![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/04\/FoxeAnti-Catholic.gif\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Exodus From Rome, Volume 2: A Biblical and Historical Critique of Roman Catholicism<\/em> <\/a>(The Scofield Institute Press, 8 April 2018), by Todd D. Baker, is the latest of a long line of anti-Catholic critiques of Catholicism (i.e., from the perspective that Catholicism isn\u2019t a species of Christianity, and is a \u201cfalse gospel\u201d). They\u2019re utterly predictable in their lame, oft-refuted \u201carguments.\u201d I\u2019ve dealt with them innumerable times on my<\/span> Anti-Catholicism<\/a> and<\/span> James White<\/a> web pages. I wouldn\u2019t spend any time on this at all, except that he mentions my name, and I have an \u201cexception\u201d policy of responding to direct arguments against my own writing: even from anti-Catholics.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Todd Baker is president of B\u2019rit Hadashah Ministries and Pastor of Shalom Messianic Congregation in Dallas, Texas. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biblical Studies, a Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Philosophy and Apologetics from Trinity Seminary under the auspices of Liverpool University at Liverpool, England. He is a professor at Scofield Bible Institute and staff theologian and writer for Zola Levitt Ministries. He has appeared on the television program Zola Levitt Presents several times. With his extensive experience in Jewish Evangelism, he conducts Gospel outreaches to Israel several times a year.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Baker\u2019s words, from his book, will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I. Apostolic Tradition and \u201cTraditions of Men\u201d in Scripture, and Sola Scriptura<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n [Footnote] 23. Dave Armstrong, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura<\/em> (San Diego, Catholic Answers, 2012); Msgr. George Agius,\u00a0<\/span>Tradition<\/em>, 11. Armstrong\u2019s ridiculously entitled book purports to give 100 airtight arguments from the Bible against sola scriptura<\/em>\u00a0(the belief Scripture alone is the final and ultimate authority for the Christian). Upon a closer reading of his text the savvy, intelligent\u00a0Bible discerner will see that all of Armstrong\u2019s arguments are basically riddled with half-truths, straw-man arguments, and begging\u00a0the question premises\u2014all of which have been thoroughly answered and refuted, in one form or another, by Bible believing\u00a0apologists. <\/span><\/p>\n That may or may not possibly<\/em> be true of my book and my arguments, of course, but by the same token, this description (as Dr. Baker certainly knows) is not a rational argument. It\u2019s merely a hostile description. In order to demonstrate the merit of<\/span> the arguments I make in my book<\/a>, they would have to actually be interacted<\/em> with, and attempted refutations made. <\/span><\/p>\n But anti-Catholics would rather crawl over broken glass on their bare knees for a mile than ever do that<\/em>! It\u2019s much easier to mock and dismiss with a few childish lines. I\u2019ve written more about sola Scriptura<\/em> than about any other topic (in my 27 years of Catholic apologetics), and there are plans for my third book on the topic to be published soon. See my<\/span> Bible and Tradition web page<\/a>.<\/p>\n See, for example, William Whitaker, Disputation On Holy Scripture<\/em>; <\/span><\/p>\n Yeah, I wrote an entire<\/span> 310-page book<\/a> in which I deal point-by-point with the arguments of Whitaker (1548-1595)\u00a0 and also those of William Goode (1801-1868). I did so because many Protestants contend that these two men are the best historic defenders of sola Scriptura<\/em>. And (what a surprise!) no Protestant (for nearly six years now) has ever even attempted<\/em> to refute what I offer there. To modify an old saying a bit: \u201cif you can\u2019t beat \u2019em, flee for the hills.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n David T. King and William Webster, Holy\u00a0Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith<\/em>, vol. 1\u20133; <\/span><\/p>\n Yep. I\u2019ve refuted large portions of the books of these two men (or other papers by them) many times. With regard to the present<\/em> topic, see:<\/span><\/p>\n Chrysostom & Irenaeus:\u00a0Sola Scripturists<\/em>?: Refutation of Anti-Catholic Polemicist and Reformed Protestant Pastor David T. King\u00a0<\/a>[4-20-07]<\/p>\n Answer to\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0\u201cProoftexts\u201d 2 Timothy 3:16-17 & Romans 16:15-16<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Reformed Pastor David T. King) [6-26-12]<\/p>\n David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Introduction to the Series<\/a>\u00a0[11-8-13]<\/p>\n David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Part I: St. Cyril of Jerusalem<\/a>\u00a0[11-9-13]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Johann Gerhard, On the Nature and Theology of Scripture<\/em>; Don\u00a0Kistler, Sola Scriptura<\/em>; Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent<\/em>, vol. 1; William Webster, Roman Catholic\u00a0Tradition: Claims and Contradictions<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve dealt with Chemnitz\u2019s arguments as well, and have his book about Trent in my library (hardcover). Presently, those articles are only available at Internet Archive (I have to upload them to my current blog), but if anyone wants to read them, they are listed on my<\/span> Lutheranism web page<\/a> (search \u201cChemnitz\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n [ . . . ]<\/span><\/p>\n Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong\u00a0concludes this has to be what Paul meant:<\/span><\/p>\n When Paul spoke of receiving and delivering such traditions, he gave no indication that they were infallible or that he\u00a0questioned any of them because they came through oral transmission rather than the written word<\/em>. Thus, he appears\u00a0to take for granted that which many Protestants have the hardest time grasping and accepting. 76 (Emphasis mine.)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n [Footnote]<\/span> 76.\u00a0Armstrong, 100 Biblical Arguments<\/em>, 23.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Baker botches the quote and in so doing, changes the meaning quite a bit. Where he has \u201cin<\/em>fallible\u201d the actual word I had was \u201cfallible.\u201d I will give him the benefit of the doubt that it was probably an innocent mistake, but this demonstrates the supreme importance of citing accurately.<\/span><\/p>\n The thought I was expressing, then, was that, for St. Paul, tradition (including extrabiblical tradition) was authoritative and binding and infallible: both in written and oral form. This directly contradicts sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n What Armstrong fails to take into account is that the Pharisees, in Paul and Jesus\u2019 day, believed\u00a0Judaism\u2019s oral traditions (later codified in the Talmud) were the unwritten Word of God equal in\u00a0authority to the written Word of God in Holy Scripture. <\/span><\/p>\n Agreed; and Jesus and Paul and the early Christians believed in oral tradition as well. See my papers:<\/span><\/p>\n James White\u2019s Critique of My Book,\u00a0The Catholic Verses<\/em>: Part I: The Binding Authority of Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[12-30-04]<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Oral Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[2-20-09]<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah<\/a>\u00a0[10-18-11]<\/p>\n Sola Scriptura<\/em>, the Old Testament, & Ancient Jewish Practice<\/a>\u00a0[1999]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul, a former Pharisee, not only knew of this\u00a0major tenet of Pharisaism, but also once believed it as a former Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). <\/span><\/p>\n St. Paul was not<\/em> a \u201cformer Pharisee. He still<\/em> called himself a Pharisee<\/em> after<\/em> he became a Christian. He says so twice:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 23:6<\/strong> (RSV) . . .\u00a0\u201cBrethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees . . . \u201c<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 26:5<\/strong> . . .\u00a0according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Paul continued to worship in the temple and observe the rites there, including animal sacrifice (Acts 21:26; 22:17; 24:12, 17-18). Indeed, he was doing so when he was arrested. He continued to worship in the synagogues as well, even presiding over some of the services (Acts 13:13-44; cf. 18:4). He acknowledged the authority of the Jewish high priest as his own \u201cruler\u201d (Acts 23:1-8).<\/span><\/p>\n The oral\u00a0law was placed alongside Scripture by the Pharisees to complete the Word of God. But both Jesus\u00a0and Paul rebuke this grave error by calling these traditions what they really were in origin and\u00a0creation\u2014\u201cthe traditions and doctrines of men<\/em>\u201d (Matthew 15:1\u201310; Mark 7:1\u201313; Colossians 2:8).<\/span><\/p>\n There were indeed (and are) mere \u201ctraditions of men\u201d (i.e., contrary to apostolic, true traditions). Jesus and Paul refer to both, so it must be determined which<\/em> is being referred to in any given context. Jesus told his disciples to observe what the Pharisees told them to do, even if they were hypocrites (Mt 23:1-3), and He said they had this authority because they sit on \u201cMoses\u2019 seat\u201d: a notion that is not found in the Old Testament. See:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cTradition\u201d Isn\u2019t a Dirty Word<\/a>\u00a0[late 90s; rev. 8-16-16]<\/p>\n Biblical Evidence for True Apostolic Tradition (vs. \u201cTraditions of Men\u201d)<\/a>\u00a0[6-23-11]<\/p>\n Reply to William Whitaker\u2019s\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0Arguments: Absurd Alleged Biblical Indications Against Apostolic Tradition<\/a>\u00a0[10-20-11]<\/p>\n \u201cMoses\u2019 Seat\u201d & Jesus vs.\u00a0<\/a>Sola Scriptura<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(vs. James White) [12-27-03]<\/p>\n Refutation of James White: Moses\u2019 Seat, the Bible, and Tradition\u00a0(Introduction: #1)<\/a>\u00a0(+Part II\u00a0<\/a>|\u00a0Part III<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part IV<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part V<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part VI<\/a>) [5-12-05]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If Armstrong were adequately educated about what first century Judaism teaches then and today\u00a0about the so called divine origin of their oral tradition, he would see that Jesus\u2019 and Paul\u2019s\u00a0condemnation of man-man tradition purported to be from God, is the same thing the Roman Catholic\u00a0Church believes their Sacred Tradition to be\u2014the unwritten word of God. So the well-deserved\u00a0rejection of manmade religious traditions by Jesus and Paul equally applies to the traditions of Rome,\u00a0which also deny the sole sufficiency of God\u2019s Word alone!<\/span><\/p>\n This doesn\u2019t follow logically at all, nor has Dr. Baker demonstrated it. He\u2019s merely spouting anti-Catholic talking-points, from the 500-year-old playbook. I provide biblical (and patristic and rational) arguments for every single distinctively Catholic doctrine; most notably in my volume<\/span>,\u00a0Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths<\/em><\/a> (which is 95% Scripture verses), but also in my books,<\/span> A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em><\/a>, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants<\/em><\/a>, The One-Minute Apologist<\/em><\/a>, Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical<\/em><\/a>, and Revelation!: 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Questions<\/em><\/a>. If any doctrine is \u201cmanmade\u201d it\u2019s sola Scriptura<\/em>: a<\/span> completely unbiblical<\/a> and incoherent<\/span>, self-refuting<\/a> doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n If tradition, in the three places Paul mentions it in a positive light in the New Testament, became\u00a0a part of his inscripturated writings of the New Testament, as we have thus far adequately\u00a0demonstrated, then Armstrong\u2019s forced and unwarranted differentiation between traditions of men and\u00a0the unwritten traditions of God does not hold water; and he is simply committing the fallacy of\u00a0equivocation<\/em>. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when an ambiguous term is taken one way in one\u00a0occurrence in the argument and then in another way in the second occurrence without showing clear\u00a0epistemic and contextual justification for making this difference in meaning (i.e., man-made tradition\u00a0vis a vis<\/em> the unwritten traditions of God permanently existing outside of Scripture). 77<\/span><\/p>\n [Footnote]<\/span> 77.\u00a0Douglas N. Walton. Informal Logic: A Handbook For Critical Argumentation<\/em> (New York: Cambridge, 1989), 250.<\/span><\/p>\n This is far too simplistic. Dr. Baker claims that all legitimate traditions become \u201cinscripturated.\u201d<\/span> But this is a circular argument. The Protestant who argues in this way simply assumes<\/em> it without demonstrating it from the Bible. Nowhere in the actual Bible does it ever say that absolutely every tradition must eventually wind up explicitly mentioned in the Bible, or else it is non-binding and illegitimate.<\/span><\/p>\n Nor does the Bible ever say that every Christian doctrine must be explicitly laid out in Scripture. Nor does it ever spell out and define\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em> and claim (as Protestants habitually do) that only Scripture is infallible and binding as the rule of faith. The quickest way to demonstrate this is to bring up the canon of the Bible, which is nowhere listed in the Bible. <\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, it is an extrabiblical tradition that is universally accepted by Christians (the only difference being the Protestant non-acceptance of the seven books of the deuterocanon). Every Protestant uncritically accepts on faith the 27-book canon of the New Testament, not<\/em> because of sola Scriptura<\/em>, but because of Church authority and declarations (infallible tradition and an infallible Church decree) going back to the 4th century. There is no way out of this dilemma.<\/span><\/p>\n Another quick way to refute sola Scriptura<\/em> is to cite the<\/span> Jerusalem Council<\/a>, which gave a binding decree that all Christians everywhere were henceforth bound to. St. Paul himself passed along the decree in his missionary travels (Acts 16:4). It was an infallible council and Church authority: expressly contrary to sola Scriptura<\/em>, which holds that only Scripture<\/em> is infallible.<\/span><\/p>\n Dave Armstrong does the same thing when arbitrarily assuming for the Catholic Church that the\u00a0tradition(s) Paul equates with apostolic teaching do not point to the apostolic writings in Scripture.\u00a0Therefore Armstrong assumes these traditions must, of necessity, exist outside of Scripture; without\u00a0unequivocally demonstrating that the apostle meant exactly this when he writes of the apostolic\u00a0traditions taught in the churches of the first century. Indeed, we have contextually proven in each case\u00a0these traditions are the very teachings and instructions Paul writes in his New Testament epistles\u2014\u00a0and thus part of the written Word of God.<\/span><\/p>\n Such a universal negative cannot<\/em> and has not<\/em> been proven. It\u2019s assumed without argument, which is no rational (or biblical) argument. This is one of many arbitrary Protestant traditions of men: that every time \u201ctradition\u201d is alluded to in the New Testament, it must<\/em> be referring to something in Scripture (i.e., because the Protestant has unbiblically assumed from the outset that it must<\/em> do so; not because the Bible<\/em> ever says so).<\/span><\/p>\n II. Mary and the Ark of the Covenant<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Catholic theology also believes that the Ark of the Covenant typifies the person of Mary, and like\u00a0the Ark that could not be touched because it was so holy, Mary in this way could not be touched by a\u00a0man. Mary symbolizes the Ark since she bore the incarnate Son of God, much in the same way the Ark\u00a0of the Covenant housed the presence of God. Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong makes the following\u00a0comparison between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary:<\/span><\/p>\n The ark of the old covenant was constructed according to meticulous instructions from God (Exod. 25:9; 39:42\u201343). How\u00a0much more perfect must the \u201cGod-bearer\u201d be who would carry in her womb God made flesh, the eternal Logos<\/em>, or \u201cWord\u201d\u00a0of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? 117<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n [Footnote]<\/span> 117.\u00a0Dave Armstrong, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em> (Bedford, NJ: Sophia Press, 2003), 179. [The correct bibliographical information is Manchester, New Hampshire and Sophia Institute<\/em> Press. Apparently, Dr. Baker got \u201cBedford\u201d from Wikipedia<\/a>, but still got the state<\/em> wrong. Both my book and the current website for Sophia<\/a> list Manchester, New Hampshire as the mailing address (street address: Nashua, NH)]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Once again, both Staples and Armstrong, following a long train of Roman Catholic tradition,\u00a0read their own presuppositional ideas of Mary into the biblical texts. <\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019re not reading into anything! The many parallels are there in Scripture (as I have<\/span> written about<\/a>), as an example of<\/span> types and shadows or typology<\/a>: a familiar biblical motif that Protestants accept as much as we do. Secondly, Protestants always claim to be more in line with the teachings of the Church fathers in the early centuries than Catholics are. There is plenty of documentation of this comparison of Mary with the ark<\/span> from the Church fathers<\/a>.<\/p>\n For example, it is alluded to by Hippolytus, Ephrem, Ambrose, Cyril\u00a0 of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Dionysius, Theodotus, and Jerome (not a one of whom ever taught sola fide<\/em> or sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0or denied baptismal regeneration or the Real Substantial Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist). Anti-Catholics like Dr. Baker need to take it up with them<\/em>, then, if they don\u2019t like this, rather than Armstrong and Staples, who are merely reiterating and passing along what has long since been observed.<\/span><\/p>\n III. Mary Spouse of the Holy Spirit<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
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<\/a>\u00a0[11-11-13]<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n
David T. King Ignores\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0Biblical Disproofs<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0(Incl. lengthy analysis of 2 Peter 1:20: \u201cno prophecy of scripture is a matter of one\u2019s own interpretation\u201d) [11-13-17]<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n
William Webster\u2019s Misunderstanding of Development of Doctrine<\/a>\u00a0[2000]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWilliam Webster vs. Tradition, Development, & Truth<\/a>\u00a0[4-10-03]<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\nWilliam Webster was duly informed of my first paper written in response to his atrocious, embarrassing arguments in 2000. He appeared to express some interest in counter-responding, but alas, never did, and never has since that time. The same holds for Pastor King. He tried to lie about and misrepresent my hero, Cardinal Newman, in 2002 (making out that he was a flaming modernist),<\/span> until I roundly refuted him<\/a>. He has never dared to debate me since that time. It\u2019s an old familiar pattern of behavior by now.
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n