![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/05\/Cover-551x833.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
[see book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/p>\n Words of Bishop<\/a> \u201cDr.\u201d [???<\/a>] James White will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers &\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0(mostly dealing with St. Irenaeus and Tertullian)<\/a>\u00a0[8-29-07]<\/p>\n Lutheran Chemnitz: Errors Re Fathers &\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0(including analysis of Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Lactantius, Athanasius, and Cyprian)<\/a>\u00a0[8-31-07]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I quickly found some of the leading polemics against Catholic infallibility, such as the Irish Anglican anti-Catholic George Salmon (1819-1904), author of\u00a0The Infallibility of the Church<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(1888) and\u00a0Johann Joseph Ignaz von D\u00f6llinger (1799-1890), the German historian who rejected the\u00a0ex cathedra<\/i>\u00a0declaration of papal infallibility and formed the Old Catholic schismatic group. His books,\u00a0Letters of Quirinus<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Letters of Janus<\/i>, were written during the First Vatican Council in 1870.<\/p>\n Salmon\u2019s work has been refuted decisively twice, by B.C. Butler, in his\u00a0The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged \u201cSalmon\u201d<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(New York, Sheed & Ward, 1954), and also in a series of articles in\u00a0The Irish Ecclesiastical Record<\/i>, in 1901 and 1902 [see p. 193 ff., March 1901<\/a>] (probably able to be found online).<\/p>\n Yet Protestant apologists Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie still claimed in 1995, in a major critique of Catholicism,\u00a0Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, p. 206; cf. p. 459) that Salmon\u2019s book has \u201cnever really been answered by the Catholic Church\u201d and is the \u201cclassic refutation of papal infallibility.\u201d<\/p>\n Prominent professional anti-Catholic James White, in the same year, claimed that I must have never been familiar with the best Protestant arguments against infallibility and Catholicism in general \u2014 hence my eventual conversion on flimsy grounds.<\/p>\n The truth was quite otherwise: the above works are the cream of the crop of this particular line of thought, as evidenced by Geisler and MacKenzie\u2019s citation of both Salmon and\u00a0K\u00fcng<\/em>\u00a0as \u201cwitnesses\u201d for their case (ibid<\/em>., pp. 206-207). Church historian D\u00f6llinger\u2019s heretical opinions are also often utilized by Eastern Orthodox apologists as arguments against papal infallibility.<\/p>\n Using these severely biased, untrustworthy sources, I found the typical arguments used: for example, Pope Honorius, who supposedly was a heretic. I produced two long papers containing difficult \u201cproblems\u201d of Catholic history and alleged contradictions and so forth (just as atheists love to do with the Bible), to \u201ctorment\u201d my Catholic friends at the group discussions.<\/p>\n George Salmon revealed in his book his profound ignorance, not only concerning papal infallibility, but also with regard to even the\u00a0basics<\/em>\u00a0of the development of doctrine:<\/p>\n Romish advocates . . . are now content to exchange tradition, which their predecessors had made the basis of their system, for this new foundation of development . . . The theory of development is, in short, an attempt to enable men, beaten off the platform of history, to hang on to it by the eyelids . . . The old theory was that the teaching of the Church had never varied.\u00a0(The Infallibility of the Church<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House [originally 1888], pp. 31-33; cf. pp. 35, 39)<\/p>\n Here Salmon is quixotically fighting a straw man of his own making and seeking to sophistically force his readers into the acceptance of a false and altogether logically unnecessary dichotomy. He contended that development of doctrine implies change in the\u00a0essence<\/i>\u00a0of a doctrine and therefore is utterly contrary to the claims of the Church to be the\u00a0guardian<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0custodian\u00a0<\/i>of an authoritative tradition of never-changing dogma.<\/p>\n But this is emphatically\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0the Catholic notion, nor that of Cardinal Newman, to whom Salmon was largely responding. Nor is it true that development was a \u201cnew\u201d theory introduced by Cardinal Newman into Catholicism, while the \u201cold theory\u201d was otherwise. This is proven by the writing of St. Vincent of Lerins, one of the Church fathers, who died around 450 A. D., in his classic patristic exposition of development,\u00a0The Notebooks<\/i>:<\/p>\n Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly there is, and the greatest . . . But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself; by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily . . . and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion. The progress of religion in souls is like the growth of bodies, which, in the course of years, evolve and develop, but still remain what they were . . . Although in the course of time something evolved from those first seeds and has now expanded under careful cultivation, nothing of the characteristics of the seeds is changed. Granted that appearance, beauty and distinction has been added, still, the same nature of each kind remains.\u00a0(23:28-30; cited from William A. Jurgens,\u00a0The Faith of the Early Fathers<\/em>; Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979, vol. 3, p. 265)<\/p>\n St. Augustine (354-430), the greatest of the Church fathers, whom Protestants also greatly revere, expressed similar sentiments in his\u00a0City of God<\/i>\u00a0(16, 2, 1), and\u00a0On the 54th Psalm<\/i>\u00a0(number 22). The (explicit) concept predated Newman by at least fourteen centuries, Salmon\u2019s claims notwithstanding.<\/p>\n George Salmon thus loses much credibility as any sort of expert on Christian history, papal infallibility, or development, for this and many other reasons, as demonstrated by his Catholic critics. Yet Geisler and MacKenzie, while presenting a fairly accurate picture of Newman\u2019s (and Catholic) development of doctrine, state that Salmon\u2019s book is \u201ca penetrating critique of Newman\u2019s theory\u201d (ibid<\/i>., p. 459).<\/p>\n It is beyond our purview here to examine the faulty and jaundiced reasoning employed by the above-cited \u201canti-infallibility\u201d works, and my own ambitious and zealous adoption of them, in my effort to refute the Catholic Church on historical grounds. Suffice it to say that it is largely a matter of misunderstanding or misapplying the true doctrine of infallibility, as defined dogmatically by the First Vatican Council in 1870, or else a conveniently selective and dishonest presentation of historical facts and patristic citations.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [see book and purchase information] Words of Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White will be in blue. ***** In an article on his blog, dated 10-31-09 [linked below], he attacked Dr. Francis Beckwith: \u00a0 We get the distinct feeling that despite spending 90 days doing the study that led him back to Rome, Dr. Beckwith somehow […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":47504,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31,1068],"tags":[598,779,514,33,245,1852,2366,4258,1266,1267,32,35,47,36,932,11006,1979],"class_list":["post-47501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","category-james-white","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-apostolic-tradition","tag-bible-only","tag-christian-authority","tag-early-church","tag-george-salmon","tag-james-white","tag-martin-chemnitz","tag-patristics","tag-patrology","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura","tag-three-legged-stool","tag-tradition","tag-william-goode","tag-william-whitaker"],"yoast_head":"\n\nIn an article on his blog<\/a>, dated 10-31-09 [linked below], he attacked Dr. Francis Beckwith:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nWe get the distinct feeling that despite spending 90 days doing the study that led him back to Rome, Dr. Beckwith somehow missed the best works from the non-Roman Catholic viewpoint. I see no reason to believe he worked through Chemnitz or Whittaker [sic] or Goode or Salmon. It seems most of his reading was in secondary, pro-Roman sources, or at least fuzzy ecumenical ones.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nAgain, responding to Beckwith on 8-18-10<\/a>, White wrote:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nOne will scan his notes in vain for any reference to any classical works on, say, sola scriptura<\/em>, such as William Whitaker\u2019s late 16th century classic, Disputations on Holy Scripture<\/em>, or William Goode\u2019s mid 19th century work, Divine Rule of Faith and Practice<\/em>.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nAnd again, about someone else on 9-3-07<\/a>:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nOf course, these issues have been addressed many times, so I wonder if this writer has, in fact, read Goode or Whitaker . . .?<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nAnd on 8-20-07<\/a>:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nHave you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home<\/em> and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome\u2019s claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers?<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI see. Now, Dr. Beckwith is a professional philosopher (i.e. \u2014 very unlike Mr. White \u2014 , a professor, with a real<\/em> doctorate, not a fake one<\/a> bought with cereal boxtops: like White\u2019s). That\u2019s his life\u2019s work. I doubt that he would even have a tenth of the time that full-time Christian apologists like myself and Bishop White have, to deal that fully in primary anti-Catholic or contra-Catholic Protestant sources.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI do<\/strong> <\/em>have that time, and lo and behold, when I wrote one of my three books on sola Scriptura<\/em> (the 310-page Pillars of\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura:\u00a0Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical \u201cProofs\u201d for \u201cBible Alone\u201d<\/i><\/a>\u00a0from 2012), it was a point-by-point refutation of the two men whom White and many other Protestants consider the best historic defenders of the false doctrine of sola Scriptura<\/em> (absolutely central to Protestant thinking).<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI devoted pages 13-186 to the 1588 work, Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton<\/em>, by the Calvinist Anglican William Whitaker (1548-1595).\u00a0<\/span>And I devoted pages 187-236 to the 1853 tome, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice<\/em>, by the evangelical Anglican William Goode (1801-1868).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nHow\u2019s that<\/em> for \u201cwork<\/span>[ing] through\u201d<\/span> the \u201cbest works from the non-Roman Catholic viewpoint\u201d<\/span>? This is what White constantly demands, yet when a Catholic actually does<\/strong><\/em> it, it\u2019s crickets on his end: no response whatever from him or any other Protestant apologist.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nHe also mentions Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), the Lutheran theologian, as one of these \u201cbest\u201d<\/span> sources. I haven\u2019t written a book about him, but I\u2019ve read his main polemical book and have done three lengthy examinations of his highly flawed arguments regarding the Church fathers and their supposed quasi-Lutheran leanings:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nChurch Fathers & Justification: Martin Chemnitz vs. Catholicism\u00a0<\/a>[9-9-07]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nMoreover, I read George Salmon\u2019s book against infallibility back in 1990 when I was fighting against the Catholic Church (infallibility was my biggest objection), and I have addressed it twice as a Catholic:<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAbsurd Anti-Newman Rhetoric in Anti-Catholic Polemics<\/a> (9-27-05)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJohn Henry Newman on Papal Infallibility Prior to 1870 (Classic Anti-Catholic Lies: George Salmon, James White, David T. King et al)<\/a> (8-11-11)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nIt contains atrocious and rather easily refuted argumentation, too. White has utterly ignored all of that material, too. I not only was familiar<\/em> with Salmon\u2019s polemics; I heavily utilized<\/em> it when I was fighting against the Catholic Church an particularly infallibility in 1990. In a portion of my longest (75-page) conversion story<\/a> I wrote (links added presently):<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\nI thank James White for the unintended compliment.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n(originally posted on Facebook on 11-11-19; expanded on 5-11-20)<\/div>\n\n