blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n*****<\/p>\n
Under the broad topic of Mary and the Saints, Armstrong attempts to defend Rome\u2019s doctrine of prayer to saints. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe correct description is \u201casking saints to pray, or intercede for us. They, in turn, go to God, Who answers the prayer (or doesn\u2019t, as the case may be, if His answer is \u2018No\u2019!).\u201d The title of the section on pp. 120-121 is entitled \u201cPraying to saints is wrong\u201d precisely because this is how Protestants describe what we do (since the book dealt with the objections as the starting-point of each reply). If a Catholic says \u201cI prayed to Saint So-and-So\u201d he means (unless he is ignorant of his faith) \u201cI asked him to <\/span><\/span>intercede<\/i><\/span><\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/span>; so it is a question of semantics. Just to get <\/span><\/span>that<\/i><\/span><\/span> straight right off the bat . . . but 90% of anti-Catholics refer to the doctrine as \u201cprayer to saints.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nOnce again, we find no evidence that he is interested in responding to the strongest objections to his position, but only to the weakest.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nActually, the point of the book is to deal with (as the subtitle indicates) \u201c<\/span><\/span>common<\/i><\/span><\/span> Protestant claims.\u201d These may be weak or relatively strong (in my experience, almost invariably the former), but my task as an apologist trying to equip the Catholic with answers to objections, is to meet these objections, whether they are strong <\/span><\/span>or<\/i><\/span><\/span> weak. So if they are weak but rather common, then the degree of weakness or strength is irrelevant to deciding whether to <\/span><\/span>answer<\/i><\/span><\/span> them or not.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n White, therefore, inadvertently proves that the standard garden-variety anti-Catholic or contra-Catholic rhetoric is exceptionally weak, since the most common arguments from that sphere are pitiful as can be. But he is here to provide us all with \u201cstrong\u201d objections, which I will be more than happy to shoot down as well. And (very unlike him) I will actually <\/span><\/span>reply<\/i><\/span><\/span> to and refute his objections whenever they are offered.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nBut despite this, even in responding to the weakest argumentation, the number of circular arguments and simply false assumptions is great indeed.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nHe can <\/span><\/span>claim<\/i><\/span><\/span> this all he wants, but <\/span><\/span>demonstrating<\/i><\/span><\/span> it is another matter entirely.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nArmstrong rightly lays out the objection: \u201cThe Bible forbids communication with the dead. It also tells us there is only one mediator between God and men: Jesus.\u201d Exactly, and, if he has taken the time to listen at all, he knows that the vacuous, yet nigh unto universal, argument of Roman Catholic apologists regarding asking a friend to pray for you (this is somehow taken as having relevance to Jesus\u2019 role as the sole mediator between God and men).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nI kept waiting for the end of the sentence to come; it is incomplete and ungrammatical. Because of that, I\u2019ll pass on comment for the moment, hoping he will clarify later in his \u201creview.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe fact that Jesus role as mediator is essentially and necessarily different is lost on those who use this facile argumentation, for Christ has a grounds upon which to stand as a mediator that no one, including Mary, possesses.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nNo one is <\/span><\/span>denying<\/i><\/span><\/span> that, so it is irrelevant, and no point of contention between us.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThis has been explained many times, but Roman apologists continue repeating their simplistic argument as if no one has ever responded to it.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nWe don\u2019t disagree that Jesus\u2019 mediatorship is absolutely unique and<\/span><\/span> \u201cessentially and necessarily different\u201d; we are saying that asking a dead saint to pray is no different in essence than asking a living friend to pray for us or someone else. It is biblically challenged Protestants who make the rather dumb objection that asking others to pray for us is the equivalent of denying that Jesus is sole mediator. That is where the dense incomprehension lies, and why we keep saying what we do, that White alludes to. I think I have provided more than enough biblical support for the notion in many portions of my apologetics.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nArmstrong\u2019s \u201cone-minute\u201d reply is that James 5:16-18 tells us that \u201cthe prayers of certain people are more effective than those of others.\u201d Of course, what James 5 tells us is that \u201cthe prayer of a righteous man has great power.\u201d From this, it seems, you can create a direct proportion statement, so that the saints, being perfected, have the greatest \u201cprayer power co-efficient\u201d possible.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nGood; White shows that he at least <\/span><\/span>comprehends<\/i><\/span><\/span> my argument. That\u2019s a start. But as we\u2019ll see, he goes off into fallacy-land right away . . .<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nBut please notice, there is nothing in James 5 about dead people praying for us. Nothing at all, in fact, just the opposite.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThat\u2019s irrelevant to the argument. It only is relevant if one is claiming that this verse itself contains all the components of the Catholic doctrine of the communion of saints. I have not claimed that it does. It establishes the principle that lies <\/span><\/span>behind<\/i><\/span><\/span> why Catholics pray as they do. The Catholic chain of reasoning is as follows:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n1. We ought to pray for each other (much biblical proof).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n2. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects (James 5:16-18).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n3. Therefore it makes eminent sense to ask more righteous people to pray for us (implied in same passage).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n4. Dead saints are more alive than we ourselves are (e.g., Mt 22:32).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n5. Dead saints are aware of what happens on the earth (Heb 12:1 etc.), and indeed, are portrayed as praying for us in heaven (Rev 6:9-10).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n6. Dead saints are exceptionally, if not wholly, righteous and holy, since they have been delivered from sin and are present with God (21:27; 22:14).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n7. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible and wise to ask them to pray on our behalf to God.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n James 5:16-18 only provides a <\/span><\/span>portion<\/i><\/span><\/span> of the entire biblical argument necessary (#2 and #3 above, with #1 implied as the background premise). Other biblical passages support propositions #4-6, with #7 following, based on James 5, provided that #4-6 are established on other biblical grounds. Therefore, it is a complete <\/span><\/span>non sequitur<\/i><\/span><\/span> for White to \u201cobject\u201d that James 5 doesn\u2019t mention dead saints, because it was never my claim in the first place. It\u2019s based on his dumbfounded misunderstanding of how the argument works.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe example Armstrong relies on specifically says, \u201cElijah was a man of like nature with ourselves.\u201d Yes, he was\u2026and that likewise means he was alive!<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n. . . whic<\/span><\/span><\/span>h is perfectly irrelevant, per the above, but (to get back to the land of relevance) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are \u201calive\u201d <\/span><\/span>too<\/i><\/span><\/span>, according to Jesus (!!).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nFrom this Armstrong recalls the examples of Abraham and Moses who interceded with God, which is, again, quite true. But it is likewise irrelevant since, obviously, they were both alive at the time of their intercession with God.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n. . . another <\/span><\/span>non sequitur<\/i><\/span><\/span>, flowing from White\u2019s apparent inability to grasp how my argument is logically structured (a not uncommon occurrence with him). But one gets used to it after so many years, like a spouse snoring or a child who lisps or whines. One must accept the deficiencies in others and exercise patience.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThen we have the statement,<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIf, then, the Blessed Virgin Mary were indeed sinless, it would follow (right from Scripture) that her prayers would have the greatest power, and not only because of her sinlessness but because of her status as Mother of God. So we ask for her prayers and also ask other saints, because they have more power than we do, having been made perfectly righteous (according to James 5:16-18). <\/span><\/span><\/p>\nYou will remember that back in the days of the Reformation a common complaint made by the Reformers was that Rome\u2019s defenders were sophists, men who tried to look wise while promoting the most amazingly incoherent statements. Little has changed over the centuries. You take the statement that a righteous man\u2019s prayers have great power, which is said only of the living, transport this into another context, attach it to Mary (assuming her alleged sinlessness), and then \u201cfollows\u201d \u201cright from Scripture\u201d (!!) that her prayers would have \u201cthe most power.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nAgain, the same incomprehension of how my argument works leads White to caricature it and present a twisted version of what my argument supposedly is <\/i><\/span><\/span>in the first place, as something he then shoots down (the proverbial \u201cstraw man\u201d of illogical argumentation). Also, it is true that here I <\/span><\/span>assumed for the sake of argument <\/i><\/span><\/span>that Mary was sinless:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIf<\/i><\/span><\/span>, then, the Blessed Virgin Mary were indeed sinless, it would <\/span><\/span>follow<\/i><\/span><\/span> . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Assuming things for the sake of argument means, in effect, saying, \u201cI won\u2019t digress to argue that point at the moment [it\u2019s almost like a footnote], in the midst of this argument, because it is another topic; we will <\/span><\/span>assume<\/i><\/span><\/span> it here and argue it <\/span><\/span>elsewhere<\/i><\/span><\/span>.\u201d That is exactly what I did. In this book, my argument for Mary\u2019s sinlessness occurs in pages 108-109. I\u2019ve defended that doctrine in much greater depth elsewhere in books and on my blog.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n But note how White twisted and distorted the very nature of my argument. This is first-rate sophistry. He is accusing me of being the sophist, and of being incoherent. Yet what I did was completely coherent and therefore not sophistry at all. I assumed the hypothetical (Mary\u2019s sinlessness). I didn\u2019t <\/span><\/span>argue<\/i><\/span><\/span> it in this particular section (one can\u2019t digress when one has two pages to work with). But White completely blows it; he doesn\u2019t <\/span><\/span>get<\/i><\/span><\/span> it. Let me illustrate how he engages in this sophistry with a comparison. This is the structure of my <\/span><\/span>actual<\/i><\/span><\/span>
![\"One-MinuteApologist](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/03\/One-MinuteApologist-396x613.jpg\")
<\/p>\n