C
coptic_believer
Guest
Here are some interesting quotes from James White on Ralph MacKenzie & Norman Geisler. I am not quoting and linking to James White in support of James White. My main intention of quoting and linking to James White here is to show the valuable quotes of Geisler and MacKenzie that White quotes.
" I was informed recently that Ralph MacKenzie, co-author of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences along with Norman Geisler, wrote a book review of The Roman Catholic Controversy in the “Christian Apologetics Journal” published by Geisler’s organization. I found that somewhat odd, given that my book is nearly a decade old now. In any case, I would like to respond to some of the comments made by MacKenzie.
White is articulate and a vigorous (although often quite strident) debater.
Some of you may recall the encounter I had with Mr. MacKenzie in the pages of the CRI Journal back in 2000 when we wrote a point/counter-point article on the Catholic/Lutheran accord, the one that sought to foster agreement by in essence ignoring the key issues of the Reformation itself. You can guess which side I took. MacKenzie has often referred to me as a “hard-nose,” and that is because, in essence, we approach the issue of Roman Catholicism (and, I would imagine, all “boundary issues” regarding the gospel) from different perspectives. As he indicated in an article he wrote for This Rock magazine in 2003 (catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea2.asp):
There was no latent anti-Catholicism in the Protestant faith of my youth, and so I read Catholic as well as Protestant sources. I was Evangelical in my theology (and still am) but I soon realized that—as distasteful as the notion is to some Protestants—prior to the Reformation, if we were Christians, we were members of the Catholic Church (unless of course we lived in the East and were Orthodox)…
Note MacKenzie’s words:
John H. Armstrong, who is director of Reformation & Revival Ministries and has spoken at a number of conferences, including Promise Keepers, writes the foreword. Armstrong has informed me that his opinion of the Catholic Church has changed and that he would not write now what he did then. Due to interaction with evangelical scholars, incluiding Harold O.J. Brown, Timothy George, Thomas Oden, and John Woodbridge, he now views the Catholic Church as a true church albeit one with serious errors…
Next we read,
Concerning justification, White states that Christ’s “perfect righteousness is imputed (credited) to the believer on the basis of faith” (42). Evangelicals do understand justification to be “imputed—put to our account.” However, as Alister McGrath points out, this concept was a Protestant one and unknown by Augustine and the church fathers prior to the Reformation.
No, you are not reading a Catholic Answers article here. You might as well be, functionally, but this is Norman Geisler’s co-author writing in a journal published by Geisler’s school. You should not be surprised here: remember a few years ago when Geisler commented on the Bible Answer Man broadcast that if justification and imputed righteousness is definitional of the gospel then no one was saved until the Reformation? Think about the mind-set that produces off-handed comments like this. Aside from demonstrating that these folks are very rarely involved in protecting the sheep from the wolves that would seek to drag them away, we can also discern very quickly why ECT and its progeny are attractive to them…"
Excerpted From aomin.org/index.php?itemid=642
" I was informed recently that Ralph MacKenzie, co-author of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences along with Norman Geisler, wrote a book review of The Roman Catholic Controversy in the “Christian Apologetics Journal” published by Geisler’s organization. I found that somewhat odd, given that my book is nearly a decade old now. In any case, I would like to respond to some of the comments made by MacKenzie.
White is articulate and a vigorous (although often quite strident) debater.
Some of you may recall the encounter I had with Mr. MacKenzie in the pages of the CRI Journal back in 2000 when we wrote a point/counter-point article on the Catholic/Lutheran accord, the one that sought to foster agreement by in essence ignoring the key issues of the Reformation itself. You can guess which side I took. MacKenzie has often referred to me as a “hard-nose,” and that is because, in essence, we approach the issue of Roman Catholicism (and, I would imagine, all “boundary issues” regarding the gospel) from different perspectives. As he indicated in an article he wrote for This Rock magazine in 2003 (catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea2.asp):
There was no latent anti-Catholicism in the Protestant faith of my youth, and so I read Catholic as well as Protestant sources. I was Evangelical in my theology (and still am) but I soon realized that—as distasteful as the notion is to some Protestants—prior to the Reformation, if we were Christians, we were members of the Catholic Church (unless of course we lived in the East and were Orthodox)…
Note MacKenzie’s words:
John H. Armstrong, who is director of Reformation & Revival Ministries and has spoken at a number of conferences, including Promise Keepers, writes the foreword. Armstrong has informed me that his opinion of the Catholic Church has changed and that he would not write now what he did then. Due to interaction with evangelical scholars, incluiding Harold O.J. Brown, Timothy George, Thomas Oden, and John Woodbridge, he now views the Catholic Church as a true church albeit one with serious errors…
Next we read,
Concerning justification, White states that Christ’s “perfect righteousness is imputed (credited) to the believer on the basis of faith” (42). Evangelicals do understand justification to be “imputed—put to our account.” However, as Alister McGrath points out, this concept was a Protestant one and unknown by Augustine and the church fathers prior to the Reformation.
No, you are not reading a Catholic Answers article here. You might as well be, functionally, but this is Norman Geisler’s co-author writing in a journal published by Geisler’s school. You should not be surprised here: remember a few years ago when Geisler commented on the Bible Answer Man broadcast that if justification and imputed righteousness is definitional of the gospel then no one was saved until the Reformation? Think about the mind-set that produces off-handed comments like this. Aside from demonstrating that these folks are very rarely involved in protecting the sheep from the wolves that would seek to drag them away, we can also discern very quickly why ECT and its progeny are attractive to them…"
Excerpted From aomin.org/index.php?itemid=642