Pray and fast for conversion of James White

[justasking4]

No, the Church looked over the many, many available books and knew based on what was already held what was Scripture and what was not.

i agree.

No the Church has always had the Septuagint. Over the course of the next century it gained New Testament, The Apocrypha and the many other Texts. As to the rest the burden is on you prove it. You might be the first in 5 centuries.

The Jews never accepted the OT apocrypha as being inspired-inerrant. Even up to the 1500’ it had a “disputed position” in the church.

LOL, I’m not sure what the above really has to do with anything. Not all verses in the Bible need individual attention.

Then you agree that your church has never defined what they mean. Just as protestants must rely on their various sources to understand what the scriptrues mean so does the catholic.

Now if someone comes along and starts to interpret a passage as something completely off the wall then yes the Church would step in to correct the erroneous interpretation. For the most part the Church assumes correct understanding. This is as it has always been.

But you have no way to know if you have the correct udnerstanding of a verse or passage. You or any catholic cannot know with any certainty if your are correctly understanding them.

The Church assumed correct belief in the Trinity until many Christian displayed an incorrect understanding of God. Then the Church called together a council and stated the correct interpretation. Now using your reasoning above does this mean that we should now discount the Trinity since it was a belief that took several centuries before formal definition?

No. The church got the doctrine of the Trinity right because it has the scriptures to back it up. Now when we apply this same process to other catholic doctrines such as the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences etc you don’t find this kind of support in scripture for them.

Also the Bible is understood as whole not as collection of stand alone verses.

Actually the Bible is a library of various writings that deals with a broad range of issues and topics that has a unifying theme.

Except that Christ stated otherwise (Mat. 16:18-19) and St. Paul re-affirmed (1 Tim 3:15). If you think these verse are in error then it is up to you show how that Church has fallen away from its function.

As i’ve said the catholic church has gotten some things right and somethings wrong. Its doctrines on Mary, the pope, indulgences, purgatory etc that separate the churches.

 

[justasking4]

The local congregation had some issues; obviously, the Church as a whole did not. This is the point. The Catholic Church has never formally taught error.

How do you determine truth from error? What is your criteria if men can make errors since all men are fallen?

The scriptures alone are inspired. However, God also established an infallible Church to interpret them.

Where does it say in scripture that the church is infallible? If it was infallible there never would been mistakes that it has admitted to. Take the Inquisitions. Was your church “infallible” in its implementation and theology of it? Or take Joan of Arc. Was she not condmened as a heritic and later was declared a saint after her death.
There are many examples in the history of the catholic church that demonstrate that it was not infallible.

An inspired book which is misinterpreted is no help.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How do you determine truth from error? What is your criteria if men can make errors since all men are fallen?

All men are fallen, but obviously God can make men infallible. For example, were the writers of the books of the New Testament infallible when they wrote? If God could make them infallible while they were writing, could he also make them infallible with regard to teaching matters of faith and morals?

Where does it say in scripture that the church is infallible?

Matthew 28:18-19
Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’

Luke 10:16
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

John 14:16-17
If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

John 20:21
Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

1 John 4:6
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

If it was infallible there never would been mistakes that it has admitted to. Take the Inquisitions. Was your church “infallible” in its implementation and theology of it?

I do not concede that the Inquisition was an error, but for the sake of argument, could you tell me what doctrine was formally promulgated by the Inquisition?

You see, actions and teachings are two different things. The Church may do wrong, but it cannot teach error.

Or take Joan of Arc.

See above. I think you are confusing infallibllity with impeccability. Consulting a good dictionary might be helpful. The Pope and the Church are not impeccable; they are infallible when teaching matters of faith and morals.

It would be a great help. However, i do agree that fallen men can and will misinterpret. Protestant churches have as the catholic church has.

I understand that this is somehow comforting to non-Catholics, but it is incorrect.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Odell]

How do you determine truth from error? What is your criteria if men can make errors since all men are fallen?

 

[rtconstant]

The Jews never accepted the OT apocrypha as being inspired-inerrant. Even up to the 1500’ it had a “disputed position” in the church.

As to the Jews and the Deuterocanon (the apocrypha are a different set of books) that is highly debatable the only authoritative scripture at the time of Christ was the Septuagint. A century after Christ the Deuterocanon came under scrutiny by the Jews because they didn’t have Hebrew versions of those scriptures, and the goal for them was to put together a Hebrew Canon. However, none of that is either here nor there as this was after Christ and the establishment of the Church. So authority on the scriptures had passed on to The Church at this point.

As an FYI it is a Protestant myth or urban legend that the Deuterocanon was “disputed” until the 1500’s. The books of the Canon were stated and re-stated without controversy or deviation in the following councils:

Rome, Hippo, Cathage, Carthage II, Florence and Trent

From the 300’s on the Church never changed its mind on the Canon.

Then you agree that your church has never defined what they mean. Just as protestants must rely on their various sources to understand what the scriptrues mean so does the catholic.

No, I said that specific attention hasn’t been given to each verse which is what you asked. That doesn’t equal your above assumption. The Bible is enterpreted as a whole with the Faith as has been handed down by the Apostles.

The verse “Jesus wept” doesn’t need enterpretation. Yet if many Christians decided that “Jesus wept” meant Jesus had emotional problems then the Church would correct them in light of Tradition and the Biblical account as a whole.

But you have no way to know if you have the correct udnerstanding of a verse or passage. You or any catholic cannot know with any certainty if your are correctly understanding them.

Sure we can we can. Where scripture relates to doctrine, morals and salvation then we have clear teaching. If you’re wanting it know what the Bible has to say about pizza bites vs. eggroll bites we’re free to judge on our own.

No. The church got the doctrine of the Trinity right because it has the scriptures to back it up. Now when we apply this same process to other catholic doctrines such as the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences etc you don’t find this kind of support in scripture for them.

Ummm, no. The doctrine of the Trinity pre-dates Scripture. All reference in support of the Trinity in the Bible are implicit at best. If you don’t know to look you will not find. If there was no Bible the doctrine would still exist. In fact if there were no Bible all the doctrines of the Church would still stand.

Actually the Bible is a library of various writings that deals with a broad range of issues and topics that has a unifying theme.

Yes and all issues important to the Faith are defined.

As i’ve said the catholic church has gotten some things right and somethings wrong. Its doctrines on Mary, the pope, indulgences, purgatory etc that separate the churches.

The Church has got all matters of Faith and morals right.

 

[RyanL]

Saw that the Right Rev. Bishop White is posting about CAF again. Reminded me of a thread I had a while back: Documenting James White.

In any case, I was reading his blog and this struck me:

Lie, based upon lie, based upon the retelling of a lie, based upon ignorance, etc. This is the very essence of “pop apologetics” in Roman country. Throw in enough slander and mythology to choke a horse, and you know you have arrived in the land of the CA Forums/Envoy forums.

Interestingly, it wasn’t too long ago that the Right Rev. Bishop White wrote the following:

Most religions have their moonbats. Rome surely does. Off the top of my head, we can list Vinney Lewis, Art Sippo, Dave “the Stalker” Armstrong, and the ever-loquacious Mark Shea.

Does calling someone a “moonbat” rise to the level of slander? Does anyone know? Pot? Kettle?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[kaycee]

Saw that the Right Rev. Bishop White is posting about CAF again. Reminded me of a thread I had a while back: Documenting James White.

In any case, I was reading his blog and this struck me:

Lie, based upon lie, based upon the retelling of a lie, based upon ignorance, etc. This is the very essence of “pop apologetics” in Roman country. Throw in enough slander and mythology to choke a horse, and you know you have arrived in the land of the CA Forums/Envoy forums.

I guess protestants are’nt allowed to complain when they’re being libeled and demonized.

Ad Homs are the tactic of those who must kill the messenger because the truth exposes their error.

Does calling someone a “moonbat” rise to the level of slander? Does anyone know? Pot? Kettle?

Probably not. Certainly no worse than mockingly refering to someone as the “Right Reverend Bishop White”

 

[Jason_Landless]

I often find these forums a complete waste of time because the sorts of posts that people seem to like putting up are those that contain nothing but carping and slander. One would think that someone might actually mention some of the errors that James White has made so as to point out his shortcomings from real evidence. After all, using reason and common-sense are part and parcel of real theological discussion - demonstrating with sound argumentation from concrete evidence that James White has got it wrong - as opposed to simply hammering on the cradle crying, “He doesn’t like our church!”

In the past I have tried to engage in discussion and debate with Roman Catholics about their doctrines and dogmas on various forums. I find it surprising that even very educated people - like the celebrated Dr. Clay Randal (MD) who runs a website in which he lambasts Protestantism - cannot mount a coherent defence of their own beliefs. When confronted with exegesis of the Bible, when even the words of popes and church doctors are simply quoted back to them, so many Roman Catholics seem to throw their arms into the air and become hostile.

I can remember a debate online in which a certain Roman Catholic apologist, in defending the concept of Purgatory, stated that Job was a perfect example of vicarious atonement - that Job’s offerings were made on behalf of others. When I pointed out that (1) Job’s children were destroyed for their sins, (2) Job’s children were unrepentant and continued in their sins, (3) Job’s sacrifices for his children accomplished nothing for their spiritual or temporal estate, and (4) the clear teaching that the blood of bulls does not satisfy God - “sacrifice and offering I did not desire”, the apologist shut down. Despite claiming a superior case to Reformed Protestant beliefs, it always amazes me the blatant failure of Roman Catholics to carry their apologetics through to the end.

James White in my view is a remarkable man. His works have changed my thinking and my theology dramatically. I am a Reformed Protestant today, partly due to his efforts. White recieves abuse and silly gimmicky stunts like “pray and fast for his conversion” (I mean, really, who could take this kind of rhetoric seriously?) on a daily basis. Yet how often do we find him biting back with ad hominem argumentation? Never. White does what I think is a very Christian thing: he asks - “show me my errors, demonstrate from plain reason and the clear teaching of scripture my shortcomings, and if you can do so I will change my beliefs and words in a flash”.

I think he will be waiting for a while though.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I guess protestants are’nt allowed to complain when they’re being libeled and demonized.

Ad Homs are the tactic of those who must kill the messenger because the truth exposes their error.

Probably not. Certainly no worse than mockingly refering to someone as the “Right Reverend Bishop White”

Kaycee-

My only question is this: could you envision yourself writing the things that Mr. White writes about Catholicism and Catholics?

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the past I have tried to engage in discussion and debate with Roman Catholics about their doctrines and dogmas on various forums. I find it surprising that even very educated people - like the celebrated Dr. Clay Randal (MD) who runs a website in which he lambasts Protestantism - cannot mount a coherent defence of their own beliefs. When confronted with exegesis of the Bible, when even the words of popes and church doctors are simply quoted back to them, so many Roman Catholics seem to throw their arms into the air and become hostile.

Some do. Others are more than happy to provide solid answers to refute your errors.

Please feel free to begin as many single-topic threads as you like. We will be happy to respond and dialogue as long as you like.

I can remember a debate online in which a certain Roman Catholic apologist, in defending the concept of Purgatory, stated that Job was a perfect example of vicarious atonement - that Job’s offerings were made on behalf of others. When I pointed out that (1) Job’s children were destroyed for their sins, (2) Job’s children were unrepentant and continued in their sins, (3) Job’s sacrifices for his children accomplished nothing for their spiritual or temporal estate, and (4) the clear teaching that the blood of bulls does not satisfy God - “sacrifice and offering I did not desire”, the apologist shut down. Despite claiming a superior case to Reformed Protestant beliefs, it always amazes me the blatant failure of Roman Catholics to carry their apologetics through to the end.

If this is your favorite topic, start a thread.

James White in my view is a remarkable man. His works have changed my thinking and my theology dramatically. I am a Reformed Protestant today, partly due to his efforts. White recieves abuse and silly gimmicky stunts like “pray and fast for his conversion” (I mean, really, who could take this kind of rhetoric seriously?) on a daily basis. Yet how often do we find him biting back with ad hominem argumentation? Never. White does what I think is a very Christian thing: he asks - “show me my errors, demonstrate from plain reason and the clear teaching of scripture my shortcomings, and if you can do so I will change my beliefs and words in a flash”.

I think he will be waiting for a while though.

Perhaps you should review some of the comments of Mr. White concerning Art Sippo and Dave Armstrong. If these are examples of Mr. White’s charitable remarks, I would hate to read what he might say when angry.

Finally, as for refutation of his arguments per se, have you actually listened to any of the debates? Only the most hardened of Mr. White’s fan base believes that he bested Patrick Madrid or many of the other Catholics he debated.

 

[clmowry]

Hm? ND you came to this conclusion from all one posts?

Put forth your subject of choice and you’ll be reasoned and commonsesed right off your key board.

It will of course not be in alignment with your pre-concieved notions so to you even the most well reasoned arguments may apper a lie. But that is not the fault of the argument.

It’s rather presumptious of you to presume a call to prayer and fastng a silly gimmick.

Chuck

I often find these forums a complete waste of time because the sorts of posts that people seem to like putting up are those that contain nothing but carping and slander. One would think that someone might actually mention some of the errors that James White has made so as to point out his shortcomings from real evidence. After all, using reason and common-sense are part and parcel of real theological discussion - demonstrating with sound argumentation from concrete evidence that James White has got it wrong - as opposed to simply hammering on the cradle crying, “He doesn’t like our church!”

In the past I have tried to engage in discussion and debate with Roman Catholics about their doctrines and dogmas on various forums. I find it surprising that even very educated people - like the celebrated Dr. Clay Randal (MD) who runs a website in which he lambasts Protestantism - cannot mount a coherent defence of their own beliefs. When confronted with exegesis of the Bible, when even the words of popes and church doctors are simply quoted back to them, so many Roman Catholics seem to throw their arms into the air and become hostile.

I can remember a debate online in which a certain Roman Catholic apologist, in defending the concept of Purgatory, stated that Job was a perfect example of vicarious atonement - that Job’s offerings were made on behalf of others. When I pointed out that (1) Job’s children were destroyed for their sins, (2) Job’s children were unrepentant and continued in their sins, (3) Job’s sacrifices for his children accomplished nothing for their spiritual or temporal estate, and (4) the clear teaching that the blood of bulls does not satisfy God - “sacrifice and offering I did not desire”, the apologist shut down. Despite claiming a superior case to Reformed Protestant beliefs, it always amazes me the blatant failure of Roman Catholics to carry their apologetics through to the end.

James White in my view is a remarkable man. His works have changed my thinking and my theology dramatically. I am a Reformed Protestant today, partly due to his efforts. White recieves abuse and silly gimmicky stunts like “pray and fast for his conversion” (I mean, really, who could take this kind of rhetoric seriously?) on a daily basis. Yet how often do we find him biting back with ad hominem argumentation? Never. White does what I think is a very Christian thing: he asks - “show me my errors, demonstrate from plain reason and the clear teaching of scripture my shortcomings, and if you can do so I will change my beliefs and words in a flash”.

I think he will be waiting for a while though.

 

[GOP]

Who is James White?

 

[GOP]

Why are we praying for Mr. White? Is he a false teacher or a cult leader?

I’d like to know too.

 

[kaycee]

I’d like to know too.

aomin.org

 

[kaycee]

Perhaps you should review some of the comments of Mr. White concerning Art Sippo and Dave Armstrong. If these are examples of Mr. White’s charitable remarks, I would hate to read what he might say when angry.

I would love to review Dr. Whites comments, but while were waiting for you to post them lets see Art Sippo’s style.

These remarks are aimed at James Swan when he quoted fellow Catholic historian Joseph Lortz.

Mr. Swan is like a broken record."

“Get over it, James. **You are a cheer-leader for one of the evilest men in history **who has led millions into perdition. You should be ashamed!”

"[Catholic historian joseph Lortz] was a Nazi just like Adolph Hitler. Both of them were Luther fans."

“You know, come to think of it, If Mr. Swan rally thinks that being a Nazi doesn’t disqualify Fr. Lortz as a Luther expert, why doesn’t he go right to the top and advocate the opinions of Adolph Hitler himself!”

I believe this is one of his more milder rants. beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/catholic-apologist-art-sippo-on.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’d like to know too.

Mr. White is a virulent anti-Catholic.

 

[kaycee]

Mr. White is a virulent anti-Catholic.

What took you so long Randy? :yawn: sleep late?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would love to review Dr. Whites comments, but while were waiting for you to post them lets see Art Sippo’s style.

These remarks are aimed at James Swan when he quoted fellow Catholic historian Joseph Lortz.

Mr. Swan is like a broken record."

“Get over it, James. **You are a cheer-leader for one of the evilest men in history **who has led millions into perdition. You should be ashamed!”

"[Catholic historian joseph Lortz] was a Nazi just like Adolph Hitler. Both of them were Luther fans."

“You know, come to think of it, If Mr. Swan rally thinks that being a Nazi doesn’t disqualify Fr. Lortz as a Luther expert, why doesn’t he go right to the top and advocate the opinions of Adolph Hitler himself!”

I believe this is one of his more milder rants. beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/catholic-apologist-art-sippo-on.html

How is this a defense of Mr. White?

“Mr. White is completely innocent of the charge of lack of charity because his opponents do the same thing.”

Huh?

C’mon, Kaycee…shouldn’t a real “Bible Christian” like Mr. White maintain a higher standard of behavior than these unsaved “Papists” who are trapped in the “Roman System” and ignorant of the gospel?

After a decade or so of banging their heads together, civility has worn thin on all sides. Yes, Sippo and Armstrong, like White, can be very forceful and blunt…but why not see for yourself?

Here’s the link to Art’s new blog: art-of-attack.blogspot.com He pulls no punches and takes no prisoners.

Dave is at: socrates58.blogspot.com/

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Church_Militant]

AND if he does’nt??? Maybe your glass is only half full.

Or as with a great many people…he resists the Holy Spirit for whatever reason.

Acts 5:39: but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"

 

[Church_Militant]

Is that a rhetorical question? Catholics do believe in the Great commission dont they? Although being raised Catholic i dont recall it ever being mentioned.

Matthew 28:16-20

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

I do not see anything here about bashing fellow Christians.

Perhaps you were not paying attention? My thought exactly.