good news from an anti-C

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Everyone!

I am absolutely appauled by the behavior on this thread. First of all, I am appauled that you are not dealing with any of the issues at all. The idea of saying “You Prots are destroying Christianity, every day more and more divisions, look at you how old is your made up self appointed excuse for a church,” is not only rude, but refuses to deal with the issues at all. Catholic Dude, where did you ever deal with Goode, Witaker, Salmon, Webster, King, and even your own scholars such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer who say the exact opposite? Calling someone’s church a “made up, self appointed excuse for a church” without dealing with the evidence contrary to your position is just simply reprehensible.

As far as Terri Shaivo, Protestants have pushed just as hard as Catholics have to help her. There is complete evidence of this as Albert Mohler held several programs long before you ever posted this (see his archive at albertmohler.com/radio.html) and also wrote several articles on his blog (crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/). In fact, he even appeared on the Nancy Grace television program on CNN Headline News to defend Terri. Notice that many of the people who call into his program are protestants. He even posted the numbers where his listeners could call congress in support of her. Hence, your statement about protestants is just simply false. That is what he meant when he said you were not in touch with reality.

As far as telling someone “YOU HAVE DONE ZERO TO PROMOTE THE GOSPEL. GREED IS ALL YOU KNOW,” of course, you know that is untrue. You don’t get to be a critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible Update by just going after money. It takes hard work and study, as well as discipline and love for the word of God, something you are accusing Dr. White of never having. Trust me, if you study Greek Exegesis you need to know plenty of big words, as that is one of my fields of study right now. More than enough to read the CCC.

Adstrinity, as far as him setting up a strawman, I believe that it was Patrick Madrid who said that James White was the best apologists against the Catholic Church. Furthermore, strawmen cannot survive debate. The fact that he has done so many debates against Catholic apologists should tell you that your statement is untrue. Dr. White never insinuated that the forum was shut down on account of him. Reading him in context, he was talking about the influx of this kind of behavior from Catholic message boards and how this behavior stopped at Steve Ray’s board because it was closed. Honestly, why can’t you learn when you make the mistake of falsely accusing someone of lying, and then being proven wrong by your own supporters?

Furthermore, comparing James White with Jack Chick is simply silly. I have read both, and there is considerable more substance to Dr. White’s writing and I think any unbiased examination of each will prove that. Not only that, but, although you may not agree with it, did you notice how careful his Greek Exegesis was in The God Who Justifies? It is covered with citations from grammars, lexicons, structural presentations of the language etc. Where did Jack Chick ever do something like that?

As far as the robbing of people through indulgences, and pedaphile priests, and such, his point was that it is a documented fact that the Catholic church has used people in the past, and hence, why in heaven’s name someone would be willing to shout out and groundlessly call him greedy when the very church you are defending has been documented to have done far more greedy things than one person could ever do? I am not saying that this defeats the Catholic position as you have ex-cathedra statements and such. However, making a groundless assertion that someone is greedy and when your own church which you openly defend has a documented history of greed and using people is just simply silly.

I know we have a difference in our Old Testament Canon, but I am sure all of these are in your Bible:

**

** Exodus 20:16 **

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

**

** 2 Timothy 2:24-26 **

**The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses *and escape *from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

God Bless,
Martin Luther**

 

[Mickey]

Martin Luther:

Hello Everyone!

I am absolutely appauled by the behavior on this thread. First of all, I am appauled that you are not dealing with any of the issues at all. The idea of saying “You Prots are destroying Christianity, every day more and more divisions, look at you how old is your made up self appointed excuse for a church,” is not only rude, but refuses to deal with the issues at all. Catholic Dude, where did you ever deal with Goode, Witaker, Salmon, Webster, King, and even your own scholars such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer who say the exact opposite? Calling someone’s church a “made up, self appointed excuse for a church” without dealing with the evidence contrary to your position is just simply reprehensible.

As far as Terri Shaivo, Protestants have pushed just as hard as Catholics have to help her. There is complete evidence of this as Albert Mohler held several programs long before you ever posted this (see his archive at albertmohler.com/radio.html) and also wrote several articles on his blog (crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/). In fact, he even appeared on the Nancy Grace television program on CNN Headline News to defend Terri. Notice that many of the people who call into his program are protestants. He even posted the numbers where his listeners could call congress in support of her. Hence, your statement about protestants is just simply false. That is what he meant when he said you were not in touch with reality.

As far as telling someone “YOU HAVE DONE ZERO TO PROMOTE THE GOSPEL. GREED IS ALL YOU KNOW,” of course, you know that is untrue. You don’t get to be a critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible Update by just going after money. It takes hard work and study, as well as discipline and love for the word of God, something you are accusing Dr. White of never having. Trust me, if you study Greek Exegesis you need to know plenty of big words, as that is one of my fields of study right now. More than enough to read the CCC.

Adstrinity, as far as him setting up a strawman, I believe that it was Patrick Madrid who said that James White was the best apologists against the Catholic Church. Furthermore, strawmen cannot survive debate. The fact that he has done so many debates against Catholic apologists should tell you that your statement is untrue. Dr. White never insinuated that the forum was shut down on account of him. Reading him in context, he was talking about the influx of this kind of behavior from Catholic message boards and how this behavior stopped at Steve Ray’s board because it was closed. Honestly, why can’t you learn when you make the mistake of falsely accusing someone of lying, and then being proven wrong by your own supporters?

Furthermore, comparing James White with Jack Chick is simply silly. I have read both, and there is considerable more substance to Dr. White’s writing and I think any unbiased examination of each will prove that. Not only that, but, although you may not agree with it, did you notice how careful his Greek Exegesis was in The God Who Justifies? It is covered with citations from grammars, lexicons, structural presentations of the language etc. Where did Jack Chick ever do something like that?

As far as the robbing of people through indulgences, and pedaphile priests, and such, his point was that it is a documented fact that the Catholic church has used people in the past, and hence, why in heaven’s name someone would be willing to shout out and groundlessly call him greedy when the very church you are defending has been documented to have done far more greedy things than one person could ever do? I am not saying that this defeats the Catholic position as you have ex-cathedra statements and such. However, making a groundless assertion that someone is greedy and when your own church which you openly defend has a documented history of greed and using people is just simply silly.

If I’m not mistaken, Al Mohler once declared that Roman Catholicism is a false Church, teaching a false Gospel, and having a false leader. These words facilitate scattering–not gathering. Dr White spends a considerable amount of his time and resources attempting to refute anything Catholic.

The last bastion of tolerable prejudice and discrimination in this country is anti-Catholicism, and sometimes it compels Catholics to lash out in frustration.

We are all Christians, albeit on different paths of the journey. The true Christian course of action for all of us Mr. Luther, is to stop the insults, and pray for eachother.

God Bless you,
Mickey

 

[Scalia]

I am absolutely appauled by the behavior on this thread. First of all, I am appauled that you are not dealing with any of the issues at all. The idea of saying “You Prots are destroying Christianity, every day more and more divisions, look at you how old is your made up self appointed excuse for a church,” is not only rude, but refuses to deal with the issues at all. Catholic Dude, where did you ever deal with Goode, Witaker, Salmon, Webster, King, and even your own scholars such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer who say the exact opposite? Calling someone’s church a “made up, self appointed excuse for a church” without dealing with the evidence contrary to your position is just simply reprehensible.

Martin calm down. This thread was not established for the purpose of “dealing with…Goode, Whitaker, Salmon [etc.]” I’m absolutely sure you already know this…

As far as telling someone “YOU HAVE DONE ZERO TO PROMOTE THE GOSPEL. GREED IS ALL YOU KNOW,” of course, you know that is untrue. You don’t get to be a critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible Update by just going after money. It takes hard work and study, as well as discipline and love for the word of God, something you are accusing Dr. White of never having. Trust me, if you study Greek Exegesis you need to know plenty of big words, as that is one of my fields of study right now. More than enough to read the CCC.

Many Catholics believe, rightly so in my opinion, that White’s “ministry” is nothing but a pretext for vicious attacks against the Catholic Church. Additionally, your remarks stated supra comingle the issues of technical skills and character, although most of us on this board wouldn’t yield any ground on either issue concerning White.

As far as the robbing of people through indulgences, and pedaphile priests, and such, his point was that it is a documented fact that the Catholic church has used people in the past, and hence, why in heaven’s name someone would be willing to shout out and groundlessly call him greedy when the very church you are defending has been documented to have done far more greedy things than one person could ever do? I am not saying that this defeats the Catholic position as you have ex-cathedra statements and such. However, making a groundless assertion that someone is greedy and when your own church which you openly defend has a documented history of greed and using people is just simply silly.

Pointing the finger at another party, when accused of wrongdoing, doesn’t seem like a meritorious defense to me, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[mercygate]

adstrinity:

Okay, this is good. You see how he thinks. You see just HOW he perceives us & set’s up his straw men. I think I can say with a clear conscience, that we should all pray for this man, that he may understand Catholocism. He really needs the charity. May he become as much a member of the Catholic Church as St. Paul, even if God needs to get all Acts 9:4 on him.

Not exactly a straw man. White picked a post that was so full of errors combined with fury that it was easy to target.

Lesson: Every syllable we speak or write may be used against us. And when we are less than accurate, when we are less than charitable, when we are less than generous, we deserve every red-eyed pot shot anybody wants to take at us.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Martin Luther,

Much of what you say rings true. I would challenge you on five points, however.

1. James White DID regard himself to have been the cause of Steve Ray’s website. The sequence of events is this: JW said something; it generated a lot of e-mails on his board as well as Roman Catholic boards; Steve Ray shut his down, but others remained open. It seems pretty clear that JW thought he, by virtue of the reaction he generated, was the cause of Steve Ray shutting down his website, instead of the true cause, which was in memoriam of the Pope’s passing.
2. James White’s scholarship only extends so far. Though I do not agree with the statement, “he is not a scholar,” without qualification, I do believe his knowledge of Catholicism is not very good. He MISrepresents very well to try to prove his points, and I think this is what most people mean when they say that JW is not scholarly.
3. James White does not actually do much to spread the Gospel (though I will not say he is greedy). He should spend more time attacking secularism, materialism and atheism than Catholicism. In that sense, he does a disservice to the Gospel, since Catholicism and the Pope (of blessed memory) has actually been the primary means by which the world has obtained a witness of Jesus Christ. The Pope alone has done more than JW ever has or could to let the world know that Jesus Christ lived and died for the world.
4. Regardless of how you view indulgences, it is unfair to say that the Church took advantage of people to get their money. You live in a materialistic society today, but despite all its supposed drawbacks, the society of the Middle Ages was decidedly more spiritual than today. People really believed the spirit had more worth than the body. People were glad, regardless of your view of Purgatory, to give up material possessions if it benefited their loved ones spiritually. It is hard for you, and even me, who are immersed in financial woes and concerns to truly appreciate this mindset. The fact is, this was the faith of the people of the Middle Ages, and it is not your call, or any modern Protestant, to deride the cultural-religious mentality of the age. Can you imagine for a moment that the Church sincerely believed in what she taught and the people sincerely believed what the Church taught? Can you honestly then accuse the Catholic Church of that age of “taking advantage” of the people? If the Church did not believe what she taught and went around taking people’s money anyway, then you and other Protestants would have a basis for your accusation that the Church stole from or took advantage of people. But if by material sacrifice, the Church hierarchy and the lay people themselves actually and sincerely believed that spiritual benefit ensued, your accusation is unjustified.
5. It is a gross injustice to blame the CHURCH for the sins of less than 2% of her priests. In this matter, perhaps you should take the food of those biblical passages you provided yourself.

God bless and peace.

 

[JPrejean]

Catholic Dude, where did you ever deal with Goode, Witaker, Salmon, Webster, King

Those aren’t exactly what you’d call scholarly works. I don’t see why anyone should have to deal with them if they don’t address the massive volume of scholarly work that contradicts their conclusions.

 

[Deus_Solus]

mercygate:

White picked a post that was so full of errors combined with fury that it was easy to target.

White did not pick a post, nor was he trolling the forums for “straw men” to attack, he is quoting from an email that Catholic Dude sent him…ask Catholic Dude.

see post #12 in this thread for confirmation:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=47090
Martin Luther:

I am absolutely appauled (sic) by the behavior on this thread.

While I would not go as far as to say I am appalled, I would say that I am disappointed. I realize that ad hominem attacks are so easy to fall into, especially when you vehemently disagree with whoever you are talking about. We must always remember, however, to “speak the truth in love” (cf. Ephesians 4) and act with the seemingly bipolar humility and strength when defending our views. James White falls to ad hominem sometimes, so do we all.

Scalia:

Many Catholics believe, rightly so in my opinion, that White’s “ministry” is nothing but a pretext for vicious attacks against the Catholic Church.

I respectfully disagree. If you explore his website, aomin.org, you will see that he is primarily concerned with apologizing for his theological position, not simply with bashing Catholics. I do disagree with his position on the Church, but I think some of his material for apologizing to Mormons and JWs can be seen in a positive light.

God Bless.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Well by the name Im going to guess Lutheran?
Thats a big title to take on in these forums, but glad to have met you none the less.
Martin Luther:

Hello Everyone!
…I am appauled that you are not dealing with any of the issues at all. …

The issue of “destroying Christianity” is not what you take it as. I dont believe Prots are evil, but when you look at things like all the divisions among Prots that is a bad thing for Christianity. There are many issues we can talk about, just start a new thread and PM me over there.

Catholic Dude, where did you ever deal with Goode, Witaker, Salmon, Webster, King, …

Start a new thread about this. I remember dealing with this exact issue a month or so ago, I actually remember citing this exact source you copied these names from.

Calling someone’s church a “made up, self appointed excuse for a church” without dealing with the evidence contrary to your position is just simply reprehensible.

I have dealt with these exact issues before, you arrived a little late. If you want we can start a new thread, I have some great quotes.

As far as Terri Shaivo, Protestants have pushed just as hard as Catholics have to help her. … Hence, your statement about protestants is just simply false. That is what he meant when he said you were not in touch with reality.

Yes AFTER years of the CC screaming about such issues thankfully some Prots have woken up to such issues. When you say, “simply false” when I said that I didnt mean a 100% blanket statement the way some take it, the bottom line is the numbers are very high.

As far as telling someone “YOU HAVE DONE ZERO TO PROMOTE THE GOSPEL. GREED IS ALL YOU KNOW,” of course, you know that is untrue. You don’t get to be a critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible Update by just going after money. It takes hard work and study, as well as discipline and love for the word of God, something you are accusing Dr. White of never having. Trust me, if you study Greek Exegesis you need to know plenty of big words, as that is one of my fields of study right now. More than enough to read the CCC.

Again, you have to understand my numbers, by “zero” I didnt mean a 100% blanket statement, but one in which the blanket covered a large part of the bed. I never accused him of being a dumbo, the things that get to me are mostly issues of misinformation and anti-C attacks put in a way that the average reader wont get offended and not realize it really is an attack.

As far as the robbing of people through indulgences, and pedaphile priests, and such, his point was that it is a documented fact … However, making a groundless assertion that someone is greedy and when your own church which you openly defend has a documented history of greed and using people is just simply silly.

Im not sure of your questions/thoughts on this, there is so much to say I would love to see a thread covering these issues.

I know we have a difference in our Old Testament Canon, but I am sure all of these are in your Bible:

First of all “false witness” only applies if what I say is a lie.
Next, if you read the overall context of Timothy, you will see he was a SELECTED LEADER given AUTHORITY over a local church, to preserve the truth, which in turn was passed on to another selected leader. Here is another great thread topic: “Who is your authority, and what gave them/it that authority?”

 

[Scalia]

From:socrates58.blogspot.com/

I really, honestly, genuinely cannot tell if the review here by “a Reader from next to [its] Bible” is a prank posted by “The Onion” or is by Dave Hunt himself. I have yet to read Svendsen’s book, but if agitprop folks as laughable as “a Reader” support it, I’m in no rush. Still, thanks for the great chuckle, a Reader.

It always amazes me how hardcore Evangelical anti-Catholics like Svendsen and White miss the forest for the trees. If you take a deep breath, stop scouring all the repetitive, insipid email scuffles, and take the long view of history and theology, you see The Big Picture: the whole scope of Christianity is Catholic in hue and in creed; the differences through time are either the wily permutations of Christian devotion or the amazing work of the Holy Spirit guiding – developing – His Church into the fullness of truth (cf. John 16:13; Ephesians 4:11-16). The real tragedy for these hardcore anti-Catholics is that every branch they try to sever from the Tree of Rome ultimately leaves one less strut under the Treehouse of Evangelicalism.

It’s also very disturbing that the best Evangelical apologetics – those that actually (start to) engage the early Church writings – are reduced to a lose-lose homicidal-suicidal mania. (Or maybe it’s melancholy.) Young St. Engwer, for example, acknowledges the early Church Bishops weren’t fully Evangelical, so he settles for undermining Roman Catholicism’s ancient patristic heritage. (As in, “If I can’t have church history, no one can!” Or, “I may be wrong about the early Church, but, well, uh, so are they! See my irrefutable quotation quilt?”) White and Engwer’s anti-Catholic patrology is so stunning because it is based on so many exceptions to the essential, remarkably unanimous testimony of those stolid Bishops. I admit, hearing from a Protestant Athanasius or Augustine or Basil is, like a nifty magic trick, a nice diversion from the endless drone of the Catholic Athanasius, Augustine, Basil and all the rest. Bottom line: arguing for sola Scriptura from tradition forfeits the game to the Catholics before the dust even settles. You might as well defend the sole sufficiency of water by defending the value of food. Sola scriptura demands that Scripture stands or falls on its own “self-authenticating” merits, not on the testimony of dead bishops.

It’s this logical slip that leads me to believe that many if not most Protestant apologists resort to patrology, not to learn anything very constructive for themselves or the world today, but purely to discredit the RCC. It’s like putting up with your grandfather only to learn how to trick your father. It’s shameful, and it betrays a lot of selective listening besides. Respect means listening quietly and humbly and carefully to all that our betters say, and then interpreting ambiguous claims in light of their whole worldview (not vice versa). The Fathers are almost without exception better than me. The depth, durability and sincerity of their testimony – often written in their own blood – deserves much better treatment than White, Engwer or Webster often subject them to.

Catholics, and the proof for their faith, will always be more at home in history because their faith built it. Protestants, for whom the latest craze is “to be deep in history”, will always feel out of place using history as a defense – just as graverobbers panic when the light spills upon their clumsy work.

 

[Scalia]

I respectfully disagree. If you explore his website, aomin.org, you will see that he is primarily concerned with apologizing for his theological position, not simply with bashing Catholics. I do disagree with his position on the Church, but I think some of his material for apologizing to Mormons and JWs can be seen in a positive light.

Deus Solus: While I agree that the words and space devoted to Mormans and JW’s may very well equal or possible exceed that which is given to the Papacy, I think the Papacy engine of his missionary drives the train regarding $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Everyone!

I am glad to see that there are some [even Roman Catholics] who agree with me. Let me start by addressing the other accusations.

First of all, my citation of Albert Mohler is not to say that he has always been perfect in everything he has done, but to prove that both he and the protestants that follow him have done tons to help Terry Shiavo, to get rid of abortion, and to stop homosexuality. Hence, it is just silly to say that protestants have done nothing with regards to these areas.

I suppose it would be silly to think about this, but it is not prejudice to speak the truth. In fact, it is the greatest love that we can do. That is why I enter discussions on forums like this, and why I take on such issues. I know that is why there are a lot Roman Catholics who think the same. When a leader dies, the obvious question for reflection is “how is one justified?” because we come face to face with our mortality. It is not hatred to all of the further address this question in light of our own mortality in the face of the death of the pope.

As far as the forum not being started to discuss issues of Sola Scriptura, that is exactly my point. We should be dealing with Catholicism and not making forums to just make fun of someone no matter how bad you think you have been treated. If you want to attack protestant authority, do so in a scholarly, honest manner rather than lambasting it. This is also what happens when you call his ministry a “pretext for vicious attacks against the Catholic Church.” He deals with many issues-KJV onlyism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Atheism, Arminianism, and Catholicism. As far as not giving him any ground, you still have to deal with the fact that he is a translator for the NASB update which is one of the most literal translations even by Roman Catholic standards.

JPrejean, interestingly enough, Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer are Catholics. Secondly, I wonder if you have ever ready any of the works since they site exhaustively from Roman Catholic sources.

Hello CatholicDude. No, my screename is Martin Luther because I go to a Lutheran School. I am actually and Orthodox Presbyterian. I know that there are divisions in protestantism, but there are also divisions in Catholicism. Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer do not even agree with your interpretation of history, and they have served on pontifical comissions. Secondly, while you may have delt with the issues before, you did not deal with them here. You made an unqualified statement that would be like me calling Catholicism “The Cult of the Virgin Mary.” If you want to prove these things in a public forum like that, then do it first before you accuse. Next, your statement about Albert Mohler is horribly in error as he has been following that story from the very beginning. In fact, it was on his radio program that I first heard about Terri Shaivo. Next it is hard to interpret the phrase “zero” and “all” in any other way than a blanket statement. How that was supposed to be taken, I don’t know. As far as indulgences and pedaphilia, even secular scholars are in agreement with this. Of course, I even qualified it with that statement that this did not refute the Catholic position. I just said that you can’t just make an unfounded assertion accusing someone of being greedy with that past. As far as bearing false witness, you said “Who stood up for Terri? THE CATHOLICS, to you Prots she was a nothing, you prots didnt care.” That has been shown to be blaitantly false. As for the other bearing false witness, it was saying that Dr. White was wrong that the forum was closed when it was. This was even proven from the Catholics on the thread. That is a glaring example. Finally, I will gladly accept your challange to discuss Sola Scriptura. Such is the most foundational doctrine, and, when I get a chance, I will start a thread.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[adstrinity]

Let’s take a look at this, HE says that he quotes the Gospel and we attack what he says, like we cannot get past him, no matter WHAT good he does; we must want to cause division & attack one of those Preaching God’s Word. He makes the comparison between JPII & himself – see how those Catholics are hypocrites in what they teach!! He sets it up so that HE preaches the Gospel (of Jesus) & says that JPII focused upon Mary…look at that!!! They don’t even FOCUS upon the right person in the Catholic Church–but, I do. I preach about Jesus, but, those Catholics, who follow the Pope who follows Mary condemn me!! Poor ME!! He uses the example of Catholic_Dude, AS THOUGH CATHOLIC DUDE IS THE ONE WHO ENCOMPASES ~ALL~ OF WHAT IS SAID HERE!! NOT, that this is his opinion, BUT THAT this is THE opinion here. AFTER CD’s post, he then DISMISSES IT ALL!! Won’t even TRY to reply. He just says that he is full of hatred & not worth the reply. Again, “I speak the gospel & objectional beliefs,” i.e., See how good ~I~ am!! See what good ~I~ do!!! And CD just dismisses them!! ALSO, I LOVE how he keeps throwing “objectionable” in there. NOTHING concerning apologetics is objectionable!! One is defending a faith statement. One may say that the Bible states a passage, THAT is objectionable, BUT, when one tries to interpret that in anyway, one, I believe, then makes it subjectionable. He then turns CD’s words on him about the rhetorical question about his death bed & why is CD so full of hate about that? Again, he dismisses CDs claims about Rome & ONLY Rome (and note that it’s not the Catholic Church, nooooo…it’s the geographical location) do good things (and, okay, this MAY have been stupid to put in there, but, after reading how the Church typically does it first…I still don’t know how to feel about these statements), saying that the intelligent know better, BUT, doesn’t give any proof to the oposite. Oh, again with the indulgences rolls eyes Yeah, this is founded in accuracy. “Mythological sufferings of Purgatory” – Again, his slant, not objective, and, again, lessening the credit one should have/give to Catholics. Again, the ENTIRE heads of the Catholic Church are in a conspiracy to cover up the paedophilia problem. AND, if they do that, then, God only knows what OTHER truths they are trying to hide. THIS is NOT the Church of God at all, as those silly, ignorant Catholics (who I’ve already dismissed from all the other things mentioned in my blog here) deceive them and others to believe!!! The Church isn’t about Jesus, it’s about SIN!!! But, not myne, mine is objective!! And, in conclusion, the lasting impression he imparts on his readers is, “Catholic Dude is crazy, and illogical. Unlike me. Sad.”
----Now, I don’t know about you all, but, this DOES seem like a bunch of Straw Men arguements. “Look at what this one guy says, so, it must be true of ALL the members of the Catholic Church and the entire Catholic Church and how ~I~ am attacked for doing God’s work.” Of course, that’s just how ~I~ see it…

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello GAssisi!

First of all, with regards to Dr. White’s statement about the forum being closed, in context he was not talking about a previous talk but the response he got from that previous talk. He was talking about the influx of ad-hominem that he got. He stated that the Steve Ray forum was shut, so, hence, it wasn’t coming in from there. That is what his statement meant. It had nothing to do with him being the reason.

Second, with regards to indulgences, this has nothing to with what the people thought, but how they were taken advantage of because of that thought. In other words, all you would need to do is put out these indulgences if you needed some more money, and you would get it. Such is an unfair usage of indulgences which even the counter-reformation recognized. That is the issue.

Finally, with regards to preists, I never said that it refuted the Catholic position. I am aware of ex-cathedra and all of that stuff. The problem is that CathoicDude made a completely unfounded assertion that Dr. White was greedy. The problem is we can document were the Roman Catholic Church has done many of these things in the past. As far as the 2%, it completely misses the point. We could also point to the Watchtower Society and say that only about 2% of their elders are only guilty of trying to deceive people. The point is here is a case where Roman Catholic officials with authority did something to take advantage of other people. It is a documented incident. That is far more than just an unfounded assertion which is what CatholicDude made. It was not meant to lambast the Roman Catholic Church, nor do I think Dr. White’s comments were. It was merely pointing out the inconsistency of someone stating on the one hand an unfounded assertion, when there is documentation for the very reverse of the statement.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[JPrejean]

JPrejean, interestingly enough, Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer (sic) are Catholics. Secondly, I wonder if you have ever ready any of the works since they site exhaustively from Roman Catholic sources.

I’m familiar with them. Frs. Brown and Fitzmyer haven’t, to my knowledge, disputed the fact that the Catholic Church developed from the Apostles themselves. They certainly don’t agree with the conclusions of the other authors you cited, and they don’t deserve to be classed among such lesser works. If the crux of your complaint against CatholicDude’s account of history is that he hasn’t interacted with the Protestant works you cited, then I can’t see why he (or anyone) would care.

Edit – Just realized that you were talking about the Protestant works citing Catholic scholars. They cite them all right, quite inaccurately if not dishonestly. If you look up those sources, they contradict the conclusions for which they are being cited left and right. Read Steve Ray’s rebuttals to William Webster for numerous examples.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello JPrejean!

First of all, you have grossly misrepresented me to say that I think Joseph Fitzmyer and Raymond Brown are protestant. Notice what I actually said:

Catholic Dude, where did you ever deal with Goode, Witaker, Salmon, Webster, King, and even your own scholars such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer who say the exact opposite?

Next, William Webster responded to Steve Ray. Hence, I am well aware of those issues. Here is the links for anyone interested:

christiantruth.com/stephenray.html

christiantruth.com/ray2.html

christiantruth.com/ray3index.html

If you want, I also have quotes where these men deny the essential teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, I have a quote here from Raymond Brown that says that your position on is overly simplistic, not universal, and "has been effectively critiqued by modern scholarship, both Catholic and Protestant [The Church the Apostles Left Behind pgs. 16-17]. There are other writers who agree. The evidence is so strong, in fact, that Gerry Matatics was willing to call these men modernists. In fact, let me leave you with a quote from Joseph Fitzmyer:

When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of the Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as a guide for biblical interpretation (thus the Council of Trent in its decree of 1546 on the Latin Vulgate and the mode of interpreting scripture… and in provision of faith). But just what that would entail is far from clear. For…there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet, there was no uniform monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ is to be found, and Pius XII finallyh thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, ‘nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.’ [From Scripture, the Soul of Theology p.70 quoted in HS p.183]

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

“I’m surprised that James White knows any words big enough to read the CCC…”

Is this supposed to be speaking the truth in love? It seems more like ad hominem. If you have a problem with James White refute his arguments…simply insinuating he’s dumb is very pointless.

Just like his neverending misrepresentations of Catholic belief. White is just another downhome preacher with a gospel message that can’t be preached without bashing someone else’s religion. I will never understand why so many “preachers” can’t stick to their gospel without attacking someone else. It seems to work just fine for our priests. I and many others have answered his allegations and misrepresentations again and again. This is indeed truth spoken in love.

 

[Paul_Stephens]

Alright, enough James White bashing for now. We should pray that God would open his heart to the truth and the fullness of faith that can only be found in the Catholic Church.

Thread closed.

Paul Stephens
Moderator