only rarely do they seriously engage the biblical texts utilized by Catholics to support their positions . . . . critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, over-polemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: 95 biblical passages . . . ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations . . . (pp. xii-xiv)

But, that’s the whole point. The book pretends to “confound” Protestants with biblical passages, remember? I did not choose the title, Mr. Armstrong did.

Technically, I am not trying to “confound” anyone. It is the Bible which gives Protestants difficulty. I’m merely documenting exegetical bankruptcy, confusion, or irrationality.

And the only way to do that is to provide a meaningful interpretation of those passages.

That’s logically distinct from critiquing Protestant exegesis. Biblical evidence for Catholicism is dealt with in my first two books.

And unless Mr. Armstrong is willing to just come out and say, “Hey, Rome tells me what these passages mean, I can’t even begin to handle the biblical text myself,” then some kind of argument is going to have be offered from the text itself.

That is a separate project. Catholic exegetes are no more bound to “official” interpretation of verses than Protestants. See: The Freedom of the Catholic Biblical Exegete / Interpreter + Bible Passages that the Church has Definitively Interpreted [9-14-03].

And what I’m demonstrating is that when most “Dave Armstrong” level RC apologists . . .

Who else would be in this “level”?

 . . . quote a passage, they honestly have no idea what the passage is actually saying in its native context. They are eisegetically misusing the text, as I am documenting in regards to Armstrong. And that’s the whole point of this exercise.

Why respond to silly, false accusations?

Armstrong also informs us that he doesn’t read my books. That’s OK. If he wishes to remain ignorant of the exegetical arguments presented against his position, I have no reason to encourage him to do otherwise.

This book is about failed Protestant attempts to refute Catholic biblical prooftexts. White has yet to deal with those.

It is just odd to me that someone would wish to put arguments into print that have already, and recently, been refuted. ignoratio elenchi.

White’s arguments are not the sum and essence of Protestant exegesis. He has quite the inflated view of his own importance.

When I invited Armstrong to provide us with a meaningful, contextual examination of Romans 4:6-8, his response was classic:

DA [his citing my words]: “Why should I go off on White’s rabbit trail, after he has systematically ignored my critiques of his material for almost ten years? If he actually tries to interact with some of mine, then he will find me much more willing to go off on tangents of his own choosing. But I won’t bow to either (1) a double standard, or (2) diversion tactics to avoid dealing with the topic at hand (which he himself chose, in the present case, oddly enough).”

Well, OK. I guess we will be left to wonder if, in fact, Dave Armstrong can exegete that passage or not.

Wonder away. It’s off-topic. Period.

Maybe someone else can ask and not get that kind of response.

When it is the topic, sure!

But again, I just state the obvious: the author of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism and The Catholic Verses seems, anyway, by his initial responses, to be exceptionally unwilling to engage in exegesis of the text of Scripture. I don’t know, maybe that strikes someone else as odd?

White’s continual dense inability (or unwillingness) to offer a logical and coherent critique is what amazes me.

*****

Total words: White: 423
Total words: Armstrong: 271 (or 64% as many as White’s)
Grand Total thus far: White: 4270 / Armstrong: 1624 (or 38% as many as White’s words, or White outwriting Armstrong by a 2.63 to one margin)

My percentage of words over against White’s, compared to his “average” prediction: 0.04% (1624 actual, compared to a predicted 42,700 / 26 times less)

Note Bishop White’s statement on 12-29-04, in commencing this present discussion:

Now, of course, DA will respond with text files (liberally salted with URL’s) that will average 10x the word count of anything I have to say. That’s OK. I shall . . . let him take home the bragging rights to verbosity and bandwidth usage.

***

 

2020-05-23T15:40:42-04:00

Last updated on: May 23, 2020 at 3:40 pm   By

[book and purchase information]

***

[originally from 12-30-04]

***

My Introduction to the Series [12-29-04]

Part I: Binding Tradition [12-30-04]

Part II: Rabbit Trail Diversion [12-30-04]

Part III: Ad Hominem [12-31-04]

Part IV: I’m an Ignorant Convert? [12-31-04]

Part V: Deceiver Dave [1-1-05]

Part VI: Penance and Redemptive Suffering [1-2-05]

***

This is my reply to White’s article, “The Protestant Verses: Can Dave Armstrong Exegete This Passage?” (12-30-04). White’s words will be in blue.

I’d like to ask Dave Armstrong to provide a biblically solid, textually grounded, linguistically accurate, contextually sound interpretation of Romans 4:6-8:

Romans 4:6-8 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD will not impute sin.”

I scanned through The Catholic Verses and couldn’t find a reference to this passage (I may have missed it);

Obviously, then, it has nothing to do with any argument in my book!

I looked at the Scripture index to A Biblical Defense of Catholicism and it is not listed.

That being another book, it obviously has nothing to do with a critique of my present book, either . . .

I tried googling Armstrong’s blog and website, but got no hits on various ways of listing the passage. If Armstrong has already written something that fits this request, I will be glad to look at it upon referral. But, failing that, I would simply ask: “Who is the blessed man of Romans 4:6-8 in Roman Catholic theology?”

Why should I go off on White’s rabbit trail, after he has systematically ignored my critiques of his material for almost ten years? If he actually tries to interact with some of mine, then he will find me much more willing to go off on tangents of his own choosing. But I won’t bow to either (1) a double standard, or (2) diversion tactics to avoid dealing with the topic at hand (which he himself chose, in the present case, oddly enough).

I would assume Armstrong possesses a copy of The God Who Justifies . . .

He assumes wrongly. I haven’t read any of his books. The only ones I even have are those he sent me for free back in 1995 (thanks again, James!), and one (The Roman Catholic Controversy) that I found for a quarter at a used book sale (I’m willing to pay that much for anti-Catholic material; if it was a dollar, though, I would have thought twice).

(though it is not referred to in his new book, which is especially interesting regarding the 24 page chapter on James 2:14-24 that Armstrong neglects in his book),

Again, White strangely assumes that I always have to deal with his arguments, when my purpose was mainly to examine historic Protestant commentary, from major figures in its history (or does White claim to be that?).

[Note from 3-9-17: I later (on 10-9-13) refuted that chapter in his book. See: Reply to James White’s Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies. White utterly ignored it, as is his wont almost always with me. At best, he might attempt a feeble “argument” for a paragraph or two, but then will ignore any counter-reply. He’s been doing this now with me for over 21 years]

but should he not, allow me to reproduce the exegesis I offered of this section. I would be very interested in a response-in-kind from Mr. Armstrong. (Please forgive any formatting issues, the lack of italics, and of the footnotes that are in the original. Please refer to the published work for those details):

See my third response previous to this one. I am curious why White is suddenly so interested in my opinions, though, since he has always argued (and still in our previous round) that they have no substance whatsoever.

[deleted his entire citation, due to its being off-topic]

My book is about how Protestants rationalize, special plead, avoid, obfuscate, etc. regarding biblical verses which (from our perspective) suggest some distinctive in Catholic theology. White’s aim above, on the other hand, is to exegete a passage which he considers a strong proof text for Protestantism. Apples and oranges. Perhaps a future book of mine can be devoted to showing how Protestant proof texts are utterly inadequate and able to be sufficiently refuted from a Catholic point of view and dismissed (sounds like a fun project to me).

But that time is not now, in the context of the ongoing critique of my book, and also given White’s past utter contempt and ignoring of my arguments. I’ve always refused to play this game of topic-switching (with White and everyone else). I would do that even if we had the most cordial of relationships and he had answered my past writings and challenges to him. And that is because I maintain strong principles of how to go about a good dialogue properly and in an orderly, constructive fashion.

White, in fact, follows very similar principles himself. In a recent blog post (“Regarding Theological Dialogues” [12-29-04]), he stated that one must take one’s time with serious theological topics, and not rush things. This is very good (nice to agree with White occasionally). Likewise, my principle and determination here is to not go off the previous topic in order to immediately treat some entirely different subject. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the worthiness and importance or value of the particular discussion itself.

In fact, I show much respect towards it by maintaining this principle, because I am saying that serious topics ought to be considered one at a time, carefully and deliberately. And that can’t be done by rushing off on some rabbit trail, because the opponent thinks he has a slam dunk (while double dribbling and missing all his shots in the present “refutation / dialogue” that he seeks to avoid for the moment with a diversion). So, nice try . . .

*****

Total words: White: 2910
Total words: Armstrong: 630 (or 22% as many as White’s)

Note White’s statement on 12-29-04, in commencing this present discussion: “Now, of course, DA will respond with text files (liberally salted with URL’s) that will average 10x the word count of anything I have to say. That’s OK. I shall . . . let him take home the bragging rights to verbosity and bandwidth usage.”

***

2019-11-07T15:06:34-04:00

Last updated on: November 7, 2019 at 3:06 pm   By

. . . Observed in the Views of John of Damascus (aka John Damascene: c. 676-749)

[book and purchase information]

“Turretinfan”: a rabid anti-Catholic just as James White is, posted the following article on James White’s blog: “Did Hippo, Carthage, or Rome’s Bishop Settle the Canon?” (8-25-09). It has a number of glaring falsehoods. We can assume that James White endorses his thinking, since he hosted this article. Turretinfan’s words will be in blue.

***

Some Roman Catholics are under the false impression that the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and/or Carthage (A.D. 397) authoritatively settled the canon of Scripture for the church – either directly or by endorsement by one or more Roman bishops. To be deep in history, however, is to cease to be so naive.

Right. Well, it ain’t just us saying this, but reputable Protestant scholarship as well:

Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the councils (in 393 and 397) of Hippo and Carthage (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405. He also reiterated this in 414. Carthage and Hippo were preceded by a Roman Council (382) of identical opinion, and were further ratified by Pope Gelasius I in 495, as well as the 6th Council of Carthage in 419.

The Protestant reference work, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd edition, edited by F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1983, 232) states:

    A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the ‘Gelasian Decree’ because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.

The list from 382 — which The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church deemed as “identical with the list given at Trent” includes: Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Baruch was included as part of Jeremiah, as in St. Athanasius’ list of 15 years previously. This is indeed identical with the Tridentine list, and comprises the seven “extra” deuterocanonical books in Catholic Bibles which Protestants reject from the canon as “apocryphal.” Nevertheless, there they are in the Council of 382.

The Council of Carthage accepted the same list, as detailed by Brooke Foss Westcott (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan Baker Book House, 1980, reprinted from 6th edition of 1889, 440).

How is that for being “deep in history”?

Turretinfan then notes that John of Damascus accepted the 27 New Testament books but also included the epistles of Clement (thus, that there was supposedly “not a “catholic” (universal) canon of the New Testament even as late as the 8th century”). But in Catholic teaching, individual Church fathers are not infallible.

This is why we have always appealed to councils and papal decrees, to determine what was and is officially held by the Church. Since the biblical canon is never listed in the Bible, this is truly a matter solely for the Church and apostolic tradition (which is a perpetual serious internal difficulty and conundrum for Protestants).

Turretinfan then sums up John of Damascus’ view of the Old Testament canon:

You will notice that this is just the same (if we understand his “two books of Esdra” to refer to Ezra and Nehemiah, which seems probable and if we further assume that Lamentations is viewed as a part of Jeremiah, which is also probable) as our canon of the Old Testament, including the relegation of Wisdom and Sirach to a lesser status (useful, but not inspired).

In other words, he tries to force-fit John of Damascus’ canonical views into the Protestant model (which removed seven books from Scripture: the deuterocanon). Nice try, but no cigar. Turretinfan cites An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith from John of Damascus. In the same work, the Church father cites 2 Maccabees with regard to the characteristics of God, and cites Baruch and Wisdom as “Scripture”:

He is all-seeing [2 Maccabees 10:5]: for nothing can escape Him, and over all He keepeth watch. (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, I, 9; NPNF2-9)

[I]t is to be observed that the holy Scripture often uses the past tense instead of the future, as for example here: Thereafter He was seen upon the earth and dwelt among men. [Baruch 3:38] (Ibid., IV, 6; NPNF2-9)

The divine Scripture likewise saith that the souls of the just are in God’s hand [Wisdom 3:1] and death cannot lay hold of them. (Ibid., IV, 17; NPNF2-9)

Turretinfan cites the same work again, demonstrating that “John of Damascus (iconophile though he may have been) shares a very high view of Scripture.” Yes, of course he did, because all of the fathers did. Then he concludes:

Scriptures tell us what to believe and how to live. I would be very interested if someone wanted to try to find any comparable statement by John Damascene on oral tradition or (with still lower probability) the interpretative tradition of “the church.”

What I find interesting is that Turretinfan (a lawyer and no dummy: whatever else are his numerous faults in research and theology), seems unable to look up himself, what John of Damascus thought of tradition and the authority of the Catholic Church. He has to appeal to others to “try to find” these elements. This is truly pathetic, and in this way, he is ultra-typical of anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists, seeking to defend sola Scriptura.

They will cite only what a Church father says about Holy Scripture, and then ignore what the same father says about apostolic tradition and Church authority and apostolic succession. This is selective to the point of being either outright deceptive or extraordinarily incompetent. I’ve noted this glaring and recurring fault many many times through the years. A half-truth is little better than a lie.

For my part, I had little trouble at all locating the requested passages in John of Damascus (it was all freely available online), in compiling my book, The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers:

Neither can one expression [of a Church father] overturn the tradition of the whole Church which is spread throughout the world. (Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images, I; translated by Mary H. Allies, London: Thomas Baker, 1898)

It is not in writing only that they have bequeathed to us the tradition of the Church, but also in certain unwritten examples. . . . Both are of equal value for the soul’s growth. No one will dispute this who has considered even a little the discipline of the Church. For if we neglect unwritten customs, as not having much weight we bury in oblivion the most pertinent facts connected with the Gospel. These are the great Basil’s words. How do we know the Holy place of Calvary, or the Holy Sepulchre? Does it not rest on a tradition handed down from father to son? It is written that our Lord was crucified on Calvary, and buried in a tomb, which Joseph hewed out of the rock; (Mt. 27.60) but it is unwritten tradition which identifies these spots, and does more things of the same kind. Whence come the three immersions at baptism, praying with face turned towards the east, and the tradition of the mysteries? Hence St Paul says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned either by word, or by our epistle.” (II Thess. 2.15) As, then, so much has been handed down in the Church, and is observed down to the present day, why disparage images? (Ibid., I)

We do not change the boundaries marked out by our fathers (Prov. 22.28): we keep the tradition we have received. If we begin to lay down the law to the Church, even in the smallest thing, the whole edifice will fall to the ground in no short time. (Ibid., II)

Many things, therefore, being handed down to the Church by unwritten tradition and kept up to the present day, why do you speak slightingly of images? The Manicheans followed a gospel according to Thomas, and you will follow that of Leo. I do not admit an emperor’s tyrannical action in domineering over the Church. The emperor has not received the power to bind and loose. I know of the Emperor Valens, a Christian in name, who persecuted the true faith, Zeno and Anastasius, Heraclius and Constantine of Sicily, and Bardaniskus, called Philip. I am not to be persuaded that the Church is set in order by imperial edicts, but by patristic traditions, written and unwritten. As the written Gospel has been preached in the whole world, so has it been an unwritten tradition in the whole world to represent in image Christ, the incarnate God, and the saints, to adore the Cross, and to pray towards the east. (Ibid., II)

Listen to me, people of all nations, men, women, and children, all of you who bear the Christian name: If any one preach to you something contrary to what the Catholic Church has received from the holy apostles and fathers and councils, and has kept down to the present day, do not heed him. Do not receive the serpent’s counsel, as Eve did, to whom it was death. If an angel or an emperor teaches you anything contrary to what you have received, shut your ears. I have refrained so far from saying, as the holy apostle said, “Let him be anathema,” (Gal. 1.8) in the hope of amendment. (Ibid., II)

So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten. . . . But this [veneration of images] is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things. . . . Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle. [2 Thess 2:15] And to the Corinthians he writes, Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you.” [1 Cor 11:2] (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV, 12 and 16; NPNF2-9)

I will be glad to assist Turretinfan or James White or any other anti-Catholic (or ecumenical) Protestant anytime in the future if they have difficulty with indices, the alphabet, word-searches, Google, online books, or related aspects, in locating what a particular Church father believed on a given “Catholic” (or “Romish”) topic. Glad to be of service.

In the meantime, I highly recommend that they cease and desist in their academically dishonest method of extremely selective (virtually, cynical) citation, to the exclusion of other “Catholic” related passages in the same Church father.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

*

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers. Thanks! See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***

 

2017-01-12T13:46:37-04:00

Last updated on: January 12, 2017 at 1:46 pm   By

whitecartoon (640)

[May-June 1996. James White is the most well-known and influential anti-Catholic apologist. He is a Reformed Baptist elder. I find this exchange utterly remarkable — even by White’s rock-bottom standards of discourse –, in that he takes the greatest pains to never ever defend the very thing that he asserted. In this way, the “dialogue” might be read as high comedy. But there are very important issues discussed here. Back in those days: now over 20 years ago, White at least made some attempt to interact with me. Shortly afterwards, he adopted the immediately dismissive / mocking tone that he has taken with me ever since. White’s words will be in blue. I have compiled a 395-page book of debates with White]

*****

This took place on Mr. White’s e-mail “sola Scriptura list” (by this time I was online, but didn’t yet have a website), that he actually invited me to. It included Protestants, Catholics, and even a few Orthodox. Here we clearly observe White’s trademark evasiveness when I ask him “hard questions.”

It’s a pattern and tactic that he has perpetually followed all through the years with me. His other overwhelming tendency is rank insults. But there were still relatively few of those at this early stage of the game: only relentless evasion and obfuscation.

* * * * *

There would be no criticism if the Roman Catholic side was not using the argument “sola scriptura doesn’t work because sola scriptura hasn’t brought about monolithic theological agreement on all issues.” Dave Armstrong has made that argument in posts here,

Maybe you have me confused with one of the other two Daves in the group, since, to my recollection, I have never made such an argument. What I said was that perspicuity fails as a thought-system because it presupposes possible (and actual) agreement among Protestants, at least on the so-called “central” issues, based on recourse to the Bible alone. This is clearly false, and a pipe-dream. My point is: “what criteria of falsifiability will suffice to challenge the Protestant notion of perspicuity, given the fact of 24,000 sects?” In the opinion of Catholics, this sad state of affairs is more than enough to put the lie to perspicuity, as formulated by Luther, Calvin, and current-day evangelical scholars such as R. C. Sproul.

Now don’t try to tell us that “this is not how perspicuity is defined,” etc. I’ve heard it 1000 times if I’ve heard it once that Protestants agree on the central issues, and that this “fact” supposedly salvages perspicuity and sola Scriptura. But I can’t find any Protestant willing to face this ridiculous division squarely.

I believe it is vitally important to believe in what the Apostles taught. Which, of course, is exactly why I cannot embrace the teachings of Rome. In fact, it is fidelity to the apostolic message that is the strongest argument against the innovations of Rome over time, Dave.

Why not boldly tell us, then, James, precisely what “the Apostles taught”? In particular, I am curious as to their teaching in those areas where Protestants can’t bring themselves to agree with each other; for example:

    • 1.TULIP

    • 2. Baptism

    • 3. The Eucharist

    • 4. Church Government

    • 5. Regeneration

    • 6. Sanctification

    • 7. The Place of Tradition

    • 8. Women Clergy

    • 9. Divorce

    • 10. Feminism

    • 11. Abortion

    • 12. The Utility of Reason

    • 13. Natural Theology

    • 14. The Charismatic Gifts

    • 15. Alcohol

    • 16. Sabbatarianism

    • 17. Whether Catholics are Christians

    • 18. Civil Disobedience

I’ve heard recently that even John Stott and F. F. Bruce have questioned the existence of eternal hellfire. And they’re supposed to be “evangelicals”?! How can you have “fidelity” to an “apostolic message” if you can’t even define what it is? And if you either don’t know, or are reluctant to spell it out here, then you illustrate my point better than I could myself: either your case collapses due to internal inconsistency, or because of the chaos of Protestant sectarianism, which makes any such delineation of “orthodoxy” impossible according to your own first principles; or if theoretically possible, certainly unenforceable.

I think this is at least as compelling as the “infinite regress” scenario, with regard to infallibility, which would wipe out all authority and/or certainty, whether from a Protestant or Catholic (or Orthodox) perspective. After all, one must exercise some faith, somewhere along the line, as I think all here would agree. When Catholics accept infallibility of popes and councils, this is an implicit faith in our Lord, Whom we believe protects same from error.

Absent some response to this, Protestants are simply engaging in fantasy, pipe-dreams, and games, in violation of biblical, divine injunctions such as, “. . . teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20) — not just the mythical “central,” “primary,” “essential” doctrines, and “who cares whether we agree on the peripherals.” Get real (and biblical)! Eagerly awaiting your response (nothing fancy required, just a laundry list) to my — as of yet – unanswered challenge.

That’s pretty easy, Dave. I have 27 books filled with their teaching. Where shall we start? I guess we could start with the apostolic teaching that we are justified by faith and so have peace with God (Romans 5:1). That’s a wonderful thing to know, isn’t it?

It certainly is. And we agree in large part. But when you guys corrupt the traditional understanding into sola fide, we must part ways. Why, though, if sola fide is true, did “scarcely anyone” teach it from Paul to Luther, according to Norman Geisler, in his latest book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (p. 502)? Very strange, and too bizarre and implausible for me.

The Apostles also taught that Jesus Christ was and is fully deity (Colossians 2:9), and that’s really important, too!

Absolutely. But you guys got this doctrine from us, so big wow!

Are you saying that the Bible is insufficient to answer these questions? That God’s Word is so unclear, so confused, so ambiguous, that these issues cannot be determined by a careful and honest examination of the Bible?

It’s irrelevant what I think, because I’m asking you. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is clear, sufficient, and perspicuous. Okay, now, please tell me what it teaches on these issues! Does anyone not understand my argumentation here? Is it that complicated? This is the essence of my whole argument in this vein. If we grant your perspicuity, then tell us these doctrines that are so clear. Yet you guys want to either run or cry foul when we hold you to your own principles!

Why not throw in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the person of the Holy Spirit, as most do when they decide to start going after the Bible?

We agree on these three doctrines, so they are irrelevant to the discussion. I’m asking for clarification on the issues which divide Protestants, for we regard this division as a disproof of perspicuity. No one’s “going after the Bible.” I for one have a whole wall full of 25+ Bible versions, and all sorts of Bible reference works. I don’t need to defend my love for the Bible (nor does the Catholic Church, for that matter). I’m saying: be true to your own principles, and don’t be ashamed of them. Either demonstrate this abstract, ethereal notion of perspicuity concretely and practically, or cease using it if it has no content, and if it is only useful as a content-less slogan to bash Catholics with.

People who call themselves Protestants disagree on every point above; people who call themselves Roman Catholics disagree on every point above, too. So what?

This is your typical evasion, which I severely critiqued in a related post. I don’t care about “people who call themselves [X, Y, Z].” One can only go by the official teachings of any given group. You don’t go seek out a backslidden Mormon in a bar in Salt Lake City to determine the beliefs of Mormons! You go to Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and The Book of Mormon. This is utterly obvious. Yet when it comes to us, you want to preserve your “argument from Catholic liberals,” since it is apparently the only “reply” you have to a critique of your views. Is it a proper answer if an atheist, asked why he doesn’t believe in God, says, “Well you theists can’t agree whether God is a singular Being or a Trinity, so there!”? We are critiquing your position. Besides, we have already answered your tired objections on this point many times (myself at least five times, and David Palm, a few more). But you guys keep wanting to avoid my question as to the precise nature of this “apostolic message” to which you refer [anti-Catholic apologist Eric Svendsen also attempted some non-“replies”]. Again, I’m just holding you to your own words. If you would rather admit that your own phrases have neither definition nor doctrinal or rational content, that would be one way (albeit not a very impressive one) out of your felt dilemma.

First, the apostolic message is far more narrow than you’d like to make it. The apostles did not address every single issue there is to address. They did not address the issue of genetic engineering, for example. Nor did they discuss nuclear energy. Does that make the Bible “insufficient”?

Another fruitless exercise in evasion: “if you don’t have an answer, then hopelessly confuse the issue by introducing non sequiturs.” This is no answer at all. Are you going to seriously maintain (with a straight face) that the Apostles (in the Bible) did not address issues on my list such as: baptism, the Eucharist, church government, regeneration, sanctification, tradition, or the spiritual gifts? How ridiculous! Why don’t you select just five of this present list of items out of my entire list of 18 in which Protestants differ, and tell me what the Apostles taught, so I can know what you know?

Only if you make “sufficient” a standard that is absurd and beyond reason.

What’s absurd? I’m simply asking you to define what you mean by “apostolic message.” How is that at all “beyond reason”? Pure obfuscation . . .

Imparting exhaustive knowledge of all things is not one of the tasks of the Bible.

More obscurantism, designed to avoid (unsuccessfully) the horns of my dilemma.

I hope all on the list realize what is being said here. A person with the entire NT in his hand cannot know what the apostolic message was unless he likewise has Roman “tradition” alongside! Imagine it! Those poor Roman Christians. From about A.D. 55 until around A.D. 140 they could not have demonstrated fidelity to the apostolic message! Why not? Because they didn’t have access to Roman Catholic tradition (there was no monarchial episcopate in Rome until the latter period, and hence no “Pope”). Does that make any sense? Of course not.

All the more reason for you to tell us what this mysterious “apostolic message” is. According to this curious illogic, one can “know” what the message is, without the Catholic Church, but they can’t tell me what it is, what it consists of!

I am (hauntingly) reminded of my JW [Jehovah’s Witnesses] friends who consistently point to the monolithic theology of the Watchtower Society as evidence of their “truthfulness.”

Nice try. Here is a prime example of sophistry. Note how, again, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Rather than answer a simple question of mine, directly related to his own statement, he prefers to compare the Catholic Church to an Arian heresy (which happens to be my own area of expertise, by the way). Even so, if James will answer my question, I’ll be happy to demonstrate how Catholicism is infinitely more credible than JW’s.

When Catholics accept infallibility of popes and councils, this is an implicit faith in our Lord, Whom we believe protects same from error.

I wish it were faith in Christ the Lord;

It is, James. Did you not read my last sentence? Perhaps, like John MacArthur, you would like to contend that us poor, ignorant Catholics worship a different Christ, too?

Christ is the way, truth, and life, and hence fidelity to Him would cause one to put truth and consistency in the forefront of the examination.

What does this have to do with anything? Consistency is primarily what I’m calling for, and I’m asking you what the truth is, but you don’t want to tell me! There are delicious ironies here to savor!

Yet, any honest examination of councils and Popes demonstrates that they have often contradicted each other. But, the committed Roman Catholic finds a way around these contradictions, not because they are not really contradictions, but because of the pre-existing commitment to the Papacy and the related institutions.

Straying. What is this, a replay of the Diet of Worms or something? I was chided for entering in articles which were on the general subject, so how can I answer here broad swipes at my Church such as these?

I get the real feeling, Dave, that you well know that your questions have been and will be answered,

If they have, I’ve missed it. Please, somebody send me that post. If they “will” be answered, when, and by whom, I wonder? But I don’t “know” one way or the other, despite your “real feeling.”

but that isn’t going to stop you from using such language in the future in another forum, to be sure.

No, you’re right, not till I get an answer. Sure, the language was exaggerated, but such excesses result from the frustration of repeatedly not receiving a simple answer to a simple-enough question.

You may wish to say that you “know” “everything” Jesus taught His disciples. Do you really, Dave?

No. Do you wish to say this?

Are you prepared to defend the thesis that Jesus taught the disciples the Immaculate Conception, predicted the Bodily Assumption, and that Peter really did believe in Papal Infallibility? I challenge any Roman Catholic apologist on this list: you can’t defend those doctrines from the Fathers. Those doctrines are not a part of the patristic literature. I’ll be glad to demonstrate that.

Answer my question, and we Catholics will be glad to deal with yours, but I would say that it would be more profitable to do that in a whole ‘nother discussion group, so as not to cloud the issues which will take a considerable amount of time to work through as it is.

[this list was supposed to be devoted to sola Scriptura and related issues of Tradition, after all, so the reader will note that I sought to stay on topic, while James wished to go all over the ballpark, in his evasions]

Eagerly awaiting your response (nothing fancy required, just a laundry list) to my — as of yet — unanswered challenge,

What challenge is that, Dave?

Please read the first sentence above, after the introductory line. That explains it! You didn’t know what I was asking for! Now that you know it, surely there is an answer, no? Just a list of the true apostolic teachings on baptism, etc. . . .

Why don’t you select just five of this present list of items out of my entire list of 18 in which Protestants differ, and tell me what the Apostles taught, so I can know what you know?

Your argument won’t get you anywhere, Dave (and your style is certainly not going to win you any points with the more serious of our readers, either).

Is that why no one is answering? My style? Maybe I’ll try a boring, staid approach, then.

You well know what the Bible teaches on these topics.

James, James! This is the whole point! We know, but you guys can’t figure it out. Hence your reluctance to answer (I can think of no better reason). You claim busy-ness, which plagues us all, but you still have time to write this and evade my question again. A short answer to my question surely wouldn’t put you out.

Problem is, you don’t accept that.

How silly is this? I “don’t accept” what the Bible teaches on these points, but you don’t have the courtesy to explain to me just what it is that it teaches on them. Such a view is below contempt, and should cause you to blush with shame.

Instead, you accept another authority that tells you something different.

Sheer goofiness. Different than what? Again, if I don’t have your answer, what do you expect me to believe? If this isn’t The Emperor’s Clothes, I don’t know what is.

Tell us all again, Dave: are you saying the Bible is insufficient to answer these questions? Are you saying we can’t know what the Bible teaches about tradition, for example? That a serious exegesis of relevant texts can’t provide us with any level of certainty or knowledge? Is that what you really want to say to this group, Dave?

Quadruple “no” (that’s no no no no). Now, how ’bout your equally forthright answer to me?

We all have our traditions. In point of fact, all of our traditions are fallible outside of Scripture. Those of us who recognize the fallibility of our traditions will test those traditions by Scripture. I know that’s what I do, anyway. And, thankfully, the Scriptures are more than capable of providing the means of testing those traditions.

Yes, but since you guys can’t agree with the interpretation of Scripture, of what practical use is an infallible Bible? If the interpretation is fallible and contradictory, then — practically speaking — the Bible in effect is no more infallible than its differing interpretations. But, if you’re a Protestant, this is apparently of no consequence. Relativism is smuggled in under the aegis of private judgment and so-called “tolerance.” This is all old news, but maybe if we repeat it enough times it will start sinking in.

But the simple fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church of 400 AD is not the Roman Catholic Church of 1996.

Correct. There is a 1596-year difference, and living bodies grow quite a bit in that great time-span. But this does not make them different organisms. The city of Jerusalem is a lot different now than in 400, but it is still Jerusalem, is it not? I’m a lot different than I was in 1966, but I’m still me! This aspect involves development of doctrine. One thing we know for sure: this “Catholic Church” of 400 (which was also very much centered at Rome) is certainly not organically connected to the current-day chaos of Protestant sectarianism.

Is it really true that there are some on this list who believe that without outside “tradition” or revelation, that we cannot, in fact, demonstrate the deity of Jesus Christ?

Not likely, James. If you can find even one, I’ll eat my (free) copy of The Fatal Flaw [one of James’ anti-Catholic books]. That said, I would point out, nevertheless, that, e.g., proponents of the heresies of Monophysitism (i.e., that Christ had one Nature, not two) and Monothelitism (i.e., that Christ had one will, not two) in particular, argued from Scripture alone and thought that Rome and the other orthodox churches were adding traditions of men to Scripture. So, when you get down to fine points, there is indeed a need for some authoritative pronouncements, as Church history itself clearly and unarguably affirms. Or is it your position that the pronouncements of Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon on matters of the Trinity were altogether irrelevant and unnecessary? Something may indeed be quite clear (which I maintain is the case for many, many doctrines — it is the premise of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, for Pete’s sake), but there will arise people who manage to distort it, and so a conciliar definition and clarification becomes necessary in a practical, very “human” sense.

Surely we’ve all tangled with a [Jehovah’s] Witness or two over the years. Am I to understand it that in the final analysis those who deny sola scriptura ended such conversations with the anathema of the infallible interpreter? Was the final argument “It means this because the bishop of Rome says so?”

Of course not. The response would be (at least in my case), if any appeal to tradition be made, rather: “All of the predominant Christian traditions for 2000 years have agreed that Jesus is the God-Man, whereas your belief originates from a late heresy called Arianism.” Personally, for 15 years now I’ve followed in my own evangelism and apologetics a guideline from Paul: “be all things to all people.” In this instance, your polemical caricature of how a Catholic would approach such a situation is absurd, and no one I know would ever use it. But historically speaking, yes, orthodoxy was — in the final analysis — determined by the Roman position, again and again, and again. I detail this in my brief history of early heresies in my chapter on the papacy, lest anyone doubt this, and many non-Catholic scholars such as Jaroslav Pelikan freely concur with this judgment.

We see the same dynamic, e.g., with regard to eastern schisms. There were five major ones prior to 1054 (over Arianism, St. John Chrysostom, the Acacian schism, Monothelitism, and Iconoclasm), and in every case, Rome was on the right side, according to today’s Eastern Orthodoxy. Note that these are simple, unadorned facts of history — they leave little room for differing interpretation, but they sure cast doubt on the tendency of certain members of a Church with such a history declaring it the historical repository of “orthodoxy” over against the Catholic Church.

When it comes to doctrines such as baptism, all of a sudden the Protestant must appeal to tradition, but not universal Christian tradition (prior to 1517). Rather, he resorts to a mere denominational tradition. Thus James White must appeal to a late tradition of non-regenerative adult baptism, which originated 15 centuries after Christ. He freely admits (for once) that practically all the fathers erred on this doctrine, whereas the Anabaptists and himself got it right. And so, accordingly, he goes to the Scripture and finds his “proof texts.”

But even his master Calvin disagrees with him (about when baptism should occur), and also people in this group. So Calvin and Wesley and Luther have their proof texts which they believe contradict James White’s. And so on and on it goes. Protestants have five camps on baptism. So instead of “Rome saying so,” now it is because Calvin, or Zwingli, or James White “said so.” Or, well, I almost forgot: “The Bible says so!” Given the sterling record of orthodoxy of Rome, I would say that such an appeal (if made at all) carries far more weight than the appeal to a single, self-proclaimed, self-anointed “reformer” such as John Calvin.

No offense intended, but in reality, it seems to me that when a convinced Roman Catholic encounters another system that, like Rome, claims special authority (like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), do we not here have an impasse?

Have you not read my extensive analysis of how these heresies and Rome are fundamentally different? Now granted you disagree with it, but that’s different from foolish proclamations such as the above, which attempt to bamboozle people into thinking that I espouse a position which I in fact argued strenuously against in this very group. How quickly also you forget my quadruple “no” to your query recently, and my reply that I had produced 40 proofs for the Personhood of the Holy Spirit (everyone here is my witness), and that it was a “clear” doctrine in the Bible. But no matter: just blithely go on misrepresenting another’s position.

The Roman Catholic, in the final analysis, says that John 20:28 says X because Rome says so (indeed, has Rome ever really said what John 20:28 means infallibly? I mean, Rome teaches the deity of Christ clearly enough, but what about the specific passages themselves?).

This is ludicrous. You assume falsely once again that because we believe Scripture does not function as a perspicuous authority apart from some human ecclesiastical authority, therefore every individual passage is an utter “mystery, riddle, and enigma” (to borrow from Churchill’s description of Russia). Of course, this doesn’t follow, and is another straw man – not very useful for the purposes of constructive dialogue. Besides, wouldn’t your time be more profitably spent in rejoicing that we teach a doctrine of such paramount importance as the deity of Christ, instead of such minutiae?

The JW says John 20:28 can’t say X, but must say Y, again, because Brooklyn says so. Both have ultimate commitments to ultimate authorities, and in the final analysis, how can any progress be made?

The hidden false assumption here is that the Protestant has no such “ultimate authority.” But of course he does, and must. It is either he himself, or some aspect of a denominational tradition, which contradicts other such traditions (some of which must necessarily be man-made whenever they’re contradictory). Sorry, but I don’t see how such a system is at all superior to ours.

Now, on the other hand, is it not part of the appeal of Rome to point to conversations such as this, and the struggle to refute the “heretics” like the JW’s, and say, “See, you can only have arguments about probabilities with Protestantism. We give you final certainty through the Church.” I think all Protestants need to recognize the draw this has for people.

So please tell me, James: was my conversion due to a sincerely-held, reasoned, faith-based, morally-influenced, historically informed, biblically justified conclusion (regardless of your obvious disagreement), or simply psychological and emotional, irrationalist, subjective criteria? And are not such speculations instances of “judging the heart?”

The scandal of the plowman is not universally attractive.

I’m happy to see you admit it is a scandal.

The draw of the “infallible fuzzies” is very, very strong, and we must be well aware of this reality in thinking about the reasons why individuals convert to Roman Catholicism (or any of the other systems that likewise offer such promises of infallible certitude).

Again, do you deny that my conversion (and that of the many other converts such as David Palm, James Akin, Scott Hahn, Richard John Neuhaus, Howard, Muggeridge et al) is sincere and based on conviction and reflection? If so, how is this different from what Marxists, skeptics, atheists, various philosophers, etc. think of all Christian conversion? I have no problem granting sincerity and conviction to all here (after all, I once was an evangelical, and I fully remember my motivations and grounds for my beliefs). Some of us, James, think that certainty is an admirable goal in matters spiritual, moral, and theological. You despise Rome, we don’t. We see it quite differently. Why must you stoop to crack psycho-babble-type “analysis” in order to explain our inexplicable odysseys?

The answer, of course, is not to come up with ways of offering what does not, in fact, exist. The answer lies in remaining true to the Word, explaining the issues clearly,

Theological certainty does not exist? So Christianity is indeed reduced to philosophy. That is a slap in God’s face, as far as I’m concerned (although I’m sure you don’t mean it in that way). The God I serve is able, through His Holy Spirit, to impart truth to us, as the Bible teaches. “True to the Word”? You seek to be, so do I (believe it or not), so does Orthodox tradition. Now what do we do? “True to the Word,” yet so many disagreements over that very Word of “truth.” How do we resolve this dilemma? Throw up our hands in despair? Or admit that Catholics might be on to something?

and recognizing that in the final analysis, issues such as conversion to or from a position is primarily a spiritual matter. I can’t stop someone from converting with all the arguments and facts in the world.

Yes, as I suspected. Conversion (i.e., if to Catholicism) is an irrational decision. So in my case, all my reading of Newman, Merton, Bouyer, Ratzinger, Gibbons, Howard, Luther, Calvin, Adam, Chesterton, etc. was all just “surface material,” irrelevant to my final decision, which was in reality predetermined by an obsession with “smells and bells,” a fondness for an infallible “crutch,” a prior hatred of contraception, hero-worship of Catholic pro-life rescuers, an infatuation with statuary and idolatry, an absurd affection for genuflection, etc. ad infinitum? Right.

But, I’m still called upon to present those arguments and facts, trusting that the Lord’s will be done.

And so are we. Let the better argument prevail. May God our Father open all our eyes to our own blind spots. May the Lord who gave us eyes and minds cause us to use them in order to see and know all of His truth, in its magnificent fullness and glory. And may there be unity in His Body, whether or not the institutional ruptures remain, as in all likelihood, they will, until He comes again. Amen.

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
High Thoughts, Shared Among Friends
Do Your Possessions Reflect Your Soul's Purpose
Want A Miracle? Start Serving
Notes on the passing scene
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #6: Sola Scriptura 1
Is Christianity Too Hard... Or Are We Making...
view all Family blogs