Saturday, November 22, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
So, the debate is a go. The resolution is as shown below:
Resolved: That Dulia and Proskuneo can be used in a Religious context without being worship.
Since Albrecht is Affirmative, he has the burden of proof and consequently gets to speak first and last. The time limits will be as follows:
1AC (first Affirmative Constructive) – 7 minutes
Cross Ex of the Aff by the Neg – 3 minutes
1NC (first Negative Constructive) – 8 minutes
Cross Ex of the Neg by the Aff – 3 minutes
1AR (first Affirmative Rebuttal) - 4 minutes
NR (Negative Rebuttal) – 7 minutes
2AR (second Affirmative Rebuttal) – 4 minutes
Plus four minutes of "prep-time" per side that can be used after cross-examination or before any rebuttal.
Please pray that God would use the debate for the edification of many,
It's not simply a matter of Euro-centric elitism at play in Bellisario's obvious preference for Gregorian chanting over Gangsta rap. It's blindness on several levels.
First, Bellisario seems to be blind to the transformation of music for worship into music for entertainment. Gregorian chanting was developed as a musical style during the medieval period primarily as part of worship. Although today some people listen to Gregorian chanting for entertainment, this was not its original or primary purpose. While Bellisario levels the accusation of "degradation" one might argue that taking "sacred music" and putting it to common use is itself a "degradation." To aid in seeing how this works, imagine someone using a large crucifix as a coat rack, or an icon of the Virgin Mary as a doormat. If the Gregorian chant is "sacred" (as Bellisario seems to claim) then surely this conversion of sacred to common is degrading to the thing considered sacred in Catholicism.
While I personally share Bellisario's musical taste (I think Gregorian chanting is much more euphonic than Gangsta rap), Bellisario is (in the second place) blind to the fact that the Gangsta rap piece is not intended for worship. I would agree that the need for reverence in public worship would seem to preclude the Gangsta rap category. Furthermore, the absence of Scriptural warrant for instruments in New Testament worship would encourage the use of musical styles like the Gregorian chant, that do not require instrumental accompaniment. Nevertheless, the Gangsta rap piece does not appear to be intended for worship, but for recreation. It happens to relate to religious themes, but it is not a worship song.
Third, even if the rap piece were a worship song, the two musical styles are about equally unsuitable for congregational singing. While there are some who could probably follow each of the respective styles, most people would have a lot of trouble joining in either song. Accordingly, for the purposes of public worship, neither would be particular suitable in this day and age. Bellisario seems to be blind to this similarity in unsingability.
A fourth area of blindness on Bellisario's part is his failure to consider the communicative aspect of religious song. The Gregorian chant may soothe one's headache or put one to sleep, but it does not edify. This particular chant appears to be in Latin (though the pronunciation of the consonants is so indistinct that it is hard to be sure). If people cannot understand what is being said, they are not edified. In contrast, the rap piece mostly uses enunciated English words (albeit using a certain amount of street slang and an accent that may be challenging for some listeners). Between the two, the message of the rap piece is more clear.
Fifth, Bellisario is blind to the fact that the Gregorian chant itself is a departure from tradition - and has been departed from in Catholicism. Like so much else in Catholicism, the Gregorian chant has its origins in the middle ages. The legend that Gregory himself invented the style is almost certainly false, but it developed not too long after his bishopric. Furthermore, the unaccompanied singing that had marked Christian worship for a long time before the advent of organs and the like instrumental worship became popular. As late as the 13th century, Aquinas himself noted that the church had no musical instruments and defended that practice.
Finally, the sixth aspect of blindness here is the failure to appreciate that the rapper in the rap video is starting from "secular" gangsta rap and Christianizing it. He's not trying to provide a degradation of European musical styles, but an improvement on the urban black music style. Do I fully approve of Christianized gangsta rap? No. I don't. The music still seems violent to me, even with Christian lyrics and message, perhaps simply because of the connotations of the genre.
While certain parts of Romanism are happy to lock up the Word of God in the Latin tongue, parts of "Protestantism" (whatever that may be) are shining forth the light of God into the streets. There will always be those who mock us for taking the Word of God to the poor, of putting the Word of God in the common tongue, and who wish to see that light extinguished. Though the Gregorian piece's title translates to "And light in darkness," it is the rap piece that actually is an example of the light of God's word shining forth in the darkness of the Gangsta rap genre.
N.B. Yes, I am aware that Rome has, in another departure from tradition, stopped requiring the Latin mass and then indicated that it had never turned its back on (ha) the Latin mass. Also, I am aware that "Gangsta rap" has particular significance in the rap world. I may be using the term wrong as an outsider. Combox comments identifying the correct species of rap are welcome.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The folks out there who have been trying to wield the "Sola Scriptura causes disunity" claim have trouble dealing with this kind of data. Rationally, though, if cultic groups of this sort can crop up without any reference to Sola Scriptura, why besides blatant exercise of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy would one blame the large number of denominations on Sola Scriptura? To put it a different way, don't groups like this demonstrate that people tend to form their own groups regardless of Sola Scriptura?
Before pontificating about the differences and similarities between your god and the God of Islam, you may want to inform us how may Gods there are. If in deed there is only one God, then you have no choice between the God they worship and the one you worship.(all errors in original)
There is only one God and some who purpose to worship do so in truth and others in error or rebellion. Catholics would throw Protestants in the last category since they purposefully reject the true worship - the Mass, as Catholics would put it. For this purpose, a Catholic who attends your form of worship for some reason on a Sunday would be obligated to find a Catholic Church and attend proper worship. So, I think you need to worry whether or not you worship the same God with Catholics before worrying about who else worships the same God with Catholics.
The "pontificating" line is a bit amusing coming from a papist. Also interesting is the fact that Dozie uses a lowercase "g" for my God, whereas Dozie uses an uppercase "G" for Islam's god. Poor Dozie seems to have lots of things backwards and confused, perhaps at least in part because of Dozie's attempt to make rational sense of the popes' position set forth in my previous article (linked above).
To answer the question, "How many Gods are there?" I reply: There is but one only, the Living and True God.
Dozie's claim, "If in deed [sic] there is only one God, then you have no choice between the God they worship and the one you worship." Actually, though, the Muslims worship something that is not god - a fictional deity. It is Jesus who created the Heavens and the Earth, but the Muslims deny that Jesus is God, claiming that Jesus is merely a prophet of their god. Their fictional god forgives sin arbitrarily and without satisfaction. He's a fiction that is drawn, like so many false gods, with some elements of the truth. The true God is the God of Abraham, but Abraham worships Jesus. The true God is He who created the world, but Jesus is He by whom all things were made and without Him was not anything made that was made. Yes, there is a difference between the True God, whom we worship, and the god portrayed in the Koran and Hadith literature.
Furthermore, Scripture addresses this issue. Though there are many gods that are called gods, to us there is but one God:
1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Dozie's claim, "There is only one God and some who purpose to worship do so in truth and others in error or rebellion." This is an interesting claim. It is easily shown to be false. There are some who explicitly worship Satan. Will Dozie claim that those people are actually worshiping God as well? I would assume Dozie would not engage in such blasphemy.
Furthermore, recall the rebuke Jesus had for the Samaritan woman:
John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Recall as well what else Jesus told this woman that undermines Dozie's claims:
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
You see, those who do not worship the Father in spirit and truth are not true worshippers of God. As Jesus continued:
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must [Greek: δει] worship him in spirit and in truth.
The only way to worship God is in spirit and in truth. What then do the heathen nations worship? They worship false gods, as distinct from the true God. The prophet Zephaniah noted this contrast:
Zephaniah 2:11 The LORD will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen.
Indeed, as noted in the subject line of this post, all the gods of the nations are non-entities. There is nothing behind their idols:
1 Chronicles 16:26 For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
Psalm 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
And the Psalms likewise contrast the worship of idols and the worship of God:
Psalm 97:7 Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.
Likewise, Paul makes the same contrast:
1 Thessalonians 1:9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;
Contrary to Rome's super-ecumenical expressions, the Apostle Paul also declares:
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
When the Muslim prays to the "Allah" of the Koran, he is not praying to the LORD of the Bible - at least for the obvious reason that the "Allah" of the Koran is not Jesus.
Dozie's comments about the practices of those in communion with Rome ("Catholics would throw Protestants in the last category since they purposefully reject the true worship - the Mass, as Catholics would put it. For this purpose, a Catholic who attends your form of worship for some reason on a Sunday would be obligated to find a Catholic Church and attend proper worship.") are not particularly relevant. We do reject "the Mass" as idolatry, but that's not especially germane to the topic at hand.
Likewise, Dozie's assertion, "So, I think you need to worry whether or not you worship the same God with Catholics before worrying about who else worships the same God with Catholics," badly misses the point. Actually, what I am worried about is making sure I worship the God of the Bible. The God who inspired the Apostle John to write, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father" (1 John 2:23).
Likewise it is written:
2 John 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
The Muslims who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ do not have God. They may use the Arabic word for God, but they do not know the one true God. This in contrast to us:
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
The Mass and the other worship of Catholicism (such as the veneration of saints and relics, prayers to and for the dead, and the worshiping of God by images) is not acceptable in the sight of God for it is not the worship ordained by His holy Word. Catholicism properly recognizes God to be the Trinity, but does not submit itself to the Word of God, to conform its doctrines and practices according to that higher standard. That's something that should seriously concern Dozie.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
I would be happy to take him up on the challenge.
Obviously, for this to be a debate, there would have to be rules:
A resolution, so that the debaters will stick to a topic;
Time limits, so that one side does not dominate the other by simply hogging all the time;
Cross-Examination, so that each side gets a chance to ask relevant questions of the other side; and
A moderator, to make sure that the rules are followed.
If Albrecht is still interested, he can easily contact me either by leaving a comment in this comment box or sending me an email (my email address is available via my Blogger profile).
Consider her reasons: "Your faith is still far too exclusive overall for my taste. You seem to condemn too many actions, and my opinions don't really match the church's on issues like birth control, abortion, stem-cell research and even the transfiguration of the bread and wine."
Even leaving aside that this young lady has used "transfiguration" in place of the word "transubstantiation," the reasons are terrible.
a) "Your faith is far too exclusive"
Any true religion is going to be exclusive. It must needs be. There are valid criticisms of Catholicism, but this is not one of them. In fact, if anything, Catholicism is much too inclusive (as demonstrated here), not much too exclusive.
b) "for my taste"
There is no room for "taste" in religion. One's religion must be based on the truth. There is a valid reason to reject Catholicism, and that is its lack of agreement with Scriptures, not its contradiction of one's taste. Tastes change: the truth does not.
c) "You seem to condemn too many actions"
It may be that in some areas Catholicism condemns "too many actions," but this young lady hasn't provide an epistemological basis upon which to render that judgment. The way to determine whether Catholicism condemns too many actions is Scripture. Once Scripture is brought in, it may be discovered that while Catholicism condemns too many actions in one area, it permits too many actions in another area. One senses (although the young lady is not explicit here), that the young lady would like to see a church that doesn't impose very many rules on her.
d) "my opinions don't really match the church's"
Again, this standard is an invalid standard. It doesn't really matter what one's opinion is. What matters is what the truth is. The way we have access to the truth is through the Scriptures, not through our gut feelings about things.
e) "on issues like birth control, abortion, stem-cell research and even the transfiguration of the bread and wine"
With respect to the first three issues, I think it is fair to state that the young lady's objections are not principled objections. For example, while Catholicism may be wrong in generally condemning all forms of artificial birth control, Catholicism is right in identifying the intentional taking of the life of an unborn child as homicide. Since the young lady has not even found the correct word to describe the Romanist view of what happens at the consecration of the "host," it stands to reason that the young lady cannot provide a valid rebuttal for the "physical transformation" error associated with the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation.
Here's my question to Evangelical parents out there. Could this be your child? Is your child unaware of why he believes what he believes? Would your child willingly attend a "Mass" and report back that he "really enjoy[s] Mass"? Have you explained to your child, before sending him off to college, the fundamental principle of Sola Scriptura? Or have you left your child with relativist values that leave your child having as his strongest argument against other religions as being that they don't match his opinion or fit his taste? Is your child grounded in the concept of Absolute Truth?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Naturally, he refused. I didn’t expect otherwise. I encourage everyone, before they read this article to listen to the November 4, 2008, edition of the Dividing Line (link). Mr. Albrecht called into the show and discussion ensued between him and Dr. White.
With that background, I proceed to address a video by Albrecht. I’ve provided a full transcript in seven segments from the following video source (source). Albrecht doesn’t have the clearest enunciation of his words, so in some places I have been forced to make an educated guess as to what he was trying to say. Also, I have tried to eliminate unintentional stutters and/or filler (“umm” etc.) in the interest of simply providing what Albrecht was trying to say.
For those unwilling to read the entire 5,000 word article, here is the summary. The video was long on rhetoric short on substance. The few matters of substance raised are easily dismantled, because Albrecht’s methodology is (apparently) to simply insult and denigrate those who disagree with him, rather to present a cogent and coherent argument. Finally, a lie on Albrecht’s part with respect to the historical facts of the Dividing Line (DL) is exposed.
Alright, alright, alright, well, well, well, anyone that saw the Dividing Line, I must say I doubt you are surprised. Before the Dividing Line show in which I appeared, I predicted just what would occur: Mr. White would sidestep the question, delve into other topics, and mute me, and even hang up on me, which of course, he did do.
This was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. What Albrecht fails to point out is that what he means by Dr. White “sidestep[ping] the question,” is answering the questions Albrecht posed in any other way than that which Albrecht wanted. What Albrecht fails to point out is that Dr. White “delve[d] into other topics,” because Albrecht raised other topics. What Albrecht fails to point out is that Dr. White muted him because he was trying to interrupt and talk over Dr. White. What Albrecht fails to point out is that Dr. White accidentally hung up on him at the very end of the show. Albrecht had the opportunity to talk with Dr. White from around 18 minutes into the show, to the accidental disconnection in the 58th minute (around 57:19 or so) of the show. Unfortunately, a transcription like the one above doesn’t capture the tone of the video, but it should become more evident in further segments.
Mr. Albrecht’s comment regarding “anyone that saw the Dividing Line,” is – of course – a bit odd, since the Dividing Line was presented in audio only. Perhaps Mr. Albrecht is simply not precise at expressing himself.
Well there isn’t any substance in this segment, so it is not really possible to provide a substantive critique. It’s all rhetoric. Once Albrecht gets into the substance, the substantive critique sections will be more meaty.
Unfortunately for James, he refuted himself. He admitted to logical (of course) and biblical distinction between latria and dulia, but his cop-out was, “Oh, oh, but there’s no distinction with reference to religious usage.” Of course, this make no sense, because, as I attempted to point out many times over, we don’t give dulia in a religious worship usage to any saint. I tried to hammer this point home to James, but he only yelled and yelled and yelled and muted me. I think it particular bothered James that Acts 7:7 was a prime example that his position is completely superfluous. After acknowledging the two distinct words, James simply says this cannot be a viable usage, because dulia is not a religious context.
Notice how Albrecht starts by claiming victory. He starts by saying that Dr. White refuted himself. Of course, Albrecht does not refer to him as Dr. White, but instead as “James.” It is interesting to recall (you did listen to the DL as I requested, didn’t you?) how hot under the collar Albrecht got when Dr. White pointed out to him that Albrecht had refuted himself (around 25:30). The difference is that Dr. White first demonstrated that Albrecht refuted himself, he did not simply claim it.
In fact, even after Albrecht claims that Dr. White refuted himself, he does not back it up. Albrecht seems to think that the fact that latria and dulia are two different words that are often used in different ways is an important point (more on that in the substantive section below). However, Albrecht refuses to consider Dr. White’s clarification, calling it a “cop-out.” A cop-out, however, is not a self-refutation. Even if it were a cop-out, which it is not, it would not be a self-refutation.
Furthermore, in addition to calling it a cop-out, Albrecht claims it makes no sense. His explanation for why it supposedly makes no sense is to change the subject (see Segment 1, Rhetorical Critique, above) to what he thinks is the application of the issue to his religion. Of course, even if the point made no sense (although in fact it did make sense), it would not be a self-refutation.
Albrecht claims that he tried to hammer his point home to Dr. White, but that Dr. White yelled and muted him. Albrecht, however, forgets to inform the reader that he tried to hammer this point home while Dr. White was talking. That is to say, Albrecht attempted to interrupt Dr. White, forcing Dr. White first to talk a bit louder – and then when it was clear that Albrecht wasn’t taking the hint to wait his turn, eventually mute Albrecht so as to be able to return to a more normal level of volume. “Yell,” of course, is an exaggeration, but it is true that Dr. White tried to help clue Albrecht into the fact that Dr. White was still talking, by raising his voice.
Albrecht’s comment regarding why Acts 7:7 would bother Dr. White is a bit odd too. As the reader has probably noticed, “superfluous” is just not the word Albrecht is looking for. Something superfluous is something extra. A position cannot really be superfluous, so it becomes clear that Albrecht simply let the four-syllable word get away from him. Advice to Albrecht: make sure you know what the word means, before you use it.
It’s a bit like his attempt to characterize Dr. White’s position in the very next sentence. Albrecht claims that Dr. White’s position is that “this cannot be a viable usage, because dulia is not a religious context.” In fact, however, Dr. White’s point was that the use of a form of dulia in Acts 7:7 was dulia in a non-religious context. Thus, it is not a relevant usage.
Substantively there is not a lot here. Albrecht’s basic point is and was that there is a difference between the words latria and dulia. As Albrecht noted we agree that those are two different words.
Nevertheless, in a religious context, Albrecht is unable to substantiate any relevant difference. In a religious context, both latria and dulia are (in the Bible) inappropriate for things that are not God. In a religious context, both are encompassed by the broad term προσκυνέω (proskuneo). Proskuneo in a religious context, giving religious reverence, is only for God. The idea that mere religious dulia (or religious hyper-dulia) is acceptable while only latria is forbidden is simply without Biblical foundation.
Albrecht either mistakes his own church’s position or is throwing up a red herring when he states, “we don’t give dulia in a religious worship usage to any saint.” Catholicism does admit to giving dulia in a religious context to the saints, and “hyper-dulia” to Mary. It is in the context of religious worship, although it is claimed that God receives the worship (see more discussion on that below, where Albrecht claims that the reverence goes directly to God). If Albrecht is attempting to point out that today this dulia is not labeled “worship,” he is providing a red herring with such a statement – or simply begging the question. After all, the issue is whether dulia in a religious context is to be considered worship biblically, not whether Catholicism acknowledges the Bible’s teaching on the point.
Acts 7:7 doesn’t help Albrecht. The dulia mentioned there is not in a religious context, as Dr. White pointed out during the DL. Accordingly, the idea that dulia of someone other than God is permitted in a non-religious context is an irrelevant point. We acknowledge that dulia can be rendered to the creation outside the religious context. We insist that all religious proskuneo, whether latria or dulia, is improper if directed to anyone but God.
Of course, when I then asked James to give me one lexicon in support of his thesis, he couldn’t even give me one. Instead he named the Bauer, Danker, Arndt & Gingrich but he didn’t even say that that gives the distinction. Notice his little verbage that he comes up with, “Oh, it doesn’t even deal with it!” Well James, the reason I asked you that pointed [?] question in the Greek lexicons, is because, on my laptop [pointing to a laptop over his left shoulder] right back there you can see, well James, I’ve got all of the standard lexicons popped right up onto my screen. Any type of Biblical software that exists, James, I run it, James. The software that you use, I use. Any kind of software that you’ve ever used, I’ve got every single version, James. The reason being, is because, you know, I realize you love to use lexicons, you love to bring up the Greek, and I would agree the Greek is quite important, but when you do what you do, you know, the gymnastics you do on the Greek language, it’s almost laughable. There isn’t a single scholar, or a single professor of Greek, that would say there is no biblical distinction between latria and dulia as you do. It’s quite laughable, James. Coming from somebody who claims to know Greek so well, it’s almost a joke. It really is.
It’s a little hard to believe that Albrecht has literally every Greek software package and every version thereof ever made. I suppose with enough funds one could accomplish such a thing, but I’m not sure why one would go beyond buying the most recent versions of the most popular and/or most high quality materials.
Obviously there is also a fair bit of mocking in this segment – but it is hard to make sense of the rambling monologue here. While Abrecht concedes that the Greek is important, and has apparently invested (or had invested for him) a considerable sum of money in obtaining every software package ever made, he accuses Dr. White of “gymnastics” and suggests that Dr. White’s claims to know Greek are not founded. On the other hand, no evidence of Greek gymnastics is presented, and Dr. White’s credentials with respect to Greek are readily open to serious question – particularly in view of Albrecht’s admission on the DL that Dr. White knows Greek much better than he does.
Additionally, although Albrecht makes the “couldn’t give me a single one” claim, Dr. White did in fact identify lexical support for Dr. White’s position. As a final rhetorical note, although Albrecht uses the term “verbage” he probably should have used the term “verbiage” in this particular context, though certainly “verbage” would be the more pejorative expression. Verbage usually refers to unnecessary wordiness, as opposed to verbiage, which can refer simply to a manner of expressing oneself in words.
As noted above, we agree that latria and dulia are two different words. Dr. White’s failure to bring up a Greek lexicon against his own position is simply a matter of internal consistency. Although Albrecht tries to re-characterize Dr. White’s position, Dr. White’s position remains that attempting to justify “dulia” as opposed “latria” of the saints (two forms of proskuneo of the saints) is without Biblical warrant. Pointing out that the two words have different semantic ranges, while certainly of lexical interest, is not relevant to the discussion, without some further argumentation: argumentation that Albrecht is either unable or unwilling to provide.
There is only one person who would agree with you. That is correct, only one. Not even Luther. Not even Zwingli. Not even Wycliffe or Huss. Or Augustine or Jerome or anyone – only John Calvin, the creator of your religion. The same person who rejected the early Christian writings because of their Catholicity, claiming them to be spurious. Something not even you would do, James. James was wise in avoiding that question, very wise. Even wiser in sidestepping whether an early father was devoted to Mary viewed their devotion as latria. Very, very, very intelligent, James. Putting me on mute and being able to try to slam down on me. Too bad everybody heard the show, James, whether you put me on mute or not, everybody heard. The sinking of the ship of Protestant beliefs was on show for the world.
Albrecht lets drama get the better of him here. His outrageous claims regarding the teachings not only of the church fathers but also some of the Reformers and proto-Reformers is a bit absurd. Likewise, his claim that Calvin is the “only one person” that would agree with Dr. White is just silly.
It is interesting to note that the issue of “whether an early father was devoted to Mary” is an issue that was not the main issue under discussion. Recall how Albrecht previously complained that Dr. White would turn his attention to other issues. Here he complains that Dr. White did not follow him down a rabbit trail. The double-standard is glaring.
It’s also interesting to see that Albrecht thinks that the issue of whether some father or other held some non-Reformed position is the sinking of the Protestant ship. Perhaps Albrecht is simply unaware that the Reformed position just lets the fathers be the fathers. The Reformed position recognizes that men err, and leaves room for error even in the most renowned of church fathers.
The “even you” jab is an interesting tactic. It is apparent that Albrecht views Dr. White as radically reformed, but not quite as radically reformed as Calvin. Since he views this “reformed” characteristic as something bad and stupid, he naturally doesn’t think twice before making a comment in which the implication is “even you [stupid as you are] wouldn’t say that.” This is ironically reinforced by Albrecht’s mocking “wise, very wise” remarks.
Calling Calvin the “creator of your religion” is obviously intended as an insult, but is simply so far from the truth, that only Albrecht’s most diehard supporters would find it compelling. In fact, I expect that most readers would see through this comment with great ease. Of course, the “creator” of our religion is God himself, who through Moses, the prophets, and the apostles provided us with the Word of God by which we know how to worship and serve him and him only.
There is not much here of substance on the topic. Essentially the argument appears to be that the view that “dulia of the saints is bad” originated with Calvin. This claim is false.
To take but one example, the Waldensians of the 15th century were recorded by the papists as not giving honor to the saints, working on saints’ days, not revering the statues or images of saints, and not praying to them. Indeed, Claude de Seyssel (who wrote a work against the Waldensians) identified this issue as their ninth error. Claude died in 1520, when Calvin was only about eleven years old. Consequently, one can reasonably suppose that however late the Waldensians may have come to reject the practices designated “dulia” – they certainly held that view before Calvin did.
We could also add that Calvin did not “reject the early Christian writings because of their Catholicity, claiming them to be spurious.” In fact there are two confused concepts in this criticism. Calvin probably did (and rightly so) question the authenticity of some of the alleged writings of the early Christians. One has only to look to obvious forgeries that Rome has relied upon, such as the Isodorian decretals and the Donation of Constantine, to recognize that the Roman see is not above forging documents of great importance. We actually see the same thing today with Romanists citing questionable sources in support of their positions (example 1, example 2). In fact, we even see this problem in the works of leading Romanists, such as Cardinal Lambruschini (link to discussion).
With respect to the alleged “Catholicity” of the early Christian writers, but – as Calvin said:
Honor to the Holy Church Fathers: he among us who does not know them better than you, let him beware lest he mention their names. Too bad that you are not more thoroughly read in them, otherwise certain references could be of benefit to you.
It is too bad that Albrecht is so unfamiliar both with Calvin’s teaching as well as with the teaching of the church fathers.
Let me move on to White. He tried to argue about the assumption of Mary, then the deutero-canonical books, then Sola Scriptura. It is clear James was lost on his dulia/latria argument from the fact that bowing to a statue at the time of Moses was different than bowing to a statue of Mary. James yelled, “How? How? How?” so loud that my brand new iPhone headphones nearly busted. He yelled so loud that I really didn’t want to laugh at him, to be rude, but he was – phew – I mean I don’t know if he was joking or he was really yelling because he was upset, but I couldn’t help but laugh, I mean he went almost nuts. I mean, come on, James. I don’t need to explain to you, we honor Mary, not a statue. The honor the Israelites were giving to their statues was the honor due to a god, because that was their god. They were not just honoring it, they were worshiping it. The Israelites were giving dulia and latria to the statue. We give nothing to the statue, rather we give honor and respect to what it represents: a creature of God. The respect goes directly to God. Get it James? I’ll draw a cartoon for you, so you can get it even better. I have a friend who is a great artist.
The mocking in this segment is pretty obvious, even without being able to hear the tone of voice used. You’ll notice how Albrecht claims that “James was lost on his dulia/latria argument,” but Albrecht has great trouble in explaining why.
It’s ironic that Albrecht does not seem to understand that part of presenting an argument is explanation. Albrecht seems to think that he can just claim whatever he likes, and if people don’t agree with him, too bad. During the DL, Albrecht was either unwilling or unable to support “how” bowing to a statue in Moses’ day (giving proskuneo to the statue or the thing represented by the statue) would have been different from bowing to a statue today. Whether he even does so now, we’ll address in this substantive segment below.
The cartoon comment here is somewhat ironic. One of Dr. White’s friends has actually already drawn a cartoon to help folks like Albrecht “get it” with respect to trying to make overly nuanced distinctions. (link to cartoon – note that the cartoon is under ©)
In order to provide the critique here, we have to look at Albrecht’s argument without all the rhetorical baggage. Dr. White had asked how bowing down to a statue in Old Testament times is different from bowing down to a statue of Mary. Let’s explore Albrecht’s answer.
1) We honor Mary, not a statue;
2) The honor the Israelites were giving to their statues was the honor due to a god, because that was their god;
3) They were not just honoring it, they were worshiping it;
4) The Israelites were giving dulia and latria to the statue;
5) We give nothing to the statue, rather we give honor and respect to what it represents: a creature of God; and
6) The respect goes directly to God.
As to (1), this seems to be the “our ancient ancestors were quite stupid” argument. This is the argument that today people understand that idols are representations of Mary, the Saints, Jesus, etc., but back then idolaters really thought that idol was the god. But is this so? Of course not.
There may have been some ancient superstitions associated with idols, just as there sometimes superstitions associated with Roman idols today. For example, today people sometimes bury statues of Joseph upside down in their yards in a particular way if they are trying to sell there house. This sort of practice is foolish. The statue is just an inanimate object. If it is made from molded resin, it could have easily been a toothbrush. If it is wooden, it could easily been part of your front door … and so forth.
But few people are so foolish as to attribute these powers to the statue itself. Instead, they attribute the powers to the saint or deity that the statue represents. Consider the Greeks and Romans. Now, granted that those were not the civilizations flourishing at the time of Moses, but do you think their concepts were much different from those of Persians and Egyptians? The Greeks at Ephesus did not think that Diana was the statue in the temple, or any of the copies that brought so much profit to the metalworkers of the city. Instead, those statues represented their goddess.
This kind of argument is just an insult to the intelligence of all of our idol-worshipping ancestors. Does Albrecht think they were all so stupid as to think that the piece of wood to which they bowed down was literally the god – or did they think that it represented their god? Surely the latter.
Thus, (1) is not a difference but a similarity between the forbidden use of idols in the Old Testament era and the forbidden use of idols in the New Testament era.
As to (2), this begs the question. It is true that Catholicism does not, at the present time, refer to Mary as a god or goddess. That does not conclude the matter. It may still be possible to give a creature inappropriate reverence – reverence that is proper for God alone. Furthermore, even if it did solve the problem with respect to Mary, it wouldn’t solve the problem with respect to Jesus – Christ is considered to be God by the followers of Catholicism.
As to (3), again, this begs the question. It is true that Catholicism today does not tend to use the English word “worship” to describe the reverence for Mary (though previous generations have not been so concerned about using such a description. Furthermore, it is plainly a part of the worship of Catholicism to give certain honors to Mary. Likewise, the difference between “worship” and “veneration” in Catholicism is just a rehashing of the very latria/dulia issue already being discussed.
That is to say, the question remains: why couldn’t an Old Testament Israelite simply say that he was “honoring” the statue if Moses caught him bowing down to it? I guess one could say that the Israelites hadn’t thought of the “honor/worship” distinction, but that basically admits that modern Catholicism invented it.
As to (4), the question is why Albrecht insists that this is the case. Why couldn’t the Israelite caught bowing down to a statue just claim he was only giving dulia to it? The answer is fairly obvious: no one would have considered that a legitimate excuse. To simply insist that the Israelites were giving both latria and dulia to the statue is not a valid answer, unless there is some reason that modern Catholicism can split the two up, which could not have been claimed by the ancient Israelites.
As to (5), this is already addressed under the “stupid ancients” discussion above. One must think that the ancient peoples were incredibly stupid if one thinks that the ancient peoples thought their idols were the gods themselves, not representations of the gods.
As to (6), to say that the respect goes directly to God is an odd claim. Clearly a certain amount of reverence is shown for the representation, which is transferred to the thing it represents. Even if the reverence to – for example – Mary is eventually transferred to God, it does not go there “directly.” Again, though, since we cannot really see the flow of respect (no need to draw a cartoon, Albrecht – we get the intended flow) – why couldn’t an Israelite caught bowing down to an idol have used this excuse?
A beautiful creature Mary was, of course, and is, which Saint Athanasius called “the mother of God.” And this is one point that I brought out and James, right away, he came out with, “Well, have you read my book? I cover the topic,” and blah blah blah and well, you know what James, I don’t need to read your anti-Catholic book to know what theotokos means, in any sense at all. That is a term that was used by the early church and the early councils and it brought glory to Christ our God and the wonderful faith he left us. It doesn’t need to be read upon in your book, ‘cause I already knew that. Would have been able to say that, as I was trying to say in the background, but I guess got muted when I tried to say stuff.
The issue of whether Mary was called “the mother of God” by Athanasius is another tangent that Albrecht redirected the conversation towards. It is interesting to note that Albrecht is not ashamed or embarrassed to admit that he has judged Dr. White’s position here without considering the arguments he presents.
Albrecht practically caricatures himself when he says “I don’t need to read your anti-Catholic books … .” Albrecht’s ignorance here is unassailable. The person who refuses to read what the other side has to offer is simply not a serious student of the matter.
Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
What’s perhaps even worse is that Albrecht ignores what Dr. White has to say even after Dr. White takes the time to try to explain it to him. Notice how he turns Dr. White’s statements into just so many “blah”s.
Albrecht complains about getting muted, but he forgets to point out that he got muted because he tried to talk over Dr. White. It’s almost as though Albrecht imagines that Dr. White muted Albrecht because Albrecht was offering up an argument that was too tough to handle.
Turning to the substance of the matter, Albrecht not only does not offer an argument that was too tough to handle, he offers something that could barely be considered an argument at all. Of course, Athanasius did not speak English. He did not use the term, “Mother of God.” Instead, he used the Greek term, Theotokos.
As Dr. White pointed out, this term was not a term of praise or honor for Mary, nor was it intended to be. It was a term that was Christological in its significance. The point of the term was that what was inside Mary was the God-man, not merely a man. This is significant against certain heretics that deny that Christ was the Word made flesh – that he was God-man from conception.
The term is perhaps more accurately translated “God-bearer” than “mother of God.” The entire point of the phrase, however, is not to give praise or reverence to Mary, but to describe the incarnation. The idea that using the term “theotokos” was somehow intended as “dulia” to Mary is completely absurd.
So, what it all boils down to is, James once again making all sorts of threats about embarrassing me on your show and all sorts of things to my, sending me all these sorts of emails, but it all ends with James being so frustrated, so frustrated that he had to hang up on me. So wonderful, James. You can mute me all you want and hang up on me all you want, it won’t change anything James, and don’t use the excuse that, “Oh, you know what, I accidentally hung up on him.” You put me on mute first, James, then, after a little while, you hung up on me. You didn’t accidentally cut me off James. You’re lying to your viewers. You are being really dishonest, because you tapped the mute button, and I was on the line for a little while to see if, you know what, maybe James will get the guts to hit the unmute button and allow me to at least say, “You know what, I had a good time being mistreated on your show,” but James put me on mute, and then, he hung up on me. Wow. Bravo. No matter what you do, James, no matter how many times you mute me or hang up on me, it won’t change the fact that I will forever oppose the false doctrines that your ministry puts forth. And yes, oh yes, I will be defending the Catholic faith until the very end. God bless!
Albrecht is just not telling the truth here. You can listen to the DL for yourself. We last hear Albrecht at 57:15 or 57:16, immediately before Dr. White says “Hey, William, Thank You .. Oh Sorry …” and begins apologize for accidentally disconnecting him. Albrecht may have taken a few seconds to realize that he had been disconnected, but there are less than three elapsed seconds (at the very most) between the time we last hear Albrecht’s voice and the time that Dr. White apologizes for accidentally disconnecting him.
Albrecht’s claim here that Dr. White is “lying to his viewers” (he should say, “listeners”) is simply inexcusable. It is Albrecht himself that has trouble with the truth.
Furthermore, Dr. White’s frustration had nothing to do with the strength of Albrecht’s arguments, but with the fact that Albrecht repeatedly tried to interrupt and talk over Dr. White. What is even more amazing is that Albrecht tries to make out that he was mistreated! All one has to do to see that this is not true is to listen to the great patience that Dr. White extended to Albrecht despite his failure to answer direct questions, his failure to let Dr. White talk without interruption, and so forth.
It is interesting that Albrecht himself is not embarrassed about how he acted on the show. He doesn’t seem to see how he abused the patience of his host and refused to be civil in the conversation. Albrecht’s not even embarrassed to suggest that if had not been providentially disconnected, he would have snidely said “You know what, I had a good time being mistreated on your show.”
Well, again, there isn’t any substance in this segment, so it is not really possible to provide a substantive critique. It’s all rhetoric. He calls Dr. White’s positions “false” and claims he will “defend” his own views “forever” and “to the end,” but he hasn’t established any falsity in Dr. White’s position and hasn’t provided a cogent defense of his own position.
For more discussion on this topic, consider reading Rhology’s post (here) at the Beggars All Reformation blog or the brief discussion in the blog archives (scroll to the 4/16/04 entry). You can also obtain a copy of Dr. White’s debate with Patrick Madrid on this topic at the Alpha and Omega Ministries bookstore (link).