started by his flirting with teenaged girls<\/a>]<\/p>\nYou noted, \u201cAgain, I think I get the edge since I\u2019ve actually been on both sides of the fence, whereas you haven\u2019t.\u201d Why do you find this to be an advantage, Mr. Armstrong? Gerry Matatics has often made much of the same concept, yet, I have to wonder why someone would think that way. Obviously, from my perspective, you are, to use the proper term, an apostate. To make one\u2019s apostasy a badge of honor, and to say that this gives you an \u201cedge,\u201d bewilders me. Scripture says a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways, and we are warned about those who are blown about by every wind of doctrine. I noted the many, many churches that someone like Bob Sungenis was in prior to his move to Rome (Gerry Matatics, too, moved through a number of different positions, just as he has in Roman Catholicism since his conversion), and I just have to point out that such instability is not an edge, but a distinct disadvantage, wouldn\u2019t you say?<\/p>\n
You referenced your book a number of times in your letter, even using it as reference source and saying things like, \u201cSee my chapters on such and such.\u201d Yet, as you wrote, it may be published by Ignatius Press (though getting a 750 page book published is pretty unlikely these days \u2014 that\u2019s a pretty hefty book and would be most costly). How, may I ask, can I make reference to a book that is yet to be published and is not available to me?<\/p>\n
In regards to your use of the phrase, \u201cconstructively ecumenical,\u201d what do you mean? One Roman apologist (who asked to be \u201coff the record\u201d) confided to me just recently that \u201cecumenical dialogue is a joke. The only reason we are talking to you is to bring you back to Rome, nothing else.\u201d I think he has a good basis in history for such a statement, don\u2019t you?<\/p>\n
Next I encountered another example of misrepresentation. You wrote the following: \u201cYou claim I didn\u2019t have an adequate knowledge of \u2018Roman\u2019 theology, hence I was open prey for clever, devious papists who easily reeled me in by means of Babylonish guile, because I had indeed already \u2018rejected the tenets of the Reformation\u2019 and was \u2018not truly a Protestant to begin with.\u2019 Boy, where to begin with such inanities!\u201d Indeed, where does one begin? How you got that perspective from the two sentences I actually wrote in my letter is difficult to figure out. Here\u2019s what I wrote:<\/p>\n
Your story in Surprised by Truth<\/em> is almost predictable, Dave, no offense intended. Your rejection of Roman theology was not based upon a knowledge of why, and hence was ripe for refutation. You admit you rejected the tenets of the Reformation when you say, \u201cI had always rejected Luther\u2019s notions of absolute predestination and the total depravity of mankind.\u201d<\/p>\nFunny how you can change the above sentences into a diatribe replete with terms like \u201cpapist\u201d and \u201cBabylonish guile.\u201d Inane was a good word, but it only describes your caricaturization of my statements, nothing else.<\/p>\n
Now, am I to conclude, Dave, that I should not take what Roman apologists say at face value? I mean, you did write the article in Surprised by Truth<\/em>, right? And if you did, could you be so kind as to show me where in that article you give the slightest evidence of being familiar with, say, Calvin\u2019s discussions on sola scriptura or sola fide? You mentioned such biggies as Charles Colson and Hal Lindsey, but where did you give me even the slightest indication that you were, in fact, fully aware of why Roman theology was to be rejected? Where did you tell us that you had read, say, the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, or maybe Hardon\u2019s works? If it is in your article, Dave, I must have missed it. Could you cite the page numbers to me that would give me any reason to retract what I said above? I\u2019d appreciate it.<\/p>\nYou asked me, \u201cWhat do you know about the extent of my studies, or how well-read I am, or who I\u2019ve talked to? Next to nothing.\u201d Indeed. Do forgive me for taking your own conversion story as being reflective of your actual experience. I\u2019ll try to remember not to take such writings at face value in the future. They must be meant only to lead people to consider Roman Catholicism, not to tell the truth about your background or experience.<\/p>\n
As to the idea that a person would convert to Rome based upon Scripture, Church history and reason, such a conversion will take place only when a person makes the final epistemological leap in submitting to (I might say \u201csuccumbing to\u201d) the absolute claims of Rome. Once that decision is made, the rest falls into place naturally enough. And since you gave me no reason to believe that you had ever encountered the claims of Rome in any meaningful way prior to your conversion, I can only repeat what I said before: you were ripe for conversion. I guess I should modify that a little: the Watchtower makes the same kind of final epistemological claim upon its adherents, so you had encountered it, just not dressed in the liturgy and history of Rome.<\/p>\n
Next we find you saying, \u201cSecondly, you denigrate my being impressed with Catholics in Operation Rescue.\u201d Really? Well, let\u2019s see if I denigrated anything at all:<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd your involvement in Operation Rescue simply gave you the opportunity of seeing that Roman Catholics can be real nice folks who really believe in the teachings of the Church in Rome. And the feeling of \u2018brotherhood\u2019 created by standing against a common evil, joined with the simple fact that you were not truly a Protestant to begin with, is reason enough to explain your swimming the Tiber.\u201d<\/p>\n
I\u2019m sorry, Dave, but again I fail to find any evidence of \u201cdenigration\u201d in the above sentences. Where is it? Or might you be hyper-sensitive, as I\u2019ve found other folks who wrote in Surprised by Truth<\/em>? You see, Dave, I, too, was involved for a while with Operation Rescue. I left the movement because of the issue of Romanism and the implicit statement that I had to overlook fundamental differences on the gospel itself \u201cfor the good of the movement.\u201d Maybe, just maybe, it is you, Dave, who jumped to \u201ccondescending scenarios\u201d?<\/p>\nIn regards to desiring in-depth, give and take correspondence, I simply point out that the constant use of bombastic language is hardly commensurate with such a desire. Note your words at the bottom of page 3, wherein you liken my faith to \u201cmerely subjective whims and fancies, abstractions, and countless arrogant counter-charges and self-proclaimed \u2018authorities.\u2019 \u201d Personally, I\u2019d see such a sentence being applicable to the modern state of Roman apologetics in the U.S. today, but that\u2019s another issue.<\/p>\n
Next you wrote, \u201cThirdly, it\u2019s news to me that belief in supralapsarian double predestination and total depravity (man is a worm on a dunghill) constitutes the quintessence of true Protestantism and hence, Christianity.\u201d Of course, what I had said was that since you rejected predestination and total depravity, you were not a true Protestant (speaking in the historical sense \u2014 you connected Luther with the beliefs, as you will recall), and I stand by the statement. Surely you recall Luther\u2019s admission to Erasmus that he, above all of Luther\u2019s other foes, had focused upon the real issue, that being the concept of \u201cfree will\u201d versus the bondage of the will, and that, of course, brings up both predestination and total depravity. Luther was not systematic enough to get into debates about supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism \u2014 such is not the issue.<\/p>\n
If you always denied that man\u2019s will is bound to sin and that God has predestined a people unto himself, you may have been attending a Protestant church and may have been in the majority of what is called Protestantism today, but the fact remains that as to the Reformation and the heritage thereof, you were a traitor, more at home in Rome\u2019s semi-Pelagianism than in Paul\u2019s Augustinianism (to create a wonderfully anachronistic phrase that speaks volumes). Not that you were alone: the majority of \u201cProtestantism\u201d today is treading water in the Tiber on that issue. Of course, I said all of that (possibly not with the same colorful terminology) in The Fatal Flaw<\/em>. And as I mentioned, you are simply wrong to say I exclude those who reject limited atonement from the Christian faith.<\/p>\nJust a quick note: \u201cSpare me. No reputable pastor or evangelist openly presents Five-Point Calvinism as the gospel.\u201d You are kidding, right? Well, given the twisted, contorted, Jack Chickian-Gail Riplingeresque view of the Reformed position you present in this very paragraph (page 4, at the bottom), maybe you aren\u2019t. I shouldn\u2019t expect you to know the historical realities of people like Jonathan Edwards, or Charles Haddon Spurgeon, or Whitefield, but you even mentioned Sproul, who, of course, is Reformed. You probably didn\u2019t read much of Gerstner as a \u201cProtestant,\u201d nor would I expect you to know such names as Albert Martin. Well, anyway, I\u2019ll have to tell my pastor that you believe he is not reputable. I\u2019m certain he will be most disappointed. :-)<\/p>\n
I would like to quote your words regarding the Reformed position:<\/p>\n
\u201cBesides clear scriptural counter-evidence, TULIP is false because, simply put, it transforms God into a demon-god who creates people solely for the reason of damning and torturing them for eternity, through no fault or choice of their own, and makes Him the author of evil. This is absolutely blasphemous and one of the most abominable lies from the pit of hell ever devised.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I get the distinct feeling, Dave, that you don\u2019t like the Reformed gospel. No surprise, given your love for Roman theology. Those who have never realized their own helplessness often hate the gospel, I\u2019ve discovered. I\u2019ve seen similar paragraphs from other Roman Catholics, from atheists, from Mormons, and even from some \u201cProtestants,\u201d too. I have to really focus my attention just to realize that the authors of such diatribes are actually referring to the gospel of grace, so plainly presented by Paul in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 through 9: it\u2019s hard to recognize that, given how twisted is the torturous presentation. Of course, if I were to present Roman theology in such terminology (without a single reference to a single Roman source) I would be dismissed as a raving \u201canti-Catholic.\u201d But, I\u2019ve rarely found Roman apologists to be consistent in their arguments, so I shouldn\u2019t be surprised that you would use such a double standard here, either.<\/p>\n
Again, as a historian, I find your comments about Puritanism \u201cevolving\u201d into Unitarianism quite humorous (you did mean that to be a joke, right?). As a student of Jonathan Edwards I must say I would be one of the few folks who would get such a joke. I can tell this is a joke because of your statement that Joseph Smith began as a \u201cCalvinist.\u201d Again, your research couldn\u2019t be that bad, so I must take this as a joke, too, though a not overly amusing one.<\/p>\n
You then noted, \u201cYou\u2019re just one little old cult researcher with a pulpit, a para-church ministry and a Master\u2019s degree from Fuller \u2014 hardly in the same league with the many stalwart figures mentioned above.\u201d I have no idea which stalwart figures you might be referring to, but it makes no difference. A few corrections: I\u2019m not really that old, and I don\u2019t have a pulpit. Other than that, yup, you are very much on the money. Just one little fellow out here enjoying God\u2019s blessings and being used by Him to help people see through false claims, whether those claims come from Salt Lake City, Brooklyn, Gail Riplinger, or yes, Rome itself. Of course, you, too, are just one little fellow, a novice convert to Romanism, eyes bright with the zeal of a convert, but far too young in your journey with Rome to even begin to have the whole story. I simply have to say, \u201cSo?\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, you managed, sadly, to miss the point of nearly every objection I raised (and, I note in passing, you skipped entire sections of my letter in your response, too). In your rush to characterize my ministry as \u201ca quite humorous (but tragic-comic) episode in self-delusion and blindness to the absurdity of one\u2019s own position,\u201d and to claim just about all the early Fathers as your own, and join yourself with \u201cthe massive structure of the Catholic Church, the Fathers, Christian Tradition, the Councils, etc.\u201d (p.5), you missed the weight of my objection. When I pointed out that \u201cyou might be wrong,\u201d you responded, \u201cOf course. What else is new? But the point is, I\u2019m in a helluva lot better company (no pun intended) than you are.\u201d I\u2019m sure you wish that to be the case, Dave, but again, how do you know you are in company with, say, Athanasius or Ignatius or lrenaeus? In the final analysis, is it not because Rome tells you so?<\/p>\n
Oh, I know, I read the rest of your letter (even your vented hatred of Luther and Calvin) \u2014 I know you claim to be able to analyze Rome\u2019s claims, yet, you also admitted that, \u201cin a sense\u201d I am right in stating that you cannot really question Rome\u2019s pronouncements. As you said, \u201cIn a sense it is true because the Catholic is not arrogant enough to assume that he is the arbiter and final judge of all truth given him from any source.\u201d Does that mean, Dave, that you are not responsible before God for what you believe? That once you sign over the title-deed to your mind to someone else (teaching magisterium, Prophet, Governing Body, whatever) you can no longer be held responsible for the truth? I wonder why the Pharisees didn\u2019t point that out to the Lord when He held them directly responsible for God\u2019s revelation to them?<\/p>\n
Well, we can\u2019t question Rome, of course, for Rome has all authority. Instead, we must repeat what we\u2019ve been taught, sort of like our mantra: \u201cWe submit to a Tradition [make sure to capitalize this term.] which includes all the great Christian minds who have reflected upon that Deposit of Faith, [not only capitalize these terms, but make sure to ignore all those Fathers who directly contradicted Roman dogmas and teachings], received from Jesus and the Apostles [but never engage in public debate to defend that statement!] and developed as a result of battle with heretics for nearly 2000 years [but don\u2019t bother to tell anyone why the term Roman Catholic, aside from being an oxymoron (how can something be limited-Roman-and \u201cuniversal\u201d?), is not something that the early Fathers ever thought of using to describe themselves].\u201d Then say that you are very proud to repeat this statement of faith. I hope you are not too offended if I say, Dave, that I see precious little difference between that kind of statement and the \u201ctestimonies\u201d of the Mormon missionaries who speak with such enthusiasm and honesty about their trust in Joseph Smith and the living Prophet and the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m glad you realize that your decision to embrace Roman authority is a fallible one. That means that every time you assert Roman infallibility you will be honest and say, \u201cI think Rome is infallible, but I\u2019m not really certain of that.\u201d Most Roman apologists don\u2019t come right out and say things like that. They seem to want their audience to think that you really can have absolute and infallible certainty about Roman authority.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s sort of hard for me to believe, Dave, that the following paragraph is really reflective of your conversion process:<\/p>\n
\u201cI did accept the authority of the Church initially because of clear superiority over the absurdity and historical implausibility of the Protestant a-historical, Docetic-like, \u2018mystical\u2019 conception of the Church as its Tradition, and desperate reliance on \u2018sola scriptura,\u2019 an unbiblical, man-made, self-defeating, arbitrary tradition.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That\u2019s pretty reflective, wouldn\u2019t you agree? You weren\u2019t using such terminology as that in 1990, that\u2019s for certain. Be that as it may, does it make you feel better to pile on the epithets when making such speeches, Dave? I mean, we all give in to the temptation once in a while, I\u2019m sure, but again, do you find such unsubstantiated accusations worthwhile when writing to someone who has defended sola scriptura in public debate and who is a recognized expert in that particular subject? Patrick Madrid, the editor of Surprised by Truth<\/em>, even called me upon hearing my debate against Gerry Matatics on that very subject and said, \u201cFor the first time I have to admit that a Protestant clearly defeated a Roman Catholic in a debate on sola scriptura.\u201d Of course, I would not be the first person to suggest that you trust Patrick\u2019s opinions \u2014 his errors in \u201cThe White Man\u2019s Burden\u201d fill more than 20 pages of small-print, triple-column text.<\/p>\nBe that as it may, I again have to note that your high words sound, well, a bit \u201ctinny,\u201d in light of your unwillingness to defend those statements in public debate. It is easy to hide behind a word-processor, Dave. You can always blow smoke in written debates \u2014 of course, you can do the same in formal debates, too, but without as much ease, that\u2019s for certain. It surely struck me as strange that you would talk about Protestant apologists as \u201cchickens,\u201d yet you end your letter by referring me to someone I\u2019ve never heard of before to defend your position. You say, \u201cMy challenge to you is to refute my arguments therein and elsewhere.\u201d Again you challenge me to respond to an unpublished book that I\u2019ve never seen. How am I supposed to do that, Dave? I mean, I have no idea which of the various Roman Catholic views of \u201ctradition\u201d you espouse. Matatics takes one view, Madrid another. There are all sorts of different takes on the topic. You seem really enamored with Newman, so is that your view? How am I supposed to know?<\/p>\n
You asserted that Protestant use of the Fathers is \u201cselectively dishonest \u2014 no question whatsoever.\u201d I do hope you don\u2019t mind my being very Protestant and questioning your pontification (pun fully intended). How about some examples, drawn, logically, from my own writings, my own debates? Surely you have listened to these debates, right? You said that you had engaged in this activity yourself in 1990. How so? Where did you do this? Did you put any of this in writing? You said evangelicals do this all the time. Such as? Who? I don\u2019t know too many evangelicals who bother to cite patristic sources to begin with, do you? Might I suggest that if you\u2019d like to impress this upon me, you might wish to paint with a little finer brush? I\u2019ve heard these arguments before, as I think you\u2019d admit.<\/p>\n
You said that usually the Protestant misunderstands the concept of development. Well, before Newman came up with it, I guess we had good reason, wouldn\u2019t you say? But, does that mean that those Roman Catholics I know who don\u2019t like Newman are actually Protestants, too? I\u2019m kidding of course, but those who hang their case on Newman and the development hypothesis are liable for all sorts of problems, your eating of Salmon for lunch notwithstanding. Might it actually be that the Protestant fully understands development but rightly rejects it? I addressed development and Newman in my book (written before I engaged in all the debates I\u2019ve done since then), and personally, I don\u2019t think your brief dismissal was, well, worthwhile. And as for Newman\u2019s statement, \u201cto be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant,\u201d I would say, \u201cto be deep in Newman is to cease to be an historically consistent Roman Catholic.\u201d I can only shake my head as I look at Newman\u2019s collapse on papal infallibility and chuckle at his \u201cdeep in history\u201d comment. He knew better.<\/p>\n
Next we have this paragraph:<\/p>\n
\u201cYour treatment of the Canon of Scripture misses the point, which is that the Catholic Church, and \u2018extrabiblical authority\u2019 was necessary for you guys to even have your Bible, let alone construct with tortured \u2018logic\u2019 myths such as \u2018perspicuity\u2019 and \u2018sola Scriptura\u2019 from this book which you would never even have but for the Catholic church, which, inexplicably, preserved it even though it supposedly destroys that same Church\u2019s belief system\u2013 evident to any \u2018plowboy.\u2019 My paper on \u2018sola Scriptura\u2019 deals with this.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
First, I hope you are not referring to the brief paper about CRI that you sent me on sola scriptura, because if you are, I\u2019m very disappointed. Your comments on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 are easily refuted, as I will demonstrate later. Hopefully you are referring to some other paper as yet not entered into evidence in this discussion (though you keep referring to such items). As to \u201cmy treatment\u201d of canon issues, which treatment? In the book, in debates, in written materials, what? I\u2019ve debated Patrick Madrid, Robert Sungenis, and James Akin in the sola scriptura folder in America Online, accompanied by my co-belligerent Gregory Krehbiel, and I will simply point out that those Roman Catholics aren\u2019t there anymore. And there\u2019s a reason for that, I\u2019d say.<\/p>\n
Next we read, \u201cIt\u2019s the oldest rhetorical trick in the book to simply dismiss an important question as irrelevant, when one can\u2019t answer it, as you did with my query as to when Catholicism became apostate.\u201d No, the oldest rhetorical trick in the book is to ignore the central parts of your opponent\u2019s arguments while accusing him of doing the same thing (that\u2019s the important part). Your question remains irrelevant. First, it is an improper question, since it is based upon the identification of Roman Catholicism with the earlier Catholic Church, and, as anyone knows, that is an improper identification. Secondly, it assumes something that is not true: that apostasy always takes place in a single act or definition of doctrine, and such is not always the case. Personally, I believe that there were believers within what even called itself Roman Catholicism for a long time \u2014 in fact (are you sitting down?), there still are, by God\u2019s grace. So again, your question was irrelevant, and my brief response was based upon a recognition of that irrelevance.<\/p>\n
Next you commented, \u201cLikewise, you scoff at my disdain for the indefensible existence of 23,000 denominations. You don\u2019t dare admit that this is a valid point against Protestantism because you would obviously then be in big trouble.\u201d Do you really think, Dave, that I have not encountered this argument before? I mean, do you think that you are the only Roman apologist brilliant enough to come up with the ol\u2019, \u201cWell, look at all the disagreements among Protestants, that proves sola scriptura doesn\u2019t work!\u201d argument? You truly do flatter yourself. But to show you that you are not the first on the block with your arguments (and that your arguments are not particularly compelling), I provide you with the text of a post from America Online written in response to James Akin and his use of the very same argument:<\/p>\n
James Akin of Catholic Answers wrote: [missing text here]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026.sola scriptura and hence of Protestantism itself\u2026..\u201d<\/p>\n
On one point I certainly agree with Mr. Akin: Catholic apologists often DO use this argument. But is it a valid argument? Let\u2019s examine it.<\/p>\n
First, and very briefly, it seems to me to be an inconsistent argument: that is, it refutes the position of the one using it. It presupposes the idea that if (in the case of Protestantism) the Scriptures are meant to be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, then it must follow that the Scriptures will produce an external, visible unity of doctrine on all fronts. As Patrick Madrid put it, Presbyterians and Baptists would not be in disagreement about infant baptism if the Bible were able to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. I say this is an inconsistent argument because the solution offered to us by Rome \u2014 namely, the teaching Magisterium of the Roman Church, replete with oral tradition and papal infallibility \u2014 has not brought about the desired unity amongst Roman Catholics. I have personally spoken with and corresponded with Roman Catholics \u2014 individuals actively involved in their parishes, regular attendees at Mass, etc., who have held to a WIDE range of beliefs on a WIDE range of topics. One need only read the pages of\u00a0This Rock<\/i>\u00a0magazine to know that you have conflicts with traditionalists over every conceivable topic, from the Latin Mass to modernism in Rome. I\u2019ve been witness to debates between Catholics on canon laws and excommunications and Father Feeney and other items that rival any debates I\u2019ve seen amongst Protestants. And I haven\u2019t even gotten to the liberals in the Roman fold! Obviously I don\u2019t need to do that, as the point is made. If sola Scriptura is disproven by the resultant disagreements amongst people outside of Rome, then Roman claims regarding the Magisterium are equally disproven by the very same argument.<\/p>\n
But my main reason for adressing the common argument made by Roman apologists is that it reveals something important about Rome\u2019s view of man himself. Dr. Cornelius Van Til often commented on the errors of Rome regarding their view of man, and how these errors impacted every aspect of their theology, and he was quite right. We see an illustration right here. Rome\u2019s semi-Pelagianism (I am talking to a Roman Catholic right now in another venue who makes Pelagius look like a raving Calvinist) leads her to overlook what seems to me to be a very fundamental issue. Let me give you an illustration: Let\u2019s say James Akin writes the PERFECT textbook on logic. It is completely perspicuous: it is fully illustrated, completely consistent, and it provides answers to all the tough questions in plain, understandable terminology. It covers all the bases. Now, would it follow, then, that every person who consulted this textbook would agree with every other person who consulted this textbook on matters of logic? Well, of course not. Some folks might just read one chapter, and not the rest. Others might read too quickly. and not really listen to Mr. Akin\u2019s fine explanations. Others might have read other less-well-written textbooks, and they might importy their understandings into Mr. Akin\u2019s words, resulting in misunderstandings. Most often, people might just lack the mental capacity to follow all the arguments, no matter how well they are expressed, and end up clueless about the entire subject, despite having read the entire work.<\/p>\n
Now the question I have to ask is this: is there something wrong with Mr. Akin\u2019s textbook if it does not produce complete unanimity on questions logical? Is the problem in the textbook or in the people using the textbook? In the real world it is often a combination of both: a lack of clarity on the part of the textbook and a problem in understanding on the part of the reader. But if the perfect textbook existed, would it result in absolute unanimity of opinion? No, because any textbook must be read, interpreted, and understood.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s say the Bible is perspicuous, in the sense that Westminster said, that is, that \u201cthose things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation. are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.\u201d Does it follow, then, that there must be a unanimity of opinion on, say, infant baptism? Does the above even say that there will be a unanimity of opinion on the very items that \u201care necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation\u201d? No, obviously, it does not. And why? Because people \u2014 sinful people, people with agendas, people who want to find something in the Bible that isn\u2019t really there\u2013people approach Scripture, and no matter how perfect Scripture is, people remain people.<\/p>\n
Now, Roman apologists may well way, \u201cSee, you\u2019ve proven our point. You need an infallible interpreter to tell you what the Bible says because you are a sinful person, and hence you need a sinless, perfect guide to tell you what to believe!\u201d Aside from the fact that such a concept itself is absent from Scripture, and is in fact countermanded by Scripture (did not the Lord Jesus hold men accountable for what GOD said to THEM in SCRIPTURE?), we need to observe that Rome is not solving the problem of fallible people. Once Rome \u201cspeaks\u201d the fallible person must still interpret the supposed infallible interpretation. The element of error remains, no matter how much Rome might wish to think it has been removed. Indeed, beyond the problem of interpreting the infallible interpreter, you still have the fallible decision of following Rome\u2019s absolute authority rather than, say, Brooklyn\u2019s, or Salt Lake\u2019s, or Mecca \u2018s, or whoever\u2019s \u2014 That remains a fallible decision, and hence the longing for that \u201cinfallible fuzzy\u201d that comes from turning your responsibilities over to an \u201cinfallible guide\u201d remains as unfulfilled as ever.<\/p>\n
Finally, the argument put forth (plainly seen in the arguments used by Karl Keating in\u00a0Catholicism and Fundamentalism<\/i>) is even more pernicious, in that it attacks the sufficiency of Scripture itself. We are seemingly told that the Holy Spirit did such a poor job in producing Scripture that while the Psalmist thought it was a lamp to his feet and a light to his path, he (the Psalmist) was in fact quite deluded, and was treading very dangerously. Instead of the glorious words of God spoken of in Psalm 119, we are told that such basic truths as the nature of God, including the deity of Christ or the personality of the Holy Spirit, cannot be derived solely from Scripture, but require external witnesses. And why are we told this? Well, it is alleged that arguments can be made against these doctrines on the basis of Scripture passages. Of course, one could argue against ANYTHING if one is willing to sacrifice context, language, consistency, etc. But are we really to believe the Bible is so self-contradictory and unclear that we cannot arrive at the truth through a whole-hearted effort at honestly examining the biblical evidence? That seems to be what those across the Tiber are trying to tell us. But it is obvious that just because the Scriptures can be misused it does not follow that they are insufficient to lead one to the truth. Such is a flawed argument (no matter how often it is repeated). The real reason Rome tells us the Bible is insufficient is so that we can be convinced to abandon the God-given standard of Scripture while embracing Rome\u2019s ultimate authority.<\/p>\n
I never saw a response from Mr. Akin to that post, either, but I could have missed it, too. I\u2019d be interested in a meaningful (i.e., not bombastic, not filled with line after line of meaningless epithets) response from you to this post.<\/p>\n
You wrote,<\/p>\n
\u201cThis won\u2019t do either, for the simple reason that we have dogmas and Councils and papal encyclicals and infallible utterances which constitute our teaching\u2013 definite, observable, and documented for all to see, even the most wild-eyed liberals such as Kung and Curran and McBrien. It doesn\u2019t matter a hill of beans what these people say they or the Catholic Church believe. I could care less.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Well, that\u2019s quite interesting. Yes, you have dogmas \u2014 you have to pick and choose what you will call dogmas (like, killing heretics to receive indulgences isn\u2019t a dogma, though indulgences themselves are), but you have dogmas. You have councils, too \u2014 you have to pick and choose what of the earliest councils you will and will not accept (Canon 6 of Nicea, Canon 28 of Constantinople, for example), and even what councils were \u201cgood\u201d and which ones weren\u2019t (you don\u2019t want Sirmium or Ariminum, for example), but you have councils. The fact that councils were called seems to cause you a problem, and the fact that they were obviously not considered infallible, even by those who attended, also causes a problem, and of course the fact that no one thought the bishop of Rome had to call councils, confirm councils, or even have an active role in councils for the first few hundred years is yet another problem, but, like I said, you have councils. And yes, you have papal encyclicals \u2014 oodles of them, in fact, though which ones are infallible and which ones are fallible, and who is to tell, and just how binding such encyclicals are, is anyone\u2019s guess.<\/p>\n
You say you have infallible utterances, but again, I have yet to find a simple way of finding out exactly which utterances are infallible. I have found lots of folks who want to say that Christ\u2019s Vicar has spoken infallibly an average of once a millennium, but there are all sorts of other folks who would say there are many more infallible pronouncements, though they don\u2019t infallibly known how many infallible pronouncements there are, which makes the whole infallibility issue a real mess at times. I\u2019m sure wild-eyed liberals think of you as a wild-eyed conservative, what\u2019s even worse, the traditionalists probably think of you as a wild-eyed liberal! Ah, but I must remember: Rome is united in all things. Just ask Patrick Madrid and Gerry Matatics. Everyone is one big, happy family. No disagreements, no confusion as to what is, and what is not, infallible teaching. How truly wonderful.<\/p>\n
Of course, all of that just points out that having an \u201cinfallible interpreter\u201d solves nothing. Once you have an infallible interpretation, you then need an infallible interpretation of the infallible interpretation. You\u2019ve simply moved your epistemological problem back a step, nothing more.<\/p>\n
I have to mention that your \u201cI could care less\u201d reminds me of a comment Gerry Matatics made on a radio station in Denver less than two years ago now while he and I were discussing various things. Someone asked about some Roman Catholic writers who were not quite as conservative as Gerry and in response he said, \u201cWell, I call folks who believe like that Protestants.\u201d Hey, that\u2019s very convenient. \u201cWe are all unified as Roman Catholics \u2014 and if you don\u2019t agree with me, you aren\u2019t a Roman Catholic.\u201d I like how that works, don\u2019t you?<\/p>\n
You made a statement on page 10 that made me wonder. With reference to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society you said that they deny God\u2019s omnipresence, deny that He is a Spirit, and say that He has a physical body. Really? Could you give me some references to Watchtower sources where they say this? I know the Mormons do all those things, but it\u2019s news to me that the Witnesses do that, too.<\/p>\n
You wrote, \u201cI will note that both cults and Protestantism are man-centered, whereas Catholicism is Christ-centered.\u201d Really? The church that allows its followers to venerate saints and Mary, instructs them to do penances lest they suffer in purgatory, directs them to priests and intermediaries, preaches indulgences, \u201cre-presents\u201d the sacrifice of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice over and over again, and makes a man the Vicar of Christ on earth is \u201cChrist-centered,\u201d while the church that cries \u201cChrist alone,\u201d that speaks of the sufficiency of both His work and His Word, that proclaims that He alone is worthy of worship, veneration, service (latria, dulia, etc.), and says that one can have true and lasting peace with God solely through Him, is man-centered? Well, if you say so, Dave. Personally, I don\u2019t find a particle of truth in your statement.<\/p>\n
I see a rather glaring double-standard in your sentence, \u201cIt\u2019s pointless to respond to it other than to refer you to my various tracts about development or to Newman\u2019s essential work on the subject.\u201d To which I have to respond, \u201cNewman I know, but who is this Armstrong fellow?\u201d :-)<\/p>\n
I can only guess that you have a hidden TV camera in my office, Dave, because all through your letter you noted my mental state when making various comments. For example, on page 10 you write that I \u201cgleefully note the divergent views of Lateran IV and Vatican II on religious tolerance.\u201d Gleefully, Dave? And how do you know how gleeful I might be? Be that as it may, yes, these two councils disagreed on this topic. And, of course, because you have to, you say, \u201cthe teachings involved here are not religious dogmas of the faith, but rather disciplinary measures.\u201d Really? How is that? Who told you that? You aren\u2019t engaging in \u201cprivate interpretation\u201d and providing me with a \u201cmagisterium of one\u201d are you, Dave? Where has Rome officially said this? I\u2019d like to see this infallible pronouncement.<\/p>\n
What is more, where does Vatican II say, \u201cThis discussion of religious tolerance has nothing to do with faith and morals, this is a disciplinary thing\u201d? And you utterly ignored the entire point of my argument at this point, Dave, by saying, \u201cSo, as almost always, what you think is a knockout punch to your detested \u2018Romanism\u2019 rebounds back to you with much more force, for the reasons just recounted.\u201d That was, quite simply, Dave, a very lame reply. Since this section seemed to fall right out of my letter to you, let me try it again and see if you are up to providing a meaningful response:<\/p>\n
In your fifth point you mention the Inquisition \u201cdisproving\u201d Catholicism. The problem with your point is this, Dave: we Protestants don\u2019t claim infallibility. Rome does. There is a big difference. Please note the following comparison:<\/p>\n
IV LATERAN COUNCIL<\/p>\n
Convicted heretics shall be handed over for due punishment to their secular superiors, or the latter\u2019s agents. . . . Catholics who assume the cross and devote themselves to the extermination of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and privilege as those who go to the Holy Land.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
VATICAN II<\/p>\n
This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Not only do we see the obvious conflict between these two ecumenical\u201d councils, but we see that the IVth Lateran Council specifically taught that those who would take up the cross in the effort to exterminate heretics would enjoy the same indulgence as those who went to the Holy Land. Now, Dave, surely you can see the vast difference between the silliness of, say, a \u201cProtestant\u201d like Benny Hinn teaching his ideas as facts, and an ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church teaching that indulgences would be given to those who took up the cause of exterminating the heretics (i.e., simple Christian folks who were slaughtered at the behest of the Roman hierarchy). What is more, is not the granting of indulgences based upon the exercise of the keys? Does this not then touch upon the very faith of the Roman church? I believe it does.<\/p>\n
Now, Dave, why didn\u2019t you deal with what I wrote to you? Where is your discussion of the difference between an organization that claims infallibility and Protestants who admit their fallibility? And where do you deal with the offering of indulgences for the extermination of heretics, and the fact that the granting of indulgences involves the use of the keys? And do you really want to say that statements like this are irrelevant to faith and morals? Personally I think most folks can see through this, don\u2019t you? I mean, you say your church is infallible with reference to faith and morals, so when faced with evidence to the contrary you simply define those errors as having nothing to do with \u201cfaith and morals.\u201d Where can I find an infallible definition of faith and morals, Dave? It must be a pretty narrow definition, wouldn\u2019t you agree? There must not be a whole lot in the field of \u201cfaith and morals\u201d if killing people who are \u201cheretics\u201d (defining who is and who is not a heretic has nothing to do with faith and morals, Dave?) and gaining indulgences for so doing is simply a \u201cdisciplinary\u201d thing.<\/p>\n
I was left overwhelmed yet once again by,<\/p>\n
\u201cAs for your lengthy attempted refutation of papal claims and their biblical justification, I refer you to my chapter on the papacy and infallibility, which runs 98 pages, single-spaced.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
First, my comments were not lengthy \u2014 they were a mere drop in the bucket. Secondly, I don\u2019t have your book which may be published by Ignatius Press, so how I\u2019m supposed to refer to it is just a bit beyond me. I may someday publish a full-length work on sola scriptura, but till then I\u2019m not going to be referring people to a source they can\u2019t even read. I could have simply said to you, \u201cAs to the papacy, simply see my debates against Gerry Matatics (Phoenix, 1990, Denver, 1993), Dr. Robert Fastiggi (Austin, 1995) and Butler\/Sungenis (Boston, 1995).\u201d Now that would have accomplished a lot! And as for your 98 single-spaced pages, I have to admit this is the one line in your letter that made me chuckle more than anything else.<\/p>\n
You see, Patrick Madrid boasted about his being able to \u201cbury me\u201d under 50+ pages of quotations from the Fathers on sola scriptura, and Scott Butler crows about his 91 citations from Chrysostom proving Petrine primacy, and you have your 98 single-spaced pages on the papacy and infallibility. Well, that surely finishes the debate! I mean, 98 pages! I mentioned that to a friend of mine and his response truly amused me: \u201cTell him to shrink his font so that you can fit more than a few words on each page and go from there.\u201d Really, Dave, think about it. If I said, \u201cI have 196 pages of material in small print with condensed spacing that proves the papacy to be in error,\u201d would you be overly impressed? I mean, I would have twice the material you do! Wouldn\u2019t that end the debate? No, of course not. I know JW\u2019s who have \u201chundreds of pages documenting the Trinity is a pagan invention,\u201d too, but I have not stopped adoring the Trinity on the basis of such high-powered testimony.<\/p>\n
You dismissed von Dollinger with a mere wave of the magical developmental wand, Dave. Your words were, \u201cYour three long quotes, which you obviously thought were so unanswerable, have little or no force against my position.\u201d All I can say is, you might be wise to avoid publicly debating that issue if that is all you can come up with.<\/p>\n
In light of the above it was rather hypocritical of you to then write, \u201cYou blithely dismiss my points 7 and 8 with your by-now familiar hit-and-run tactic of glib avoidance when you have no answer.\u201d Well, I\u2019ll let you think I have no answer, if you like, Dave. That\u2019s to my advantage.<\/p>\n
Just a few more items. With reference to various moral issues you wrote, \u201cThe very fact that you don\u2019t regard this as of any \u2018weight\u2019 merely confirms in my mind the Protestant tendency of unconcern for holiness and morality. . . .\u201d Having studied the lives of various of your popes, Dave, and having observed the huge mass of nominal Catholicism all around me here in the U.S., I can only remind you of the old adage about throwing stones while living in glass houses. I guess you probably didn\u2019t read Packer\u2019s\u00a0A Quest for Godliness<\/i>.<\/p>\n
If you are going to engage in patristic debate, Dave, I would suggest sticking to contextual citations. You attempted to get around my citation of Clement\u2019s epistle by citation of 58.2. Unfortunately for your position, I\u2019m one of those few Protestant apologists who happens to have a pretty good patristic library, a good grasp of Greek, and enough experience as a professor of church history to make me dangerous. The entire sentence is:<\/p>\n
[seven lines of Greek text which didn\u2019t scan]<\/p>\n
To which I add my own hearty \u201camen\u201d indeed. But why did this supposed Pope of Rome (of course, he was probably just the scribe for the body of elders that existed in Rome at the time) use such terminology as \u201cthe elect\u201d like that, Dave? Perhaps he wasn\u2019t nearly as opposed to that concept as you are, maybe?<\/p>\n
You then dismissed the central canons from Trent with yet another wave of the hand, saying they \u201cprove nothing.\u201d Really? They prove nothing? Of what good are they then, Dave? Are they just a waste of paper or do they have some meaning? The rest of your paragraph only indicated to me that you are not very clear on the issues revolving around justification, grace, and the like. I\u2019m tempted to say, \u201cSee my debate against Dr. Mitchell Pacwa on justification\u201d but that wouldn\u2019t be nice. :-)<\/p>\n
You then turned to Ignatius for a quotation, and again, demonstrated that context for the Roman apologist is an inconvenient problem. \u201cLet none of you be found a deserter\u201d to which you add, \u201cso much for Calvinism.\u201d Huh? Would you mind explaining the connection here, Dave? I mean, please show me how the context here has the slightest to do with anything like the Reformed faith. Show me where Ignatius, in writing to Polycarp, refers to the bishop of Rome as the center of the Church, and that we are not to desert him. Good luck, as there was no single bishop of Rome at the time, which may explain why Ignatius doesn\u2019t ever refer to the bishop of Rome while writing to the Romans. If your 98 pages of material on the papacy partakes of the same kind of \u201chere\u2019s a sentence I like, who cares if the context is relevant or not\u201d type of citation, well, it would probably not be worth the effort of going through it, wouldn\u2019t you agree?<\/p>\n
There is more I\u2019d like to get to, but I\u2019ve put far too much time into this already. Let me close with three items. First, I am going to import into this letter my reply to Akin\u2019s article that you don\u2019t seem to have seen. Then I will import some of the written \u201cdebate\u201d between myself and Robert Sungenis on 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I simply don\u2019t have time to rewrite all of this for your benefit, and, given the use of the patristic sources I just went through, I have to wonder about the benefits of such an effort in the first place. You will note these posts are not exactly ancient history, as they were written fairly recently. I will attach these as sort of an \u201caddendum\u201d following the close of this letter, though they will be consecutively numbered along with the letter. I will close with your blanket accusations against Protestant apologists. You wrote,<\/p>\n
\u201cI must, regretfully, inform you of another reason for my declining: the widespread intellectual dishonesty, evasiveness, and uncharitability of anti-Catholic debaters. Akin in his article on your book starts out by recalling how you have refused to shake hands with your Catholic opponents, or even pray the Lord\u2019s prayer with them. This is contemptible, petty behavior. Madrid\u2019s article \u2018The White Man\u2019s Burden\u2019 concurs, by citing your rude treatment of him and of Dr. Art Sippo . . .\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Of course, I feel that Roman Catholic debaters (note I don\u2019t have to define them as \u201canti-Protestant debaters\u201d) are far more guilty of intellectual dishonesty, evasiveness, and uncharitability than any Protestant debater I know. A few examples. You cite Akin\u2019s errors (he\u2019s admitted errors in his statements to me personally) about my not shaking hands with opponents. I refused to shake hands with Art Sippo, PERIOD. I have shaken hands with Gerry Matatics after every debate; the same with Dr. Mitchell Pacwa, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Scott Butler, and Robert Sungenis. Ask them. I refused to shake hands with Dr. Sippo because he was a liar, plain and simple. He was also incredibly rude I might add. He walked off the stage while I was speaking (why should he listen to what I have to say? He didn\u2019t care what my position was to begin with), made faces at the audience, and during the question and answer period sat on his desk swinging his legs and making mocking gestures. Talk about rude! (He hasn\u2019t changed, by the way. Just this morning I received an Internet message from him, the first by that medium, that started with this line: \u2018Orthopodeo\u2019 . . . oh, come now, James. Isn\u2019t that handle a little bit presumptuous? It sounds to me like someone boasting of their own righteousness. But don\u2019t worry. Those of us who really know you always think of you as \u2018Pseudopodeo\u2019 anyway.\u201d Yes, a very kind and gracious man.)<\/p>\n
Next, with reference to the Lord\u2019s Prayer, that is quite true. However, if you put it in context, you might find it far less problematic. The incident took place at Boston College, April, 1993. It was at the end of the second of two debates against Gerry Matatics. The first debate had been on justification, and we had both made it quite clear that the other\u2019s position was anathema in our opinion. The second debate was on the Apocrypha. At the very end of the debate, during audience questions, a man got up and said, \u201cI think these debates tend toward disunity. I\u2019d like us all to stand and say the Lord\u2019s Prayer together.\u201d I explained that I could not do that for a number of reasons. First, we didn\u2019t have the unity such a prayer would pretend we had; secondly, the night before we had both agreed that the other was preaching a false gospel, and you can\u2019t sweep that under the rug with a prayer; and finally, prayer is an act of worship, and must be undertaken in spirit and truth, and this was not the context for that. Matatics, having already moved into a very traditional perspective, simply said, \u201cIf you want to know what I think about it, ask me afterwards.\u201d The moderator led in the prayer, and I, and most of the Protestants I knew of in the room, remained seated.<\/p>\n
As to Madrid\u2019s accusations, they are groundless. I did not mistreat him in any way. He did not offer me his hand after the debate, so he says. I thought we had shaken hands, but he says we didn\u2019t. Fine, the only reason was because, as he admits, we were both surrounded as soon as the debate was over. There was nothing more to it than that. As to your assertion that I refused to attempt to prove sola scriptura from the Bible, that is simply untrue as well. If you are relying solely on Madrid\u2019s article, you should at least get the tape and show some level of honesty in your comments. Anyone who listens to the tape or reads the transcript finds a world of difference between Patrick\u2019s almost fantasy-like recollection and the reality of what took place.<\/p>\n
In light of this, your reasons for declining a public debate are left rather hollow. Perhaps you will reconsider your refusal? I have no idea who Gary Michuta is, what his position is, what he\u2019s written, what his background is, or anything else. [funny, then, that he later debated him on the deuterocanon in 2004<\/a>] You wrote to the folks in the cult directory. You have the stationery that says \u201cCatholic Apologist.\u201d You claim to eat Protestant apologists for lunch. I think you need to defend your position in a scholarly manner.<\/p>\nSola scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria,<\/i><\/p>\n
James White
\nRecte Ambulamus ad Veritatem Evangelii<\/i><\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Part IV: Mr. White\u2019s 17-Page\u00a0Second Counter-Reply (4 May 1995) My book (2013, 395 pages; available\u00a0for\u00a0as low as $2.99). * * * * * Complete Debate: Part I:\u00a0Introduction and My Initial Form Letter (23 March 1995) Part II:\u00a0Mr. White\u2019s 7-Page Initial Reply (6 April 1995) Part III:\u00a0My 16-Page First Counter-Reply (22 April 1995) Part IV:\u00a0Mr. White\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":14302,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,1068],"tags":[855,2361,2334,1438,2335,3682,997,1932,3680,1294,2366,3683,3681,3684,1439,4625],"class_list":["post-14304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-james-white","tag-anti-catholic","tag-anti-catholicism","tag-catholic-conversion","tag-catholic-conversion-stories","tag-catholic-converts","tag-critique-of-protestantism","tag-cults","tag-denominationalism","tag-errors-of-protestantism","tag-heresies","tag-james-white","tag-protestant-division","tag-protestant-error","tag-protestant-incoherence","tag-religious-conversion","tag-religious-status-of-catholicism"],"yoast_head":"\n
Is Catholicism Christian or Not? (vs. James White): Pt. 4<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Part IV: Mr. White's 17-Page Second Counter-Reply (4 May 1995). Now we see the James White who always appears: insulting, condescending, & irrational.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Is Catholicism Christian or Not? (vs. James White): Pt. 4\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Part IV: Mr. White's 17-Page Second Counter-Reply (4 May 1995). Now we see the James White who always appears: insulting, condescending, & irrational.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-11-07T18:06:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-08T17:30:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/11\/Cover-555-x-838.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"555\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"838\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"53 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html\",\"name\":\"Is Catholicism Christian or Not? (vs. James White): Pt. 4\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-11-07T18:06:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-08T17:30:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Part IV: Mr. White's 17-Page Second Counter-Reply (4 May 1995). Now we see the James White who always appears: insulting, condescending, & irrational.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Is Catholicism Christian or Not? (vs. James White): Pt. 4\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Is Catholicism Christian or Not? (vs. James White): Pt. 4","description":"Part IV: Mr. White's 17-Page Second Counter-Reply (4 May 1995). Now we see the James White who always appears: insulting, condescending, & irrational.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Is Catholicism Christian or Not? (vs. James White): Pt. 4","og_description":"Part IV: Mr. White's 17-Page Second Counter-Reply (4 May 1995). Now we see the James White who always appears: insulting, condescending, & irrational.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2017-11-07T18:06:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-08T17:30:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":555,"height":838,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/11\/Cover-555-x-838.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"53 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html","name":"Is Catholicism Christian or Not? (vs. James White): Pt. 4","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-11-07T18:06:14+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-08T17:30:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Part IV: Mr. White's 17-Page Second Counter-Reply (4 May 1995). Now we see the James White who always appears: insulting, condescending, & irrational.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2017\/11\/catholicism-christian-not-vs-james-white-pt-4.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Is Catholicism Christian or Not? (vs. James White): Pt. 4"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14304"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14304\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14302"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Cover](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/11\/Cover-555-x-838.jpg\")
<\/p>\n