James White on Lk 1:28 and Kecharitomene

[po18guy]

NDN,

Dr. White is doing nothing of the kind, but only letting the language, given the text, speak for itself, Jerome notwithstanding (considering he is the one allowing his theology to dictate how it should be translated). Again, we can’t broadbrush history the way you have.

CM

However, such as argument as Dr. whatzisname’s completely ignores God’s revealed truth; the beliefs and practices of the early Church; the teachings of the Saints and the Early Church Fathers, and the entire deposit of Christian faith. All of this so as to be “non-Catholic”. That is quite some accomplishment. And, even that does not make him happy. He remains as anger and frustration-filled as ever. Where’s the love in all of this?

 

[Bengoshi]

Every Catholic will gladly admit the Church’s error in teaching if you just show us where the bible teaches sola scriptura. Word for word. Chapter and verse, please. And, no, you may not use 2 Timothy 3:16 - that says “all scripture” and NOT scripture is all.
Well then, don’t look to your pastor or congregation - go direct to Jesus.We will happily set aside your ignorance of the Catholic faith for the sake of discussion. However, by your own “bible doctrine”, you may NEVER ask anyone to pray for you, and you may NEVER pray for anyone else. You say that is ridiculous? Yes, it is ridiculous. Would it shock you to learn that we do nothing other than to ask Mary to pray for us to her Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

And, in case you are tempted to dredge up the old “necromancy” blasphemy, know this: Mary is not dead. “For, to Him (God), all are alive”. That’s in the bible, correct? (Luke 20:38) So, if “neither life nor death can separate us from the love of God” (Romans 8:38), those who are perfected in heaven can also intercede with Christ on our behalf.

Have some respect for your elders in the faith. You trying to teach us is like a 15 year old telling 60 year old grandpa all about life.

First, Sola Scriptura is not the issue in this thread. Why do Roman Catholics always try to escape good biblical discussion by attacking the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? The term obviously is not in the Bible, as with the Trinity, Perichoresis, Hypostasis, etc. but were terms just used to refer to biblical teaching. You may say, “How about purgatory?” Since Heaven and Hell were already mentioned, then the hermeneutic principle of “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” applies. It means that what has not been expressed is excluded. Also, the rule of “Casus omisus pro omisso habendus est” is likewise invoked. Under the said rule, a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally.

Second, yes, I dare bring up the old “necromancy blasphemy.” You are taking the verses out of context. I agree that not even death can separate us from the love of God and that those who are perfected in Heaven can intercede on our behalf, but that does not necessarily mean that they can hear our prayers for they are not omniscient, only God has that attribute. The passages apply to God’s love and His relationship with us, but not our relationship to each other, i.e. those who have crossed over and those of us still here on earth. Remember the parable of Lazarus who tried to reach his brother? Didn’t the Bible say that “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” (Luke 16:26)?

Lastly, your arguments are full of ad hominems, which, instead of attacking the points raised head on, you attack the character (or credentials) of the speaker or even your interlocutor himself.

 

[Bengoshi]

This post is really too funny … Jerome is biased due to his Mariology some 1400 years ago and White’s view is closer to the first Christians some 1900 years removed from them …

And the quote about being “plainly stated” … if it is so plainly stated then how did Jerome get it so “Wrong”? How did the Church that Christ founded not understand this? All of those early Christians - so many - they just could not comprehend the clear and plan statement How did Luther and the other Reformers so clearly not get this either ?

The only thing you got correct was the developing “Mariology” … Protestanism has been developing Mariology for some time … Mary has gone from being recognized as “Ever Virgin” to a “Prolific Mother of many Chidren” to a woman that was raped by a Roman soldier … Mary has transformed from the Ark of the New Covenent [designed Perfectly Pure and to God’s Specifications - bearing the Word of God Made Flesh, the High Priest and the Bread from Heaven] to an Incubator - merely an tool used without thought … Now that is ‘development’ :doh2:

Hi there!

I don’t think it really matters whether or not Mary was “immaculate” or “ever virgin.” These things would not affect our salvation anyway. I just don’t know why the RCC is so particular with these things. Mary would not be any less of a human or Jesus’ mother if she had sex and had other children with Joseph, they were married after all! We would still love and respect her being the mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Again, it matters not to our salvation if she was born immaculate or not, what is important is that we are all saved not by our own merits, but only by the grace of God, which we can claim by faith. We need to do good works of course, but not to earn salvation or to even cooperate with God’s work, but as a result of our salvation. Being saved by grace, we are being sanctified, that being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

 

[YADA]

Hi there!

I don’t think it really matters whether or not Mary was “immaculate” or “ever virgin.” These things would not affect our salvation anyway. I just don’t know why the RCC is so particular with these things. Mary would not be any less of a human or Jesus’ mother if she had sex and had other children with Joseph, they were married after all! We would still love and respect her being the mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Again, it matters not to our salvation if she was born immaculate or not, what is important is that we are all saved not by our own merits, but only by the grace of God, which we can claim by faith. We need to do good works of course, but not to earn salvation or to even cooperate with God’s work, but as a result of our salvation. Being saved by grace, we are being sanctified, that being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

Bengoshe,

Perhaps the the reason it is important is because it is the Truth … and while you have expressed all of the reasons you think it does not matter “to You” … have you ever considered the fact that theologically it does matter on a very deep and not in signficant ways?

Historically, what Christians came to understand regarding Mary - were brought forth through discerning the Truth and Un-Truths [heresies] about Jesus …one example: that Mary is the Mother of God and deserves to be so “Titled” was a result of and directly tied to the heresies on the Divinity of Jesus … and the Early Christians identified as the heretical the notion that Jesus was not fully God and fully Man -

Many posters here quote the Early Church Father’s writings which are generally dismissed … with little reflection nor thought …

So I will ask you to read what Calvin and Zwingli wrote onthe nature of Mary, her purity and perpetual state of virginity … they do a very nice job [and perhaps being non-catholic witnesses you will be more open to their witness]. I think it is Calvin [though it haas been some time sense I studied the reformers writings] very eloquently wrote about the necessity of this Truth and how it impacted the the Christians of his day …

Now I could look this up for you but I fer you would not truly read it for its message but only for refutiing it … Let me know what you find …

 

[Bengoshi]

Bengoshe,

Perhaps the the reason it is important is because it is the Truth … and while you have expressed all of the reasons you think it does not matter “to You” … have you ever considered the fact that theologically it does matter on a very deep and not in signficant ways?

Historically, what Christians came to understand regarding Mary - were brought forth through discerning the Truth and Un-Truths [heresies] about Jesus …one example: that Mary is the Mother of God and deserves to be so “Titled” was a result of and directly tied to the heresies on the Divinity of Jesus … and the Early Christians identified as the heretical the notion that Jesus was not fully God and fully Man -

Many posters here quote the Early Church Father’s writings which are generally dismissed … with little reflection nor thought …

So I will ask you to read what Calvin and Zwingli wrote onthe nature of Mary, her purity and perpetual state of virginity … they do a very nice job [and perhaps being non-catholic witnesses you will be more open to their witness]. I think it is Calvin [though it haas been some time sense I studied the reformers writings] very eloquently wrote about the necessity of this Truth and how it impacted the the Christians of his day …

Now I could look this up for you but I fer you would not truly read it for its message but only for refutiing it … Let me know what you find …

Thank you for your time in responding to me. I appreciate it! I am open to accepting the doctrine of immaculate conception and perpetual virginity as I have no problem with that. Especially that as you mentioned even the early protestant reformers subscribed to it. Please provide me the excerpt from Calvin’s or and other reformers’ writings.

 

[Churchmouse]

This post is really too funny … Jerome is biased due to his Mariology some 1400 years ago and White’s view is closer to the first Christians some 1900 years removed from them …

Er…neither is laughing an answer. Jerome’s concepts about Mary was the offshoot of evolving views, but was it valid and taught by the earliest church, I have yet to see anything that would say that it was. And assuming that Jerome was only adhering to an earlier tradition doesn’t undermine what White states. A false teaching remains a false teaching regardless of how ancient the false teaching is.

And the quote about being “plainly stated” … if it is so plainly stated then how did Jerome get it so “Wrong”?

Dunno. But we can’t assume that he got it “right” either.

How did the Church that Christ founded not understand this? All of those early Christians - so many - they just could not comprehend the clear and plan statement

Again, this is broadbrushing. We can’t assume that the “church that Christ founded” truly taught this, but only that it evolved later. Assuming that “ALL” the early Christians saw this is just that, an assumption.

How did Luther and the other Reformers so clearly not get this either ?

Rome wasn’t built in a day, neither was the Reformation. I would assume that not everything “Catholic” was done away with by some Reformers. I would assume that you would understand this as well.

The only thing you got correct was the developing “Mariology” … Protestanism has been developing Mariology for some time … Mary has gone from being recognized as “Ever Virgin” to a “Prolific Mother of many Chidren” to a woman that was raped by a Roman soldier …

This, for lack of a better word, is “nonsense.”

Mary has transformed from the Ark of the New Covenent [designed Perfectly Pure and to God’s Specifications - bearing the Word of God Made Flesh, the High Priest and the Bread from Heaven] to an Incubator - merely an tool used without thought … Now that is ‘development’ :doh2:

You’re intent on obfuscating the dialogue. Let’s keep your judgments to yourself and follow the conversation. Again, where and when did Mary get the “title” that some Catholics here claim she received?

 

[Churchmouse]

However, such as argument as Dr. whatzisname’s

His name is Dr. White.

completely ignores God’s revealed truth; the beliefs and practices of the early Church; the teachings of the Saints and the Early Church Fathers, and the entire deposit of Christian faith.

It isn’t uncommon to see this type of rhetoric from Catholics. Can we stick to facts?

All of this so as to be “non-Catholic”. That is quite some accomplishment. And, even that does not make him happy. He remains as anger and frustration-filled as ever. Where’s the love in all of this?

I think you had better ask yourself that question.

CM

 

[YADA]

Thank you for your time in responding to me. I appreciate it! I am open to accepting the doctrine of immaculate conception and perpetual virginity as I have no problem with that. Especially that as you mentioned even the early protestant reformers subscribed to it. Please provide me the excerpt from Calvin’s or and other reformers’ writings.

From "A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke" John Calvin said:

“To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”

From “Protestants and Our Lady”, Bernard Leeming, records Calvin as writing:

“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.”

Leeming clearly states that Calvin translated “brothers” contextually to mean cousins or relatives.

From "Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion" …Heinrich Bullinger’s writings on Mary are presented … Speaking of the Virgin

“…[Mary] completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .

Zwngli taught in a sermon:

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . .

I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

BOLDING MINE!

I read a wonderful treatise by one of he reformers and the necessity for the sinlessness of Mary … I am still searching for it … I have read and studied lots of books [you know the hard cover ones from the library they are much harder to find and quote especially when you would like to find it and find it now!!!] …

 

[Bengoshi]

From “A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke” John Calvin said:

“To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”

From “Protestants and Our Lady”, Bernard Leeming, records Calvin as writing:

“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.”

Leeming clearly states that Calvin translated “brothers” contextually to mean cousins or relatives.

From “Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion” …Heinrich Bullinger’s writings on Mary are presented … Speaking of the Virgin

“…[Mary] completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .

Zwngli taught in a sermon:

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . .

I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

BOLDING MINE!

I read a wonderful treatise by one of he reformers and the necessity for the sinlessness of Mary … I am still searching for it … I have read and studied lots of books [you know the hard cover ones from the library they are much harder to find and quote especially when you would like to find it and find it now!!!] …

Hahaha! Yeah, it’s so good to collect books, especially theological ones! I’m actually looking for this book, Catholiciscm by Richard McBrien. It’s kinda hard to find here in the Philippines, although it’s the required textbook of most Roman Catholic seminaries here.

As to Mary’s ever virginity, I still have to do a lot of study and prayer on that one. With regard to her sinlessness, that’s much easier for me to accept considering the explanation given by the RCC that she was still saved through the passion, death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ, although retroactively.

 

[Canto]

Thus far, no one has proven that Mary is given a title or that kecharitome means anything more, but there are certainly remarks regarding White’s character.

It has been proven that Kecharitomene is a title
and that it means more than Mary merely being favoured
the Greek has been delt with
you and some others just disagree

Is White a fair debater?
catholicsource.net/articles/sung1.htm

 

[po18guy]

First, Sola Scriptura is not the issue in this thread. Why do Roman Catholics always try to escape good biblical discussion by attacking the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

Because sola scriptura has been defined conclusively as error. Those who hold to it start from a position of theological error. Jesus Christ did not teach it. It is a false, man-made doctrine that is traceable to one man. Period. Its main fruits are division, not unity. What’s to debate?

The term obviously is not in the Bible, Because it is not even taught or mentioned in the bible, that’s why.

…as with the Trinity, Perichoresis, Hypostasis, etc. but were terms just used to refer to biblical teaching. You may say, “How about purgatory?”

Not the purpose of this thread, but shown from a complete bible.

Since Heaven and Hell were already mentioned, then the hermeneutic principle of "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

" applies.Says who? By what authority?

It means that what has not been expressed is excluded. Also, the rule of "Casus omisus pro omisso habendus est

" is likewise invoked.Again: Says who? By what authority?

Under the said rule, a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally.

Really? So the bible, which tells you in several places that it is incomplete, (Luke 3:18; John 20:30, John 21:25; Acts 2:40) therefore rightly excluded the useless and frivolous teachings of Christ? That’s crazy, man! You are dancing around the elephant in the bible living room. Sola scriptura has produced a chaotic, multi-truth, relativistic theology which states that even that which is contradictory is acceptable, as long as it rejects a single, authoritative Church as founded by Christ. Why don’t we instead question the shocking level of disagreement in the Protestant world before we default to criticizing the Catholic Church? Why must the Catholic Church always be wrong, and every corner faith community with its own pope always be right?

Second, yes, I dare bring up the old “necromancy blasphemy.” You are taking the verses out of context.

So, those souls who are separated from their bodies are indeed separated from the love of God? Curious, indeed. You disagree with Luther. By what authority do you disagree with Luther? The bible declares that scripture is twisted by some and must not be subject to private interpretation, yet this is exactly how much Protestant thinking is formed.

I agree that not even death can separate us from the love of God and that those who are perfected in Heaven can intercede on our behalf, but that does not necessarily mean that they can hear our prayers for they are not omniscient, only God has that attribute.

Catholics do not allege omniscience, you do.

The passages apply to God’s love and His relationship with us, but not our relationship to each other, i.e. those who have crossed over and those of us still here on earth. Remember the parable of Lazarus who tried to reach his brother? Didn’t the Bible say that “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” (Luke 16:26)?

Of course. However, The rich man was in torment. This is not heaven. The rich man could not return, since he was being punished, but Lazarus could. Father Abraham allowed that it could happen, but that no one would believe even if someone returned from the dead. For 1,976 years, the authoritative Church has tested miracles and decisively declared that the communion of Saints is proven.

Lastly, your arguments are full of ad hominems, (aka: revealed truth) which, instead of attacking the points raised head on, you attack the character (or credentials) of the speaker or even your interlocutor himself.

It is neither the character nor the credientials, but the sand foundation of beliefs that are being questioned. When your entire theology is based on error, what else can we do? It is a disservice to the truth to consider all beliefs as equal to revealed truth. That is relativism. We might as well give equal credit to any belief found on earth. Either God’s teaching means something and is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit, or it is a conglomeration of conflicting beliefs lead by whatever spirit happens to be present. Both cannot be true.

There remains much more that unites us than separates us, but when someone comes to a Catholic forum from the default position that Catholicism is:

1. man-made
2. idol worship
3. necromantic
4. added to scripture
5. worships humans
6. blah blah blah ad nauseam…

They are going to run head-long into a stout defense of the faith. Try asking, instead of lecturing. It works better.

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by inkaneer
First, Dr. White is certainly biased. He is writing 400+ years after the protestants rebellion. As a dedicated protestant he has a dog in the fight and so is biased. Jerome writing in about 400 AD is writing over a millenium [1100 years] before the protestant rebellion. Jerome is not biased because unlike Dr. White he has no dog in the fight. Second, the protestant translation is doubly biased because they changed scripture. The 1550 Textus Receptus from which the KJV was supposedly translated had the Greek word ‘kecaritwmenh’ [kecharitomene] in Luke 1:28 but the KJV lexicon says the Greek word is ‘caritovw’ [Charitoo]. So why the change? Why does the KJV have to change the Greek word ‘kecaritwmenh’ to ‘caritovw’? Maybe ‘kecaritwmenh’ was ‘too Catholic’ and had to be watered down.

Originally posted in response by Churchmouse
We’re going in circles here. Jerome’s view can be viewed as biased considering his Mariology. Mary’s role was evolving, but this doesn’t, ipso facto, mean that this was what was held by the earliest church. Thus, we go to the Greek and evaluate what these terms mean and realize what it doesn’t mean–that it was “titular.” Neither does it give anything more then what is plainly stated in Scripture.

CM

Jerome is biased? Or is Jerome only writing what was the belief of the church in that time? Show me the hue and cry that went up among the faithful if Jerome deviated from the accepted understanding of the Greek. Show me the condemnation heaped on Jerome by the early church for his "error’ if you can. The fact is you can’t because there was none. Jerome’s translation of ‘kecharitomene’ as ‘gratia plena’ was in line with the understanding of the Greek by the entire church. For over 1100 years there was not one allegation that Jerome was incorrect. You allege Jerome was in error so show me the proof that others in his time took him to task for it. Now you managed to ignore my point about the protestants changing the word ‘kecharitomene’ to ‘charitoo’ in the KJV and subsequent translations. If you look up Luke 1:28 in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS the word there is definitely ‘kecharitomene’ so please explain why the translators of the KJV changed the word to ‘charitoo’. This is important for two reasons. First, it blows Dr. White’s argument completely out of the water for his argument is based on the word ‘charitoo’ and if ‘charitoo’ is wrong then Dr. White is wrong also. Second, if the KJV translators changed the word as the LJV lexicon shows they did, then it shows the depth of deceit that protestants sank to violate the scriptures.

 

[Churchmouse]

It has been proven that Kecharitomene is a title
and that it means more than Mary merely being favoured
the Greek has been delt with
you and some others just disagree

Is White a fair debater?
catholicsource.net/articles/sung1.htm

No, it hasn’t been proven that kecharitomene is a title. If I missed something proving that it was then kindly point me to it. Until then, it hasn’t been answered. I have studied the Greek as well and, because I don’t have the burden of finding more for Mary, I can accept it as is–the greeting of an angel to a person who was undoubtedly blessed for being chosen to birth the Christ. Nothing more and nothing less.

CM

 

[po18guy]

His name is Dr. White.

I was placing him in context. He has only self-appointed authority to make pronouncements about biblical interpretation. To believe more than this is to fool oneself.

It isn’t uncommon to see this type of rhetoric from Catholics. Can we stick to facts?

God’s revealed truth is now rhetoric? You want Catholics to treat your new Gospel with equal consideration? Our job is to lead those in error back to the fulness of truth. It is truly a shame that this offends you. This is not some contest about whose “church” is better on points. It’s about salvation unto eternal life. You came here. What did you expect?

 

[Churchmouse]

Jerome is biased? Or is Jerome only writing what was the belief of the church in that time? Show me the hue and cry that went up among the faithful if Jerome deviated from the accepted understanding of the Greek. Show me the condemnation heaped on Jerome by the early church for his "error’ if you can. The fact is you can’t because there was none.

 

[Churchmouse]

I was placing him in context. He has only self-appointed authority to make pronouncements about biblical interpretation. To believe more than this is to fool oneself.

No, he doesn’t appoint himself. He’s in the habit of backing up what he states with the proper evidences. He allows that to speak for him.

God’s revealed truth is now rhetoric?

You said…
completely ignores God’s revealed truth; the beliefs and practices of the early Church; the teachings of the Saints and the Early Church Fathers, and the entire deposit of Christian faith.

This isn’t an answer. It is an acclamation. The rhetorical piece comes when it is repeated to someone who really doesn’t agree with anything you stated here. Therefore, to your opponent, it becomes the equivalent of buzzwords which have no meaning.

You want Catholics to treat your new Gospel with equal consideration?

I wasn’t aware I had a “new gospel.”

Our job is to lead those in error back to the fulness of truth. It is truly a shame that this offends you. This is not some contest about whose “church” is better on points. It’s about salvation unto eternal life. You came here. What did you expect?

Again, this is just rhetoric. It means nothing to me. Why not just stick with the subject of the post and resist the urge to obfuscate.

CM

 

[po18guy]

No, he doesn’t appoint himself. He’s in the habit of backing up what he states with the proper evidences. He allows that to speak for him.

It remains nothing more than his personal opinion that you happen to agree with.

You said…
completely ignores God’s revealed truth; the beliefs and practices of the early Church; the teachings of the Saints and the Early Church Fathers, and the entire deposit of Christian faith.This isn’t an answer. It is an acclamation. The rhetorical piece comes when it is repeated to someone who really doesn’t agree with anything you stated here. Therefore, to your opponent, it becomes the equivalent of buzzwords which have no meaning.

Well, Dr. White is ignoring the entirety of Church history, from her very formation, to the thinking of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, as well as the shape the Church took based on revealed truth. He is attempting to establish a “new truth” that is completely disconnected from both history and reality. He differs even from Luther, Calvin and Zwingli - and by what authority? It is driven by his extreme anti-Catholic bias. Surely, you are not blind to this?

I wasn’t aware I had a “new gospel.”

Good thing you came here, then! Yes, SS is a new Gospel, which seeks to either deny or minimize the fact that Christ founded an authoritative Church on the Apostles and sent them forth with authority to teach and bind and loose sins. The “new gospel” is that of indulgence of the self, of private interpretation of scripture. It breeds theological relativism and has lead to the fracturing of Christ’s Body into tiny, disagreeing factions. It causes Christians to fight one another rather than fighting the evil one. The world is drowning in evidence of this. It is the elephant in the SS living room.

Again, this is just rhetoric. It means nothing to me. Why not just stick with the subject of the post and resist the urge to obfuscate.CM

Dr. White very likely means well, but he is both historically and critically wrong. He is parsing an ancient language beyond its breaking point so that, if you hold it just right, it appears to support his anti-Catholic bigotry. And to disagree with him is obfuscation? Get real!

The answer has been given numerous times, in various ways, throughout this thread. Simply choosing to ignore them cannot produce honest discourse.

 

[Churchmouse]

It remains nothing more than his personal opinion that you happen to agree with.

The proof is in the pudding. He backs up everything he states. You have no point.

Well, Dr. White is ignoring the entirety of Church history, from her very formation, to the thinking of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, as well as the shape the Church took based on revealed truth. He is attempting to establish a “new truth” that is completely disconnected from both history and reality. He differs even from Luther, Calvin and Zwingli - and by what authority? It is driven by his extreme anti-Catholic bias. Surely, you are not blind to this?

You are merely repeating the same rhetoric that has been the norm in forums such as this. There is nothing new. Dr. White is very fluent in church history and simply allows it to speak for itself. For you to say that this was the “thinking of the Apostles” is assumption at best considering you wouldn’t be able to prove it from their writings. The Church Fathers were fallible men who varied on various issues. I mean you empty the boatload in this paragraph even to the point of bringing up the moniker of “anti-Catholic.” Again, can you resist all the rhetoric and just stick to providing the evidences. If not, move on.

Good thing you came here, then! Yes, SS is a new Gospel, which seeks to either deny or minimize the fact that Christ founded an authoritative Church on the Apostles and sent them forth with authority to teach and bind and loose sins. The “new gospel” is that of indulgence of the self, of private interpretation of scripture. It breeds theological relativism and has lead to the fracturing of Christ’s Body into tiny, disagreeing factions. It causes Christians to fight one another rather than fighting the evil one. The world is drowning in evidence of this. It is the elephant in the SS living room.Dr. White very likely means well, but he is both historically and critically wrong. He is parsing an ancient language beyond its breaking point so that, if you hold it just right, it appears to support his anti-Catholic bigotry. And to disagree with him is obfuscation? Get real!

Again, stick to the subject at hand and, again, this means nothing to me but the rhetoric that certain Catholics come up with to either provoke or obfuscate. Do I believe anything you stated here. Not in the least. It is fluff at best.

The answer has been given numerous times, in various ways, throughout this thread. Simply choosing to ignore them cannot produce honest discourse.

Well, it seems that I’m not going to get an answer and that the folks here will continue to claim that they have given one. I, on the other hand, will continue to be the dummy that doesn’t get it when the unbiased reader can see that there really isn’t no answer. Instead, I am asked to participate in your relative “honest discourse.” Sorry, but honesty would invoke a good answer which I have yet to see.

CM

 

[po18guy]

The proof is in the pudding. He backs up everything he states. You have no point. You are merely repeating the same rhetoric that has been the norm in forums such as this. There is nothing new. Dr. White is very fluent in church history and simply allows it to speak for itself. For you to say that this was the “thinking of the Apostles” is assumption at best considering you wouldn’t be able to prove it from their writings. The Church Fathers were fallible men who varied on various issues. I mean you empty the boatload in this paragraph even to the point of bringing up the moniker of “anti-Catholic.” Again, can you resist all the rhetoric and just stick to providing the evidences. If not, move on. Again, stick to the subject at hand and, again, this means nothing to me but the rhetoric that certain Catholics come up with to either provoke or obfuscate. Do I believe anything you stated here. Not in the least. It is fluff at best. Well, it seems that I’m not going to get an answer and that the folks here will continue to claim that they have given one. I, on the other hand, will continue to be the dummy that doesn’t get it when the unbiased reader can see that there really isn’t no answer. Instead, I am asked to participate in your relative “honest discourse.” Sorry, but honesty would invoke a good answer which I have yet to see.CM

One must first have their eyes open to “see” anything. Since you apparently insist that all must agree with you and that there can be no evidence, let alone proof, against your opinion, I will pray for you.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

No, he doesn’t appoint himself. He’s in the habit of backing up what he states with the proper evidences. He allows that to speak for him.
…
Again, this is just rhetoric. It means nothing to me. Why not just stick with the subject of the post and resist the urge to obfuscate.

CM

J.W. does argue; but how do you get the “proper” evidence from the argument at the beginning of the thread?

If J.W. had just said that the perfect tense in Greek does not specify at what time the action became permanent; I would never have argued – but he went beyond that and cited passages which don’t make his point at all. They in fact are passages where the perfect participle was true for all time. God loved his elect while they were still enemies is what his passages indicates – but when, then, did God who is love, NOT – love his elect? Scripture says that God knew all of us before we were even born!

It is precisely what J.W. chose to back statement up that is pure folly!

I haven’t seen Keeting’s entire argument to even know what all he is arguing, nor how much I agree or not – but, J.W. has seriously damaged his argument by choosing examples which are fallacious! If he makes such an egregious mistake with a well known Greek grammar rule (childs play to prove) – why would anyone believe that he is interpreting Keeting correctly?

If his arguement had demonstrated the Greek uncertantly concerning the past which the perfect implies ( eg: it can be done!!! ) – I would have a different opinion. But he tried too hard and ended up not giving supporting evidence in the quotes shown at the start of the thread – the exact thing he claimed Keeting’s argument failed based on!

That’s the definition of hypocrisy!

If you would like to point out more of the argument from Mr. White and link to someplace where this argument of Mr. Keeting is also listed; I am not adverse to looking into this further – but as it stands now, Mr. White has shown that he will cut and paste just about anything without serious consideration of the connotations, denotations, and context of the words. He has a potential argument, but no credibility in applying his knowledge analytically.