I am laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion: 2013 - let's set up a debate. I'll take on ten of you at once, if you'd like. I don't care. If you want to roll through the whole group, I don't care. 1, 2, 3, 10, doesn't matter. You simply defend the following words, ok? You defend these words:I would second Dr. White's challenge and his comments. I did a debate with William Albrecht on the Assumption of Mary, and in the course of the debate, it became readily apparent just how frail the Scriptural and patristic argument for Rome's position is (link to mp3). So, if any of Rome's apologists, either from CtC or elsewhere would prefer to Skype debate me, I'm willing to offer the same challenge.
... a truth which is founded on the Sacred Scriptures, has been fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful in Christ, has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times, is quite in harmony with other revealed truths, and has been splendidly explained and declared by the zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the theologians."(full text at #2332)
To what do we refer? Those are words from the definition of the bodily assumption of Mary, which actually began:
Since, then, the universal Church, in which the Spirit of Truth flourishes, who infallibly directs it to achieve a knowledge of revealed truths, has through the course of the ages repeatedly manifested its own faith; and since the bishops of the whole world with almost unanimous consent request that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven be defined as a dogma of the divine and Catholic faithand then you have that following description. So will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is a truth which is founded on the sacred scriptures? Secondly, that it has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times? So, will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is founded on the Sacred Scriptures and was a part of the teaching of the ancient church in the earliest times? Now, I know factually beyond any doubt that that is a lie. It is untrue. There is not any reason on this planet to believe that, other than you have already accepted the authority claims of the bishop of Rome. Period. End of discussion.
-TurretinFan
58 comments:
"I am laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion: 2013 - let's set up a debate. I'll take on ten of you at once, if you'd like. I don't care. If you want to roll through the whole group, I don't care. 1, 2, 3, 10, doesn't matter."
That's pretty funny!
Unfortunately, I know exactly what the CTC team would do in this debate. They would basically challenge Dr. White's ability to interpret scripture and tradition on the basis of the fact that he is fallible. Hence, he can never know whether his interpretation of scripture and tradition is correct.
That is why it might be helpful to see a two part debate: Part I on Sola Scriptura, and part II on the Bodily Assumption. When you have that sequence, it clearly demonstrates just what happens when Sola Scriptura is denied, and, more specifically, the absurdities in interpretation it creates. Ultimately, this debate, like so many others, would come down to Sola Scriptura vs. the ultimate authority of the church of Rome.
In fact is funny. It shows symptoms of desperation like a rabid dog, jua jua jua...
That's, sadly, the level of critique that Hector can provide.
"Now, I know factually beyond any doubt that that is a lie. It is untrue. There is not any reason on this planet to believe that, other than you have already accepted the authority claims of the bishop of Rome. Period. End of discussion".
Now, seriously, it is easy TO REFUTE White´s arguments. He seemingly, has forgotten that oriental christians reject the " claims" of the bishop of Rome, however they and we catholics confess the bodily assumption of Mary. So Dr. White, must know factually beyond any doubt that that is not a lie, at least he proves that orthodox are under the authority of the pope.
Hector,
Actually, the EO believe in the bodily assumption, but have never defined it as dogma like the Roman Catholic Church has. If you want to go back to a simple belief in the assumption, you can find that in the fourth century, as people were positing theories about what happened to Mary after she died. The notion that this is a *dogma* that was always believed, and is clearly taught in the pages of scripture, however, is downright absurd. You would only get *that* if you have submitted to some external authority outside of the scriptures.
Now, if a group of Christians want to believe that this is what happened to Mary after she died, obviously, no one is going to care. When someone starts positing it as a de fide dogma, then you are simply adding to the gospel something that was not part of Moses, the Prophets, the apostolic proclamation, or the first five centuries of church history. That is beyond absurd.
St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
The testimony of the Fathers is enough. Why should I listen to a innovator born in the postmodernist era?
HECTOR
Hector,
You are not answering the question. Where does John of Damascus say that this is a dogma which must be believed? Where does John of Damascus say that this is something that was always believed in the history of the church, or that this is something which is taught in scripture? There is no indication of any of this in the quote you gave.
Actually, the EO believe in the bodily assumption, but have never defined it as dogma like the Roman "Catholic Church has. "
ME:Good point. But remember that since 1054 EO have not celebrated not even a single ecumenical council, that´s the reason why they can´t defined it as dogma
"The notion that this is a *dogma* that was always believed, and is clearly taught in the pages of scripture, however, is downright absurd".
ME: It was believed clearly in the east by St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, and St. Modestus of Jerusalem. In the west St. Gregory of Tours, and in the Bible it was taught by saint Jonh(Rev. 12) who assisted the Mother until she died.
"You would only get *that* if you have submitted to some external authority outside of the scriptures".
ME: I do submit to the authority of the church in every spiritual matter, not to the authority of my own private judgement about what is the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.
"Now, if a group of Christians want to believe that this is what happened to Mary after she died, obviously, no one is going to care".
It cares to catholics and orthodox christians.
"When someone starts positing it as a de fide dogma, then you are simply adding to the gospel something that was not part of Moses, the Prophets, the apostolic proclamation"...
Read Revelation 12.
..."or the first five centuries of church history. That is beyond absurd".
And who says that the first five centuries of church history are the criteria to declare a doctrine as dogma. That is absurd.
HECTOR
Hector,
Good Point. But remember that since 1054 EO have not celebrated not even a single ecumenical council, that's the reason why they can't defined it as dogma.
Of course, you know that they could, but that they refuse to. In fact, Timothy Ware makes that very point in his book The Orthodox Church.
It was believed clearly in the east by St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, and St. Modestus of Jerusalem. In the west St. Gregory of Tours, and in the Bible it was taught by saint John (Rev. 12) who assisted the Mother until she died
First, the notion that Revelation 12 teaches the assumption is beyond absurd even from a Roman Catholic perspective. Second, these fathers may have believed that Mary was assumed into heaven, but where do you get the notion that they believed this as a dogma in the say way you do! Dogma and belief are not the same thing. I might believe that the bombarding of neurotransmitters is the cause of Schizophrenia, but I am not going to bind that as a dogma to anyone's conscience. Can you please show me where any of these early church fathers did that?
I do submit to the authority of the church in every spiritual matter, not to the authority of my own private judgement about what is the correct interpretation of the scriptures
No, you just submit to your own private judgment about which church is the infallible church. Of course, as I said before, even though our judgment is fallible, the author's intent is still present in the text, and can be used to test our fallible judgments to determine whether or not they are true. If we allow the author to stand in the text, and don't reduce ourselves down to postmodernism, as is the inevitable result of any system of thought that adopts a limited, finite "infallible" interpreter, then our fallibility simply does not matter, because they author's intent is always there to correct us.
Read Revelation 12
You mean the woman who is in pains of childbirth, and yet, is supposedly sinless? This conception of a woman in the wilderness, is typical OT language for the people of God [think the Exodus, the exile, etc.], which, I might add, was the majority view of this passage form the first 600 years of the Christian church.
And who says that the first five centuries of church history are the criteria to declare a doctrine as dogma. That is absurd.
So, in other words, someone could come along six centuries after the birth of Christ, declare something that is not taught in scripture or anywhere before him to be a dogma, and you would believe it?????????????? Yup, Dr. White was right when he called this position Sola Ecclesia. It really doesn't matter what scripture or tradition says; it only matters what the church says, period. I pray that God keep me from this kind of blatant idolatry as long as I live.
Looks like these challenges have sent the CA gang into a tizzy.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=682690
That's putting it mildly. More than funny, it shows that James White could not have been serious with his alleged challenge. No one from Called to Communion will be foolish enough to respond to a mad man who does not have the common sense to address the group by its proper name. James White therefore disqualifies himself from being able to have a debate worthy of anyone who wishes to defend the Catholic Church. James White does not mind throwing the first stone but those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. One can easily find choice words to characterize Mr. White.
Looks like the challenges have put the CA gang in a tizzy....
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=682690
Hector wrote: "Now, seriously, it is easy TO REFUTE White´s arguments. He seemingly, has forgotten that oriental christians reject the " claims" of the bishop of Rome, however they and we catholics confess the bodily assumption of Mary. So Dr. White, must know factually beyond any doubt that that is not a lie, at least he proves that orthodox are under the authority of the pope. "
Unfortunately, Hector doesn't pay very close attention. The lies are that the dogma is founded on Scripture and approved by worship from the earliest times. Whether the Nestorians (funny how heretics condemned as such by ecumenical councils become "Oriental Christians" when needed for an argument) hold the view is irrelevant to the question.
The dogma isn't founded on Scripture, and wasn't believed by the ante-Nicaean Christians.
Dozie: thank you for stopping by. Please don't add your insults to the comment box here.
"Dozie: thank you for stopping by. Please don't add your insults to the comment box here".
Fair enough but did you also think that stating "I am laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion" was an insult to the gentlemen at Called to Communion?
Dozie,
I don't agree with Dr. White's use of "Called to Confusion" either. I think that he is right that they are calling people to confusion, because Rome cannot provide a base for meaning in language and validity in interpretation, but I don't agree with Dr. White not calling their organization by the name they call themselves. When you do that, it can tend to have pejorative connotations, which I don't think Dr. White intends.
Still, to call Dr. White a "madman" because of that is downright absurd. The man has not only taught courses at the graduate level in Greek and church history, but he has taken on some of the best traditionalist Roman Catholics have to offer. The traditionalist Roman Catholicism you have bought into simply is a mess of inconsistencies, and it does lead to the kind of postmodern thought they are seeking to avoid, because their authority can never be proven to be nothing more than a mere local authority. That has been born out in history, as the Roman Church has had to start interacting with, not only Protestantism, but also the enlightenment, liberal theology, modern Eastern Orthodoxy, and the cults such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
So, no, we have every right to be concerned about where the authority claims of Rome lead, and debaters such as Dr. White and TurretinFan have every right to challenge these folks to stand up and be counted for what they are teaching. I can think of some legitimate reasons why some of them may decline. For example, I myself am a researcher and a linguist, and not a debater. If someone challenged me to debate, I would decline simply because I do not have the skills necessary to do well in that context. Still, to those that are experienced in that area [Bryan Cross, for example, has had an exchange with Michael Horton], what is there to loose if they have the courage of their convictions?
I would also like to point out that the notion that Revelation 12 is about Mary also contradicts the nature of apocalyptic genre itself. Apocalyptic genre is about the protection of God's people during the time of tribulation. Therefore, reading into the text the notion of Mary having Jesus, and then getting taken into heaven doesn't fit with the main themes of apocalyptic genre. However, looking at the woman as the people of God certainly would.
You: "Of course, you know that they could, but that they refuse to. In fact, Timothy Ware makes that very point in his book The Orthodox Church".
ME:I won´t comment about the capacity of the Orthodoxy to celebrate an ecumenical council, because I could be unfair with orthodox brothers. I prefer they defend themselves. In favor of them I can say that their Mariology is as strong as ours, especilly on the question of the Assumption of Mary.
YOU:"First, the notion that Revelation 12 teaches the assumption is beyond absurd even from a Roman Catholic perspective"
ME: I assume that you know the Catholic doctrine better than Pius XII.
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS:
"Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos(Rev. 12). Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women," since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve".
YOU:... "where do you get the notion that they believed this as a dogma in the say way you do!
Dogma and belief are not the same thing"...
ME:This is not the point.The fact is that this doctrine was testified by several Fathers(east and west) and by ancient liturgies.The distinction between dogma and belief is just a straw man. In catholic terms the Assumption(after 1950) is a divinely revealed truth which must be believed by all catholic christians.
YOU: "No, you just submit to your own private judgment about which church is the infallible church".
ME: In fact I just see ONE Church(like Nicea confess), not several. The rest are not churches in the proper sense, but ecclesiastic communities. Actually, it is only necessary to check all the evidence(patristic and scriptural), you can use rational judgment... is easy to determine where the truth is, it is not necesary a great intellectual effort because the CHURCH of Christ is visible, strong and vital.
YOU: "You mean the woman who is in pains of childbirth, and yet, is supposedly sinless? "
ME: Good point, but think: why the double standard? You interpret this pain in a spiritual sense when you say that woman is the people of God. Why should I interpret it in a carnal sense about the person of Mary?
YOU:"...someone could come along six centuries after the birth of Christ, declare something that is not taught in scripture or anywhere before him to be a dogma, and you would believe it?"
ME: It is perfectly applicable to the innovators that come along not six, but sixteen centuries after the birth of Christ to declare things(sola fide,forensic justification etc) that were not taught in scripture or anywhere before them to be a dogma.
The revelation of this doctrine(Assumption) is(as st.John Damascen notes) a truth delivered through the apostles and sustained by the constant testimony of the Church(by means of Liturgy, Fathers, etc)
HECTOR
I took a peak. It looks like they are over a meltdown in that thread. I had a good laugh at the claims they made and their misquotation and selective citing of the church fathers and how they force modern concepts back to them as if they are one and the same when they are not.
"I don't agree with Dr. White's use of "Called to Confusion" either".
Ok, that's all I care about - the rest of your stuff is typical Protestantism. There has to be a reason - conjured or otherwise - to remain Protestant.
Dozie: It's really intended as a comment on the fact that Rome's religion is confusion. But I could see how it could be taken as an insult. He's not in their comment box saying it.
-TurretinFan
"It's really intended as a comment on the fact that Rome's religion is confusion"
Ok - looks like you are now giving an interpretation of a "magisterial" statement or openning up another layer of a rather clear "magisterial" statement.
In addition, James White has been invited to discuss whatever Catholic teachings he cares about at the Called to Communion blogsite.
"Since comments are not allowed at the aomin.org blog, it is not possible to take up the conversation over there; however, White and all Protestants of good will are welcome to join the conversation here"
Nothing would be gained from such a debate, because it is not the central issue that divides us. Why not debate something that is central, like the canon of Scripture? Further, I challenged Dr. White to engage the canon discussion at Called to Communion, and he never showed up. Nor did you.
That's fine. Perhaps you guys can't be bothered. But clearly you are bothered enough to challenged Called to Communion contributors to a debate...on a leaf issue that you think you can "win" on. Man up. Take the challenge and go to Called to Communion right now and answer the canon question, a central, foundational issue.
Delvin Rose,
Okay, let us go there. If Rome's view of the canon is so "infallible," then could you please explain why it was rejected by Jews, even though Paul says that the oracles of God were given to the Jews [Romans 3:2]? Could you please explain why, in every century of church history, you have multiple church fathers and doctors of the church rejecting the very canon Rome has defined as dogma in every century from the founding of the church until the time of the reformation [see documentation href="http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart2.html">here and here]? Could you please explain why you have the Jimenez's Compeltention Polyglot, the scholarly work on the NT coming out of the middle ages before the Reformation, rejecting the canon Rome has defined as dogma? Could you please explain how even the Cardinal who was sent to interrogate Martin Luther, Cardinal Cajatan, rejected the canon Rome has defined as dogma? Could you please explain how even Pope Gregory the Great rejected the canon Rome has defined as dogma? Could you please explain how men who are canonized as saints in your church, such as Athenasius, rejected the canon Rome has declared to be "infallible?"
Also could you please explain how an allegedly infallible definition of the canon was not given until April of 1546, and differed from the provincial councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage? The Roman claim to infallibility on the basis of the canon is absurd. In fact, given the threefold division of the scriptures given by Jesus in Luke 24:44 which is consistent with what the first century Jews believed about the canon, it is impossible that even Jesus himself considered Rome's canon today to be "infallible." Hence, when you have an allegedly "infallible" understanding of the canon which makes even Jesus himself wrong, you probably messed up somewhere.
Dozie,
It is typical Protestantism that I have never heard an answer to. The reason I remain Protestant is simply this: What Rome does to the text of scripture is unethical and immoral blatantly violating the ninth commandment against God himself. They have destroyed the author of the text, and replaced the author with the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Of course, they would flip if anyone did that to their writings. They would utterly flip if someone claimed to be an infallible interpreter of their writings, and, instead of directing people to look to the intent of what these theologians had written, directed them to look to themselves as the "infallible" interpreter of their writings. They would rightly recognize that it is merely an excuse for breaking the ninth commandment. Yet, they are more than willing to do that with the word of God. That is a very good reason for anyone to remain Protestant.
Devin Rose,
Also, if I may say, the Bodily Assumption of Mary goes directly to the central issue that divides us. What it demonstrates is the absurdity of the allegedly "infallible" intepretations Rome has put forward of both history and tradition. It is like someone coming along, and saying that the infallible interpretation of John 11:35 is "Jesus laughed." It is beyond absurd, as the assumption has nothing to do with the background, world, and intent of the scriptures, or the first five hundred years of the church. It is merely the ipse dixit of Rome: "Believe it because we say so." Like, "Believe that 'Jesus wept' means 'Jesus laughed' because we say so!" It is a ponzi scheme, which is very easy to demonstrate when you put the normal rules of how meaning works in language that you are now using to interpret what I am writing along side of the allegedly "infallible" interpretations of the Roman Church. It demonstrates that, to call Rome's proclamations "infallible," violates the way we were created as human beings created in the image of a relational triune God.
I can explain all those things. But the challenge I made was for James White or TurretinFan here to go and answer the canon question for Protestantism. You made claims and arguments (all of which can be rebutted or responded to) against the _Catholic_ case for the canon but said little about the positive Protestant case for the canon.
Both are important discussions to have, but it is a smokescreen for James White to issue such challenges on peripheral doctrines while ducking more fundamental ones made to him.
The Assumption *could* be used as one external facet to get to the central issues, but it is not the central issue itself. And the claim that it is like saying Jesus laughed when the Bible says Jesus wept is not true. No verse says Mary was not assumed to Heaven. And taking the entire Bible and the role of the Woman, of Mary the new Eve, lends support to the Assumption.
Further, it is striking that the Eastern Orthodox Churches also believe in the Dormition of the Theotokos, with a place for her assumption as well. Sure it is not dogmatic like it is in the Catholic Church, for reasons of EOs having difficulty making dogmas nowadays, but it is a firm belief. Why? Because it was believed by the Church from early times. Do we have lots of extant documents attesting to it from early early on? No. But that does not mean anything.
Your statements assume sola Scriptura, so once again it is better just to start with sola Scriptura, or, even better, the canon on which sola Scriptura depends.
Delvin Rose,
It is no problem for Calvinists, because we believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. It is that sovereignty that lead his people, over time, to have what he wants them to have.
However, if you rely upon the Roman Catholic church, which is limited and finite, how can you answer how it is that a Jew living 100 years before the time of Christ would know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were scripture? You cannot go to the infallibility of the Jewish church, since Jesus really blew that out of the water. Not only that, but Jesus still held people accountable for knowing that what they read was spoken by God:
Matthew 22:31 "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
How could they have known that if there was no "infallible" Catholic magisterium to tell them that this was spoken by God? Are you trying to say that Jesus was being unreasonable here? And, if the Jews could know what was scripture without an infallible magisterium, why can't we know what is scripture without an infallible magisterium, especially if we believe in the absolute sovereignty of God in divine providence?
Ironically, also, all they had was their own fallible interpretation of scripture, and yet, Jesus still held them responsible for knowing what it says. Is Jesus being unreasonable in that demand? Jeremiah did the exact same thing, pointing people back to the scriptures, and the words of the law, and holding people accountable for that law. If what Rome says is true, the best answer to give to Jeremiah is, "Well, we didn't know that we were breaking the law, because Christ hasn't came and established his 'infallible' magisterium so we could know which interpretation is infallible."
Finally, saying all of these things have answers is different than giving them. Rome has given an ipse dixit utterly destroying scripture and tradition on the issue of the canon. Yet, you still say that her decision is fallible. Why? Why is it Roman Catholics simply want to argue against Protestantism, but don't want to have their own feet held to the fire?
Actually, my statements assume that man is created in the image of a triune, personal God, and that he interacts with us on a regular basis. It is using that as a reference point that we can then have communication and language in the way we are talking on this board. Do we do it perfectly? No. Still, because we are created in the image of God, we are able to recognize when successful communication takes place, not only because we are created in his image, but also because of the fact that we must interact with the God who communicates perfectly on a daily basis.
What I pointed out is that no person created in the image of God reading the scriptures and the early church, and earnestly seeking to understand an prove what they say will ever come up with the Bodily Assumption. In fact, when you look at these documents, and then you look at the assumption, what you see is very similar to John 11:35 saying "Jesus wept" and then some "infallible" interpreter coming along and saying it means "Jesus laughed."
What such a debate would demonstrate is that you are created in God's image, and that you do know him, in the fact that you read even the writings of ancient history or philosophy, and yet, still can understand what they mean, even though there is no "infallible magisterium" of history and philosophy. Yet, you will apply a totally different interpretive methodology, and demand an "infallible" interpreter for the Bible, and the history of the church. Why? Such a debate would demonstrate that the demand for an infallible interpreter is actually a suppression of the truth of the knowledge of God which Paul was talking about in Romans 1:18-21. That would be the incredible value of a debate on the assumption.
Also, Devin, the Eastern Orthodox may have a firm belief, but they have never been so foolish as to say it was the teaching of scripture, and the constant teaching of the church. In fact, as I said earlier, the belief that Mary was assumed into heaven can be found in the fourth century. However, what we are challenging is the dogma. The notion that it is a doctrine de fide is something unheard of in the first 500 years of the Christian Church, and unheard of in the scriptures. The reason why many Greek Orthodox believe that Mary was assumed into heaven has to do with the popularization of the idea from the time it was first enunciated in the third century, to the present day. However, Rome has gone one step further, and made it a dogma, something completely unheard of in the scriptures, and in the first 500 years of the Christian Church. So, no, such an assumption that there is this unbroken line of tradition ignores the reality of how these things developed over time.
Actually, I meant to say that the belief in the idea that Mary was assumed into heaven is first enunciated in the fourth century, by Epiphanius, not the third century.
A back and forth exchange, attack and defense on both sides, is fine. However I don't see value in responding to the many claims you are making, at least not in this forum. I've responded to many of them in other places, as have others.
This is my last comment to you on this thread. James White and Turretinfan made a challenge. I pointed out that they had ducked more fundamental challenges in the past, and re-challenged them to man up. They have not done so.
Is true what the Lord says about throw the pearls to the pigs. If catholics show solid arguments of the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Scriptures, eventually the heterodox will find absurd excuses to denied them. It is a waste of time.
Somebody said that the final answers to protestants are in Trent. I give up.
My advice to catholics: don´t throw the pearls.Continue reading the Fathers not for apologizing because in some cases it is unproductive, but for knowing the Christian life and the orthodox sense of the Scriptures.
My advice to protestants: Continue reading the Fathers even if it is just for refuting the catholics.
HECTOR
"Actually, I meant to say that the belief in the idea that Mary was assumed into heaven is first enunciated in the fourth century, by Epiphanius, not the third century."
Epiphanius took the position that no one knows the end of Mary, as I recall. Do you have a contrary citation?
"I'll take on ten of you at once, if you'd like. I don't care. If you want to roll through the whole group, I don't care. 1, 2, 3, 10, doesn't matter."
Is it just me, or do these sentences betray a mixture of pride and insecurity? Obviously, this would not be a charitable debate Mr. TurretinFan.
Why not just interpret the challenge charitably, Nick?
I guess it's just me. . . . but really, anyone who says "I could take all of you and your daddy," can't be taken too seriously.
TF I believe that you are right on that.
Nick:
People took Goliath pretty seriously. People thought David was exceptionally brave. Dr. White has demonstrated his ability to debate pretty thoroughly in his > 100 public, moderated debates.
"Is it just me, or do these sentences betray a mixture of pride and insecurity?"
I would say that more insecurity than pride.
I suspect Mr.White is doubting if crossing the Tiber or not.
HECTOR
Natamllc,
Your reply is polemical and confusing. Nonetheless I think I understand what you are trying to claim.
We both believe that God inspired 27 books in the NT. Well, Mormons also believe in 27 books of the NT, as do Jehovah's Witnesses etc. etc. So the question is why we believe that, on what basis, how we know, etc.
That's the debate that White and Turretinfan have ducked and continued to avoid.
Devin:
You've been told before that an article in response is in the works. Have you just forgotten or is there some other explanation for your untruthful characterization of the situation?
-TurretinFan
Devin,
come on!
Neither White or TF are ducking anything.
Maybe you should just wait and see how this all unfolds (the challenges from both) like the rest of us?
Just because I can I will say this by saying I have been following both of these men for sometime now and I find it hard to believe either one would duck anything thrown at them seeing both of these men have Christ alive and well in their heart and soul!
But thanks for your admonition nevertheless!
I am not in anyway offended by it!
Why?
Because I have found these Words of Truth to be just as alive and powerful now as when the Apostle first penned them:
Rom 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.
I see and sense both Joy and Peace in believing coming from both these men!
Having said that or commented back to you these comments, I now commend you to these additional Words, warning you, too, that these Words are just as active and relevant in both Dr. White and Dr. TurrentinFan today as they were when they were written:
Rom 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
I do hope someone from CTC would step to the plates set before them by Dr. White and Dr. TurrentinFan and set a date certain and debate them? You?
How about you, why not debate them seeing you seem so convinced your communion is the one true catholic communion while all others are not?
Natamllc,
White and Turretinfan go for battles they think they can win. They avoid ones they know they do not have answers to. As far as worldly things go, it's a good strategy. But when it comes to desiring truth, no matter the cost, to finding Christ in the fullness of the truth, despite our biases, they carefully avoid certain debates. Hence, they were no-shows for the canon question debate, in spite of direct challenges and an irenic forum at Called to Communion.
In any case, I am not one of Called to Communion's administrators or authors. I have been invited to post a few blogs/articles over the past years, but that is all. I have great respect for those guys, certainly.
As far as White's challenge goes, ignoring the fact that it is on his internet radio show, his mute buttons, etc., the point still stands that it is a peripheral topic that only through much work would bring us to the canon. Further, such radio show debates are not carefully reasoned discussions, but one where gotcha remarks and rhetoric can make one party look better, in spite of the truth. Just look at the ridiculous debates in the U.S. political parties: it's not who has better arguments or more truth; it's who can make the other look foolish while looking good themselves.
That is why these guys should go to CtC and make their arguments carefully in the comments. Turrentinfan did so on the sola/solo article, and failed to rebut the argument. But I credit him with trying. Now perhaps he will answer the challenge on the canon question.
This is my last comment to you. God bless,
Devin
Devin,
not knowing fully the depths of this: "...Hence, they were no-shows for the canon question debate, in spite of direct challenges and an irenic forum at Called to Communion." I might suggest that there is a plausible explanation for their silence?
It would be, if it is so, that their silence is so because it could be so for the very same reason Jesus was silent, too, as we see here:
Joh 18:37 Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."
Joh 18:38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, "I find no guilt in him.
Not in anyway to one up myself over these two men, Drs. White and TurrentinFan, it just might be my boldness for the Truth as asserted in all my comments that I say their silence may just be because there was nothing they could respond to they offered to them over at Called to Communion.
That being said, I can say that both current challenges have merit and hold not only power but also authority in Truth in them!
Devin, let me ask you this:
"Why not throw down your own acceptance and take up the challenge and debate them seeing you are so confident your communion is the Truth and the True Apostolic Catholic communion not theirs?"
It's amusing that Rome demands you believe that the bodily Assumption happened de fide, but Devin thinks it is only peripheral. A striking difference between Devin's individual priorities and those of his church.
As far as debating the canon, both Dr. White and I have debated the canon. It's unclear whether Devin is blind to that, or whether he's intentionally misleading people.
- TurretinFan
Blah.
The Assumption is de fide. As I said, the question at hand is: what is the most important topic for a debate. And the Assumption is not the most central topic to the differences between Protestants and Catholics.
Sure you've discussed the canon before. That's fine. The CtC guys and I have discussed the Assumption before. The point at hand is the particular debate challenge you and White made. A more fundamental challenge to debate the canon was made by me to White sometime back, and that challenge was dodged by him and by you. I pointed out the fact that you have still not answered this challenge, and the reasons I suspect why that is the case.
This is my last comment to you in this thread.
Devin:
It wasn't actually a challenge to debate the canon. Mr. Brown just posted an article on the canon, which you have asked us to respond to. There's a difference between responding to an article and debating. And, as you know, I am planning to respond to his article - my response is in the works.
-TurretinFan
Hi TF. No sense in going over to the Catholic Answers forum . They are evidently biased towards those who reject it's system. It appears I received 2 infractions there. In the PM I received it showed exactly the post and left me shaking my head.
1) Dear Chafer DTS,
You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums.
Reason: Contempt for Catholicism
-------
Contempt for Catholicism
-------
This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.
Original Post:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9382169
2) Dear Chafer DTS,
You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums.
Reason: Uncharitable Post(s)
-------
Uncharitable Post(s)
-------
This infraction is worth 5 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.
Original Post:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9384829
"As far as debating the canon, both Dr. White and I have debated the canon. It's unclear whether Devin is blind to that, or whether he's intentionally misleading people"
Are you blind to the fact that James White and Dr. Sungenis have debated the Assumption of Mary or are you intentionally misleading people? - see here - http://calvarysantafe.org/teachings.php?search=series&id=52
Devin Rose wrote:
"White and Turretinfan go for battles they think they can win. They avoid ones they know they do not have answers to. "
Turretinfan debated a Roman Catholic on the canon issue:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/11/canon-debate-are-tobit-baruch-and-other.html
And Turretinfan has many other debates at his web-site here. Have you even bothered to look?
Dr. White has formally debated the Apocrypha or "Deuter-canonicals" with Gerry Matatics, and Gary Michuta (and probably some others). Dr. White has also debated Sola Scriptura with Gerry Matatics, Patrick Madrid, Mitch Pacwa, and Tim Staples. Dr. White debated Sola Fide with Robert Sungenis and Mitch Pacwa. He debated Purgatory with Peter Stravinzkas (? not taking the time to look up spelling on his name at this point); also with Tim Staples. Dr. White debated Patrick Madrid on Veneration of Saints and Images. He debated Marian dogmas with Gerry Matatics and Robert Sungenis. He debated Papal Infallibility with Tim Staples, and whether the Papacy is Biblical and ancient with Mitch Pacwa. He debated the Priesthood with Mitch Pacwa. And there are many other debates Dr. White has done with Roman Catholics. These are the main issues that separate RC from Believing Evangelical Protestantism. The RC side had equal time. There are even some debates that the RC side lost the originals or won't give up the originals so they can put them out there for all to see. (Scott Butler still has the originals or got rid of them.)
All you have to do Devin is look at the page at www.aomin.org to see all the debates that Dr. White has engaged in and it seems to me that these men have not avoided any issue or debate pertinent to the issues that divide RC from Protestantism.
Devin,
Dr. White also debated the Mass with Gerry Matatics and Robert Sungenis and Mitch Pacwa and Indulgences vs. Robert Fastiggi
Dr. White has challenged Scott Butler to release the videos of 2 of his debates with Mitch Pacwa -
"While much more could be added at this point, I would simply direct the interested reader/observer to the debates we have done on these very subjects, especially the one with Robert Sungenis and Scott Butler from Boston College (#464). Ray's work depends a good deal upon Jesus, Peter & the Keys which was written by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess (I wrote the review of this work for the CRI Journal). This is the same Scott Butler who engaged the debate at Boston College. Likewise, this is the same Scott Butler who continues to possess the video tapes of the first two debates I did with Mitch Pacwa in January of 1990, but who has never made them available for viewing. Since we have established a long history of videotaping, at our own cost, our debates with Roman Catholic apologists, and giving unedited masters to them for distribution, I believe it is only fair for Butler to reciprocate, and provide us with an unedited master of these debates for distribution. I believe the same is true of my very first debate, the debate with Gerry Matatics in August of 1990. I call upon Mr. Butler to make these video tapes available. "
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2275
He has repeated this challenge several times over the years, in print and on the DL. So, which side is the side that is "avoiding" things?
TurretinFan: Debate these papists. They are ruefully arrogant and dismissive. You and Dr White have nothing to hide—so debate them on canon and ANY other issue these slanderous folks desire. As Calvin said, 'The truth of God always defends itself.' Rome is an anthropological bath house, brimming with unheard, and unwanted ungodliness.
Greetings in Christ!
Here are some examples from Munificentissimus Deus that help to illustrate what Pius XII meant by “the most remote times” or “earliest times.” I think his meaning can be substantiated by comparison with how the document reads in other places…
“This belief of the sacred pastors and of Christ’s faithful is universally manifested still more splendidly by the fact that, since ancient times (Latin: ab antiquis temporibus), there have been both in the East and in the West solemn liturgical offices commemorating this privilege. […] [T]o cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: ‘Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself’ ” (Nos. 16, 17).
“What is here indicated in that sobriety characteristic of the Roman liturgy is presented more clearly and completely in other ancient (Latin: antiquae) liturgical books. To take one as an example, the Gallican sacramentary designates this privilege of Mary’s as ‘an ineffable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin’s Assumption is something unique among men.’ And, in the Byzantine liturgy, not only is the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption connected time and time again with the dignity of the Mother of God, but also with the other privileges, and in particular with the virginal motherhood granted her by a singular decree of God’s Providence. ‘God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb’ ” (No. 18).
“Moreover, the fact that a holy fast had been ordered from ancient times (Latin: antiquitus) for the day prior to the feast is made very evident by what our predecessor St. Nicholas I testifies in treating of the principal fasts which ‘the Holy Roman Church has observed for a long time (Latin: antiquitus), and still observes’ ” (No. 19).
To extend this antiquity back a little farther, Pius says that “…another very ancient writer (Latin: Alius… antiquissimus scriptor) asserts: ‘As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him’ ” (No. 22).
So when Pius XII says that “the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven […] has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times (Latin: ab antiquissimis)” (No. 41), we understand him to be referring back to these “ancient” witnesses that he adduced—to include John Damascene and Germanus of Constantinople—witnesses that extend back to the “very ancient writer” (Latin: antiquissimus scriptor) that I’ve already cited.
In Christ,
Pete
Pete,
May we go back just a bit further in time to these historical writings then and ask how one reconciles those ancient writings citations you publish in here with this?
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Joh 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Grant now of course in this one thing that there is no one human being like Mary, the mother of Jesus, who clearly experienced probably the most one could ever experience with their own five senses when it comes to experiencing Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of Man? She, after all, born Him from her womb! I witnessed the birth of both my sons and can say without a doubt Mary experienced similar pains as my wife when giving birth to Jesus Christ!
It is this same woman, Mary, that Jesus, while hanging on that cursed wood said this to her and John about her remaining welfare while alive on the earth:
Joh 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
Joh 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
The one Scriptural thing though that for me takes the doubt out of my belief that the RCC's belief in the bodily assumption of Mary is false and incorrect and corrupts the purity of the Gospel is this Heavenly reality Jesus tells about that takes away all "male and female" realities out of Heavenly Life coming to those who have died forgiven of all their sins:
Mat 22:23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question,
Mat 22:24 saying, "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.'
Mat 22:25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother.
Mat 22:26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh.
Mat 22:27 After them all, the woman died.
Mat 22:28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her."
Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Post a Comment