The Christian Perspective on Vegetarianism

Most Christians (with the exception of Seventh-Day Adventists) do not believe it is wrong, immoral, or unethical to eat meat (or, by extension, to hunt). This would be quite difficult to do in light of the facts that Jesus Himself ate fish, even after His Resurrection (Lk 24:43), and seeing that many of His disciples were fishermen. So no biblical case can be made of the inherent
wrongness of meat-eating or hunting.

Furthermore, God commanded the Jews to kill and eat lamb as part of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Jesus ate lamb Himself, as part of the Last Supper (which many scholars believe was a Passover meal). God cannot command what is inherently wrong.

On the other hand, some Christians - as a matter of preference or even individual conscience - abstain from meat, on an aesthetic basis, or on the basis of an ideal return to conditions before the Fall, where there was no eating of flesh. I myself eat only fish (with some exceptions because I have hypoglycemia and sometimes need to eat whatever is available rather than to start becoming weak and having other symptoms of the malady), and this is based on an aesthetic and subjective preference, not derived from an opinion that eating meat is evil. I have no objection whatsoever to others doing so. Such a judgment is impossible to make on a Christian, biblical basis.

With regard to a related issue, Christians ought to oppose all unnecessary cruel treatment of animals (e.g., painful traps, excessive hardships in research and caged environments, pollution and trashing of landscapes, etc.). Christians are to be kind to animals just as they are towards people (St. Francis of Assisi offers a notable example of this). But a prohibition of all (swift and
efficient) killing of animals cannot be established, as absolute "pacifism" is not a biblical teaching, nor has the historical Christian Church ever held to it (some significant sects such as Mennonites, have).

Lastly, a common blatant hypocrisy must sadly be pointed out: Many secularist or religious non-Christian (or "liberal Christian") vegetarians seem not to notice that the legality and permissibility of abortion (which they oftentimes espouse) is far more morally objectionable than
any cruelty (real or alleged) to or killing of animals for meat or other purposes (fur, leather, medical research, zoos and circuses, etc.). If one considers all killing of animals as evil and immoral, certainly the barbaric killing of preborn human beings (even up to the moment of birth,
as in partial-birth infanticide, currently legal in the U.S.) must be included in the moral outrage.

Pacifism vs. "Just War": Biblical & Social Factors

1. Jesus' Attitude
A. Our Lord Jesus acknowledged the right of civil defense: " . . . let him who has no sword sell his
robe and buy one" -- Luke 22:36.

B. Jesus accepted the notion of obedience to civil government in general when He said: "Render
unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (in this particular instance, taxes, which, no doubt were used in part for maintenance of the Roman armies -- Matt. 22:21; Mk. 12:17; Luke 20:25).

C. In Jesus' short parable about counting the cost of discipleship, the example of a king going to battle was used (exceedingly strange, if warfare was an absolute evil -- Luke 14:31-33).

D. Jesus didn't rebuke a Roman centurion for being a soldier, but rather, strongly commended his faith and healed his servant -- Matt. 8:5-13 / Luke 7:1-10.

E. Lastly, Jesus, being the Messiah, who had largely a military function throughout the Old Testament, will come again in great power as an all-conquering warrior. He Himself taught this on several occasions: Matt. 16:27; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64, etc. For those accustomed to viewing Jesus as the meek and mild type who wouldn't hurt a flea -- which wasn't true His first time here, either
-- the account of His return will come as quite a shock: ". . . in righteousness He judges and wages
war and the armies which are in heaven . . . were following Him . . . And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may smite the nations . . . and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty" (Revelation 19:11-21).

How can all this be explained according to Christian pacifism? Non-Christians also continually misrepresent Jesus by ignoring this information.

2. John the Baptist

John's emphasis in his preaching was on repentance from evil-doing. Here is a man who unhesitatingly addressed a whole crowd of Jews who came to him as "You brood of vipers"! (Luke 3:7). Yet when Roman soldiers came to him and sought his counsel John said: "Do not take money
from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14). The significance of this cannot be minimized. Why in the world -- if pacifism is the true biblical outlook -- would John not tell these men to get out of the army immediately, to renounce all use of force, etc.? For the pacifist, this would be the moral and logical equivalent of not telling the prostitute to stop selling herself, or not telling the thief to stop stealing. Thus, the concepts of military service and war cannot be unmitigated evils.

3. St. Paul and the Early Christians

The Apostle Paul: the greatest missionary of all time, and author of most of the New Testament, appealed to his Roman citizenship in protest of his beating and imprisonment (Acts 16:37-38), and to avoid being scourged (Acts 22:25-29). In fact, most of the last seven chapters of the Book of Acts, the history of the first Christians, is devoted to Paul's defense of himself before the Jews and various Roman authorities (the Jews had sought to kill him ). During the whole legal process,
Paul accepted the help of Roman military escorts and guards, in order to protect his life (Acts 23:12-33; 28:16), and appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11).

This is all highly relevant to our discussion. The pacifist often argues that Jesus' injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount are absolute and normative for all situations ("Do not resist him who is evil . . . " -- Matt. 5:39). If this is true, then Paul failed quite miserably to apply this teaching in his own life. This is unacceptable for any Christian who accepts the New Testament as
authoritative. The logical alternative view, then, is that Matthew 5:39 does not have a universal application. This is clear from the facts in #1 above.

We also hear so much about the early Christians dying for their faith instead of resisting. However, in most cases they had no power to resist, as Paul did by virtue of his Roman citizenship, and the issue was usually a situation where the Christian had to renounce Christ and worship
Caesar. Obviously, the Christian had no choice but martyrdom if he or she was to remain a Christian under these circumstances. This does not require that a Christian must die in a situation where there exists a moral escape from such injustice. Thus, Paul's actions are altogether moral and ethical, according to New Testament teaching. His example also shows the wrongness of those
pacifist strains which denounce Christian involvement in government.

The Christian is to obey the present governmental authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; I Pet. 2:13-15), but not
to the extent of transgressing God's moral law, which transcends man's law and provides the basis for justice. The first believers, including Peter, immediately engaged in civil disobedience, when necessary (Acts 4:18-20; 5:27-29).

We also find that some of the early Christians were soldiers (Acts 10:1-4,22,30-31). Cornelius, one of them, is called "a righteous and God-fearing man" (10:22) and Peter himself showed no qualms whatsoever as to the notion and fact of a Roman centurion being a Christian.

4. Military Heroes in the New Testament

Hebrews 11:32-34: " . . . Gideon, Barak, Samson, . . . David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight." These men and their military acts are extolled as examples of faith, a fundamental New
Testament concept.

5. Military Metaphors in the New Testament

These are quite common and are used in reference to spiritual warfare. Some of the more notable examples are: II Cor. 10:3-4 ("weapons of our warfare"), Eph. 6:10-17 ("Put on the full armor of God "), I Tim. 1:18 ("Fight the good fight"), and II Tim. 2:3-4 (". . . a good soldier of Jesus Christ"). Again, it makes no sense to use such terminology if such things are absolute evils. This
would be the same as saying "Be a good mass-murderer of Jesus Christ" (since pacifists consider all wars, as far as I can tell, as just that). The very existence of such metaphors is inexplicable if the New Testament teaches total pacifism. I believe it is clear, for all who honestly look into the matter, that there is no radical break in morality and teaching between the two testaments of the
Bible. The underlying reason for this is simple: God does not change. He merely reveals Himself more fully and progressively in history.

6. "Thou shalt not kill"

Unfortunately, an extraordinarily simple-minded pacifist argument is based on the one word kill, from the sixth commandment. Many have said that all killing is prohibited, based on this one verse (Exodus 20:13). The problem here derives from unfortunate translation of the original Hebrew into English. The original word in Hebrew here is ratsach, which is much more accurately translated as "murder." Ratsach is always used in a disapproving sense in the Old Testament.
Other words are used for killing which is morally justified (there are at least 21 Hebrew words for various types of killing, and 13 Greek words in the New Testament). Webster's Dictionary defines "kill" as "To deprive of life; to slay"; whereas it defines "murder" as follows: "The offense of unlawfully killing a human being with malice aforethought, express or implied." This is
a legal definition, and implies moral wrongdoing. I have 12 translations of the Old Testament and 8 of them use "murder" for Ex. 20:13. The standard King James Version and three modern translations have "kill". In any event, it's obvious that the Old Testament teaches the correctness of many types of killing, usually in the sense of ultimate lifesaving for the many, and the protection of the innocent. Examples: Gen. 9:6; Ex. 22:2; Gen. ch. 14; Lev. 18:24; Numbers 25:8; Josh. 7:25 and 10:40.

7. War as Judgment in the Old Testament

This is a bit more complex idea, and is often greatly misunderstood by those who don't interpret the Bible on its own terms, and in its totality. Various nations in history, according to the Bible (which is an impeccable historical source), were judged by God for their evil, in the sense that He allowed them to be defeated in warfare. The secondary purpose of such "judgmental wars" --
when they were against Israel's enemies -- was to ensure the survival of God's chosen people, with whom He established a covenant. Such wars were to eliminate all extreme forms of immorality which might corrupt the life of the Jews, whom God was using as His saving instrument for the world. This theme of God's "chosen" people runs through the entire Old Testament. The
Jews, however, did not, by any means, receive preferential treatment. They were subject to even more severe judgment if they rebelled against God, because so much was revealed to them. Now, if God's right to judge is questioned from the outset, then the ethical issue becomes an entirely different one.

The Nations: Ex. 23:23-24, 32-33; Lev. 18:3, 24-30; Deut. 9:4-6; 18:9-14; 20:17-18; Isaiah 10:1-19; 13:17-19; 45:1-2; Jeremiah 25:12-13; 43:10-11.

The Jews: Lev. 26:14-17,31-39; Deut. 28:15,25,36,45-52,58; Judges 2:14; II Kings 15:37; I Chron. 5:25-26; II Chron. 24:23-24; 33:10-13; Ezra 5:12; Jer. 25:3-11; 27:6; Ezek. 29:18-20.

8. The "Just War" as Classically Formulated by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (3rd-4th cent. A.D.)

A) There is an organic connection between justice and necessary and just warfare.

B) War must be declared by the proper governmental authorities (Rom. 13:4).

C) War is to be fought only if all peaceful negotiations fail to attain justice (Deut. 20:10-12; Hebrews 12:14).

D) Both the cause and the motive for a war must be just.

E) War is engaged in only for defense purposes and the protection of the innocent (Gen. 14:14-16).

F) War is fought only with a realistic expectation for success, and must be justly waged:

i. Fought against soldiers, never civilians (Principle of Discrimination).

ii. Only as much force as is necessary to secure a lasting and stable peace is used (Principle of Proportion).

It would appear that nuclear war, by virtue of its nondiscriminatory nature, would always be immoral. Perhaps mere possession of nuclear weapons for purposes of deterrence is not necessarily immoral, given the malevolent character of many of the governments of the world. Part of the reason deterrence works, is the self-preservation instinct. One tends to not want to fight a war when annihilation of one's entire country (as opposed to mere defeat) looms as a distinct possibility. This prospect unites all kinds of people -- good and bad.

9. The "Police" Question

For the pacifist to be consistent with his or her own position (the total renunciation of lethal force as immoral), all use of force within states must be condemned along with force between
states. Police forces, judges, and politicians are all involved, directly or indirectly, in the maintenance of public safety. All states preserve order and stability by means of coercion and, if necessary, lethal force (the shooting of madmen holding hostages, riot control, prison sentences,
etc.). Many pacifists do not wish to deny these societal institutions. Of course, total pacifism has even more dreadful results, especially the closer it hits home, for it would require standing by and doing nothing while a close relative, spouse, good friend, or child (God forbid) was being tortured and killed. It seems utterly obvious that a viewpoint which violates our most basic instincts of justice and honor and love must be a false (and ultimately immoral) view. And the pacifist will generally quickly forget his or her intellectual concept of pipe-dream peace and
togetherness once in a horrifying position like the ones above. The Bible certainly doesn't advance such a concept, as has been shown. This is why pacifism in the Church has always been a minority view.

10. Gandhi's Follies

Incidents in the life of the famous pacifist Gandhi illustrate the moral illegitimacy of the total pacifist outlook in the real world, where those who would hate and harm others are never lacking. During World War II, Gandhi urged the Viceroy of India to stop fighting, saying "Hitler is not a
bad man," and suggested that the English should accept Hitler's fate for them, that the Czechs should face the German armies unarmed, and that India should let the Japanese overrun the country and then "make them feel unwanted." What was his comforting advice to the Jews of
Europe, who were being slaughtered mercilessly by the millions? He thought that they should have committed collective suicide, so as to leave a "rich heritage to mankind". He reached the very pinnacle of the heights of folly, perhaps, when he wrote to Hitler, starting out, "Dear friend," and made a heartfelt appeal for him to embrace all mankind!

Of course, Gandhi's tactic of nonresistance in striving for independence from England, was a success because it was directed towards a people who had a measure of conscience and magnanimity. Likewise for Martin Luther King in the American South. Nonresistance, needless
to say, would be absurd in Nazi Germany or Lenin's and Stalin's Russia, where marchers would immediately have been gunned down without the batting of an eyelid. Pacifism, like consistent atheism, once thought out in all its implications, will collapse from within, because it simply cannot be lived out. While I admire anyone's nobility in being willing to die for a cause, I do not admire a willingness to let so many other people die (literally millions when tyrants aren't stopped).

Written in April 1987.

Beware of This Virus!

I almost opened up one of these cotton-pickin' things (I've received three in the last few days: all slightly different), but my gut instinct (from eight years' online and e-mail experience) told me not to do it. Sure enough, minutes later, I read a letter from a friend which gave me a link to explain this virus (I was just about to call my ISP on the phone). I wanted to warn others, as this is an exceedingly clever and diabolical virus.

As a general rule, don't open up files in letters from people you don't know (especially exe and zip files). What I do is write back and ask them to paste it in regular e-mail.

I also received a letter supposedly from a good friend of mine, which had an attachment. I wrote to him asking if he sent it (it looked a little weird to me). Sure enough, he didn't. Watch those attachments!!!! A word to the wise . . .

=============================
Information regarding the new W32/Bagle.j@MM virus
Revised: March 4, 2004
Originally Posted: March 3, 2004

Symptoms

Email containing the W32/Bagle.j@MM virus may have any of the following symptoms:

A subject line with a warning or message regarding email or email security

A greeting that says "Dear user of... " followed by the email domain (such as "franklin.edu")

The body of the message states that your email has been disabled, will be unavailable, has been attacked, or has sent outgoing mail containing viruses

Refers to an attachment that contains further details

Provides a password to access a *.zip file that is attached to the email

Is signed from "The user's domain team," or "http://(user's domain)," where, in our case, user's domain would be franklin.edu or www.franklin.edu, or email.franklin.edu.

See:

http://www.franklin.edu/bagleVirusInfo.html

Is This Why You Converted?

Dave: This isn't why I converted, but then my (doctrinal, historical, and moral theological) reasons may be those of a tiny minority of converts (if Pastor Schlissel is correct in his assessment).

He says people are sick of the fighting and divisions in Reformed circles and so they split and cross the Tiber. No doubt they are tired of the fighting and little "pastor-doms" (we had our share of what I disdainfully called "civil wars" in Arminian, non-denom circles, too).

But he fails to go to the next step: maybe, perhaps (some small shred of possibility) people instinctively realize that division and bickering and proliferating denominations were not how God intended Christianity to be, and that there is something inherent in Protestantism (in its structure and belief-system) which produces this division that is demonstrably unbiblical and sinful (most Protestants freely admit that all the division is sinful, but they don't seem to have a clue as to what to do about it).

In other words, maybe those of us who have converted (I was never Reformed, but I was highly influenced by some aspects of it and had and have great respect for the tradition) figured out that the Protestant system had something wrong with it, which in turn produced the division that Schlissel excoriates.

That would mean that conversion was motivated not by purely personal interests and comfort zones and touchy-feely stuff, but by the principle of considering that Protestant ecclesiology and rule of faith are fundamentally flawed, and thus no longer worthy of allegiance. Just a thought . . .

From: "Got Love? A Big Reason Presbyterians Convert to Rome"
by Rev. Steve M. Schlissel
-------------------------------------------------------

Who should be surprised if there are a huge number of Protestant conversions to Rome, and that soon? Who should be shocked in light of the animosity, the hatred, that Presbyterians (not to mention others) can express for other Presbyterians?

The sentiment that “the doctrine of justification by faith” is somehow that which will tilt stragglers toward Rome is purely ignorant. It may have animated Europe in 1602, but it draws a universal yawn 400 years afterward. Such an assessment — that people are going to Rome because of their doctrine of justification — can only be advanced by people who won’t look up from their books and out at the world. It ignores our real, postmodern circumstances. People are not becoming Christian, or leaving Christianity, because of fine-tuned abstract theological propositions.

Sure, it will happen once in a while that a guy will, after serious consideration, go Eastern or Roman, but I insist that such movement is rarely the result of doctrinal consideration. It is, in my experience and according to my observation, a result of people getting fed up and sick and tired of the egos, the lawlessness, the lovelessness, the endless hairsplitting, the bickering, the in-fighting, the splintering. Too, it is sometimes a response to the irreverent “worship” encountered in oh-so-many American houses of “worship.”

I expect our cannibalism — the special Reformed sort that likes best to feast on one’s closest kin’s skin — to yield many departures to Rome and the East. Why on earth would any young, earnest inquirer want to remain a Presbyterian when he witnesses them eating each other for lunch?

I think it is also a good warning for all Protestant teachers to fairly represent Romanism. The hysterical ranting of the hard-nosed types contributes to such departures because care has not been taken to accurately portray Roman Catholicism. When some young Presbyterian “studies” patristic literature, he has no way to absorb it. He reads it as though it were pro-Romish. If he had been properly taught, if he had been instructed in the truth about early church history, about the precise, developed errors of Rome, all 7,856 of them, rather than the insane ramblings only against their view of justification, I dare to say he would have been fortified to read the Fathers, or anyone else.

Let me give you an example: When I read the New Testament, its treatment of Christianity as Jewish served in my conversion, for I had been taught that Christianity was Gentile-ish. If I had been taught the true character of Christianity, God’s irresistible call aside (you know what I mean), I would not have been swayed by the surprise of New Testament teaching — I would not have been surprised, for I would have been instructed.

All told, I expect Rome will make great gains over the next 20 years or so, and I’d wager that the attitudes displayed by the heresy hunters will contribute far more to those gains than 100 Norm Shepherd-ites, even with their teachings taken to the nth degree. “They will know we are Christians by our love.” It is appalling Protestant effrontery to offer to God crossed t’s in place of crosses borne.

Got love?

This article originally appeared February 3, 2003, on the web site of the Center for Cultural Leadership.

-------------------------------------------
Rev. Steve M. Schlissel is the pastor of Messiah’s Congregation in Brooklyn, New York.

For related reading, check out my Conversion and Converts Page.

Is Catholicism Christian?: My Debate With James White (Part Two)

Part Two
Go to Part One

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(with original lengths: all single-spaced pages)

5. My 36-page letter of 15 May 1995

6. Dr. White's 1-page letter (fax) of 10 November 1995

Hamlet, Act III: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

James White, letter of May 4, 1995, p.1: "I have to attempt to be balanced."

Dave Armstrong, to his wife Judy, right before opening James White's letter of 5-4-95, at the dinner table: "I'll make a prediction. This letter will be filled with personal attacks and will accuse me of being scared to debate."

Proverbs 26:4-5 "Answer not an anti-Catholic according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer an anti-Catholic according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Armstrong Amplified Paraphrased Version}

15 May 1995

James White

Dear James,

Greetings in Christ and His Church! I respond in the paradoxical spirit of Proverbs 26:4-5. Are you sure you're not a Democratic congressman, James? Rather than desiring to starve children and cut off the elderly from Social Security and health care (and pull the wings off of flies), I stay up late at night at my word processor devising diabolical ways to distort and misrepresent your views. You could be put to work in the Democratic party dreaming up ferocious diatribes against Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. Such a prodigious talent for fatuous, vapid rhetoric (who's a "sophist"?) must not be wasted on rookie Catholic converts, but must be utilized on the grand scale. Maybe Bill Clinton needs a speech writer. Just substitute Catholic apologists for talk show hosts and it's off to the dog races.

Seriously, though, one wonders and grapples with (as a conscientious Christian) how to deal with your unfortunate and swift descent into the slime-pit of personal invective and ad hominem attacks. I've decided to make a few general comments presently. Other than that, I will try (hard as it is) to ignore all individual swipes at my character, integrity, supposed lack of scholarly acumen, etc., as they are not worthy of any attention whatsoever, and because I refuse to be drawn into tit-for-tat catfights which are totally off the subject which I initiated in my first letter (you at least didn't resort to personal attack in your first letter). The only exceptions will be on those occasions where yet another character attack is so mixed in with your argument that it can't be totally avoided (kind of like thorns on a weed).

I've been through this whole routine before, at least three times. The opposing party started out making some outrageous, sweeping charge against myself or my views (in your case, you read out of the Body of Christ nearly one billion professing Catholics, based on profoundly incoherent and unscriptural arguments). I replied with strong critiques, not without sarcasm and harsh (perhaps overly so at times) criticism of arguments (fully justified by the condescension introduced by the other party). I tried my utmost each time to avoid personal attacks. Being human and fallible I'm sure I usually didn't altogether succeed. Yet my letters did not approach by any stretch of the imagination the level of ad hominem assault that the next letter I received invariably reached.

In all four cases, the reply was clearly and unmistakably judgmental and beyond the ken of Christian ethics, as far as I'm concerned. They also seemed to contain a great deal of projection. Your forays into this sub-rational territory are far too numerous to respond to, even if I had the desire to do so. I need not give even a single example. Nor is it necessary to quote the many biblical injunctions warning against an unbridled tongue. My other three correspondees ignored them. You give me little reason to believe you'd act any differently. But I hope you'll prove me wrong.

I'm almost forced to believe as a result of these experiences that there is some almost universal perverse tendency in human beings (whether totally or predominantly depraved) to recoil against strong, rational criticism with such force as to lose all sense of proportion and propriety. So painful is it (for many people) to face the prospect of one's own fallibility and other shortcomings, that the other person who suggests this possibility must be demonized. His motives must be attacked, his heart judged, and integrity impugned at all costs. This is only my own speculative theory, mind you, but the parallels and the uncanny resemblances must be explained in some fashion.

It couldn't be - in these instances - that I merely saw something in a different light, that I had a sincere, thought-out disagreement. Animosity never needed to be introduced. It seems as if the other parties suffered down deep (again, sheer guesswork) from a marked lack of confidence, and an existentially troubling insecurity, even though in two out of the four cases (including yours) the opponent outwardly appeared quite confident and ready to take on all comers with a smile and a self-assurance which are the furthest thing from the "ad hominem mentality."

In light of the above, I conclude with the utmost sincerity and lack of malice, that I must have hit a nerve with you, and you simply can't deal with the possibility of your wrongness without lashing out like an angry dog cornered and trapped (note here that I use an analogy. Based on what I've seen, you're capable of protesting that I called you a dog - insert smiley face here :-). Your absolutely astonishing habit of repeatedly ignoring my arguments altogether (including several which I felt were the hardest-hitting and best of the bunch) confirms this. Unless and until you show some forthrightness in facing my arguments (out of common courtesy if nothing else), then can you blame me, James, for thinking that you have no answer in those cases? What better hypothesis explains this evasive behavior?

One more thing before I move on to the actual arguments (I would have loved to have skipped all this if you would only have refrained from ad hominem guerrilla warfare). You will get nowhere quick trying to convince me that the use of sarcasm (or even just very pointed, acerbic criticism) is ethically impermissible, and essentially equivalent to arrogance. Again, this happened in every case of my four big run-ins with should-be friends. They all (with you) made a laundry list of my supposedly horrible, inexcusable "invective" or "epithets," usually not taking into consideration context, style, perhaps justified anger, my constant qualifications and limitations, and oftentimes even plain dictionary meanings of words. Then they immediately launched hypocritically into far-worse invective themselves! For example, right after you do this, you state that I think I am

so great, so intelligent, so well-informed and so well-read that there is none who can even begin to respond to your arguments.

This is not even fit for the bathroom graffiti of an elementary school! You chide me for using phrases which look like love letters compared to this childish outburst of yours (not an isolated example).

You are too intelligent and biblically literate to be unaware of the use of such sarcastic "tactics" by Jesus Himself. Perhaps you can add such utterances as the following "Socratic" comments (do you think Socrates himself never used irony either?!) to your list:

". . . ye devour widow's houses . . " (Mt 23:14)
". . . hypocrites . . . ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Mt 23:15)
". . . blind guides . . " (Mt 23:16)
"Ye fools and blind . . " (Mt 23:17)
". . . ye . . . have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith . . ." (Mt 23:23)
"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." (Mt 23:24)
". . . full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" (Mt 23:27)
"Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity" (Mt 23:28)
". . . ye are the children of them which killed the prophets" (Mt 23:31)
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Mt 23:33)

Much like the Pharisees, you, too, attempt to bind men to your own "Reformed," legalistic "criteria" for entrance into the Christian faith, and ignore the "weightier matters" which all Christians believe in common. You, too, can't see the log in your own eye when you hypocritically banish me (and all real Catholics) from Christianity but don't have the consistency to treat Luther, Melanchthon, Wesley, C.S. (not Vincent, whoever he is) Lewis, Wycliffe, Hus, even Calvin, in the same fashion, when they fail your various (infallible?) tests of "orthodoxy" miserably too. I am not attacking your character here. Your opposition to Catholicism is no mystery. I am merely offering a scathing attack on the false and, I believe, wicked tenets of anti-Catholicism.

Gerry Matatics notwithstanding - the true Catholic teaching is that you are a Christian, a "separated brother." But you won't extend such graciousness to me and millions of other Catholics. Hence my disgust and anger. Just try to imagine for a moment, that you are wrong about the sub-Christian status of Catholicism. Wouldn't my anger at your schismatic and judgmental attitude towards us be completely justifiable and understandable? I know it must be difficult for you, but try to get inside my head for just a minute on just this one point. My concern is with the sinfulness of the entire anti-Catholic mentality of judgmentalism and a deluded sense of "spiritual superiority," so to speak, that is exemplified in it. My concern is the unity of the Body, which Jesus valued enough to make it a central theme of His prayer at the Last Supper (Jn 17:21-23). If you're wrong, you will have an awful lot to account for at the Judgment on this matter. As you say, "think about that, my friend."

Finally, I can now get to both your actual rational arguments, as well as numerous caricatures and misunderstandings of my positions. I will try, by the way, to keep my pungent, earthy language (a la Muggeridge, Chesterton and, occasionally, Newman) to a minimum, since you are apparently quite insecure about that (1 Cor 8:9 may apply here). But one can only change one's style so much. I would only ask in return that you please consider my thoughts in their totality and context, rather than getting caught up in isolated words which stun, baffle, or offend you. Perhaps I'm not quite the Philistine and unscholarly barbarian that you make me out to be (often a tactic used by people as a convenient rationalization for ignoring opposing arguments altogether, and terminating correspondence or conversation - again, all too familiar to a battle-scarred Socratic like myself).

Okay, James, so you don't "exclude people from the kingdom on the basis of their acceptance or rejection of limited atonement." Very well then, I accept this correction of Akin's perspective of your belief. But I will call your bluff. Why don't you now tell me what are your criteria, so we can clear up this misunderstanding once and for all? I've already seen how I wasn't a Protestant according to you because of my rejection of the notion of a predestination to hell without the reprobate sinner's will being involved at all, and total depravity. So I ask you again, just to make sure, and to avoid being accused for the nth time of dishonesty: this is your position, is it not? If so, then I merely proceeded, on this assumption, to mention other well-known Protestant Christian figures (and whole groups) who were also thereby excluded based on your own litmus test of belief: Melanchthon, Wesley, Finney, Lewis, Bonhoeffer, and, for fun's sake, cult researcher Keith Tolbert.

I fail to grasp the nature of your complaint here (see the quote from Hamlet). What am I missing? I will restate my arguments in basic syllogistic formulas here and elsewhere, so as to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am (and always was) proceeding logically on the basis of your own stated premises, and using the famous argumentum ad absurdum (which infuriates most people - you apparently being no exception):

P1) Dave Armstrong was never a Protestant because he rejected absolute predestination and total depravity. {White (JW), 4-6-95, pp.1-2}
A1) But Melanchthon rejected absolute predestination and total depravity as well.
A2) Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Finney & Bonhoeffer also rejected absolute predestination and total depravity.
C1) Therefore, according to James White, Melanchthon, Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Finney & Bonhoeffer are not Protestants, nor is Keith Tolbert, author of the Cult Research Directory, on the same grounds.
P2) White says Catholics (and, so it would seem to follow, Orthodox) and cults such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians.
C2) Therefore, Protestants are the only Christians, and since Arminians are not truly Protestants (C1), then only Calvinists are Christians.
C3) Therefore, according to James White, Melanchthon, Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Finney, Bonhoeffer, Keith Tolbert, and Dave Armstrong (before and after poping) cannot be Christians.
P3) Calvinists are those who must accept all five points of TULIP (which are all consistent with each other).
A3) One of these five points is limited atonement.
A4) It then follows that anyone denying limited atonement is not a Calvinist.
A5) Anyone who is not a Calvinist is not a Protestant (C2).
A6) And anyone who is not a Protestant is not a Christian (C2).
C4) Therefore, anyone who denies limited atonement is not a Christian.
P4) But James White says {5-4-95, p.2} that C4, which flows from his premises, is untrue, and is a "caricature" of his position, and "unworthy" of an apologist, a "misrepresentation," and, in fact, a position which, if used, would "convict" one of "dishonesty."
C5) Therefore, due to the contradiction of C4 and P4, White must be either illogical, or dishonest, or perhaps wishy-washy and "double-minded."
A7) We will assume James White is an honest and mentally- and emotionally-stable guy (unlike his treatment of Catholic apologists).
A8) Assuming, then, that he is illogical, he must deny or modify one or more of his premises in order to eliminate the fatal flaw in his reasoning on this point.
Hypothetical C1) If White denies P1 (and A5 logically stands or falls with P1), then Dave Armstrong was indeed formerly a Protestant, and is owed an apology for misrepresentation and slander.
A9) By the same token, Melanchthon, Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Finney, Bonhoeffer, and Keith Tolbert are also Protestants.
A10) Yet White wants to have his cake & eat it too, by maintaining implicitly & inconsistently (by an argument from silence) that Melanchthon, Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Finney, Bonhoeffer, and Keith Tolbert are Protestants (hence, Christian) whereas, Dave Armstrong before poping was not.
A11) White also contradicts himself (C2) when he claims {5-4-95, p.2} that equating the terms "Protestant" and "Christian" is an "incredible leap" and "dishonest shifting of terms."
HC2) If, in order to rectify this contradiction, White overturns P2, he stands his anti-Catholicism on its head, in which case he must repent, and apologize to Patrick Madrid, Robert Fastiggi, James Akin, Art Sippo, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Robert Sungenis, Karl Keating et al (and all his debate and newsletter audiences). He must also renounce his book The Fatal Flaw and take it off the market.
P5) White maintains that Methodists, Lutherans, the majority of Anglicans, Free Will Baptists, most pentecostals and many non-denominationalists are Christians {5-4-95, p.2}, since Dave Armstrong's argumentum ad absurdum to the contrary {4-22-95, p.4} is rejected as not even "worthy of response," "a mere wasting of time and effort," and not "meaningful."
P6) But P5 contradicts P1, C1, C2, C3, P3, A4, & A5.
C6) Therefore, either P5 or (P1, Cl, C2, C3, P3, A4, A5) is false. If the former, then James White needs to write books which rail against Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, & other "semi-Pelagian" "Protestant" groups. If the latter, then Dave Armstrong was a Protestant prior to poping, and Calvinists are not the only Christians.
Final Conclusion) James White has severe reasoning disabilities, of which he is apparently blissfully unaware. Yet when Dave Armstrong points this out, his reply is characterized {5-4-95, p.2} as "misrepresentation" and White states in parting that "those who have something meaningful to say don't waste their time on such things." Perhaps, then, James White finds basic syllogistic logic neither helpful nor "meaningful." Whether this is a conscious rejection or not, Dave will not rashly speculate, as it is up to James to sort out this confusion of thought and present to Dave a revised, non-contradictory system, as well as a definitive list of who is and isn't a Christian, so Dave won't be forced to make guesses obfuscated by James' frequently convoluted and inexplicable illogic.

Do I make myself clear this time? Enough to escape more of your derision upon my supposed lack of reasoning ability? One can only hope so. I am most eager to accept any clarification on your part which will explain the above seemingly insurmountable absurdities. The easy way out would be to simply admit that you blew it and have to do some major rearranging of your schema of Christian orthodoxy. I pray that you will recognize the wisdom of that course of action.

The very next paragraph makes it necessary for me to engage in some more step-by-step logic in order to explain my position to you (which was clear enough, I think).

P1) James White believes that: ". . . a communion that replaces the grace of God with sacraments, mediators, and merit," cannot "be properly called 'Christian."' {4-6-95, p.2 / 5-4-95, p.2}
A1) Dave merely reverses the order of this sentence, singling out "sacraments" for the sake of argument, time, and space, and deleting one "s": "sacraments . . . replace the grace of God" {4-22-95, p.7}.

{Dave freely admits that perhaps it would have been more advisable - especially in retrospect, given White's now manifest propensity to attack opponents' motives - to not rearrange the phrase in one set of quotation marks, but regards this as a trifling issue, and not "dishonest" whatsoever, certainly not intentionally, as will be demonstrated below}

P2) White calls this rephrasing "silliness," "in the best style of Gail Riplinger" (whom Dave called a "nut" {4-22-95, p.1}), "dishonesty," "misrepresent[ation]," so bad that White feels Dave "owe[s] me an apology for such behavior," and that Dave will "have some serious work to do to restore" his "credibility as an honest apologist and researcher." {5-4-95, p.2} Wow!!!
A2) Yet Dave's rephrasing and isolation of "sacraments" doesn't violate the meaning, logic, or intent of White's sentence in the least, because, in White's thinking:
A3) [Catholicism] "replaces the grace of God with sacraments , mediators, and merit," thus is not Christian.
A4) It follows then that Catholicism replaces grace with mediators.
A5) And that Catholicism replaces grace with merit as well.
A6) And that, as in Dave's argument, Catholcism replaces grace with sacraments.
A7) One can rephrase A6 as: "sacraments replace grace."
C1) Thus, A2 and Dave Armstrong's argument are both true, given White's premises, and P2 and White's offense are false and improper. If you don't comprehend this, let's try an analogy:
P3) Calvin replaces the Tradition of Catholic Christianity with sola Scriptura, sola fide, and private judgment.
A8) It follows then that Calvin replaces Catholic Christianity with sola Scriptura.
A9) And that Calvin replaces Catholic Christianity with sola fide as well.
A10) And that Calvin replaces Catholic Christianity with private judgment.
A11) Thus sola Scriptura, sola fide, & private judgment all replace Catholic Christianity.
C2) Therefore, sola Scriptura replaces Catholic Christianity.
A12) But James White would object that C2 is a dishonest distortion of P3.
C3) Therefore, either C2 or P3 or both are false, and Calvin's views must be presented in an alternative fashion.
C4) But if this is the case, the same reasoning applies to P1 and A7, & a central tenet in White's beef against Catholic Christianity is false, & sacraments are not contrary to the grace of God.
C5) If this is true, then if other misunderstood doctrines like mediators and merits can be explained as Christian also, Catholicism may indeed be Christian & White's anti-Catholic worldview collapses in a heap of ashes. Good riddance!
P4) Dave Armstrong, operating from White's P1, and A7 - which has been shown to logically flow from P1 - then proceeds to make the following argumentum ad absurdum (completely ignored by White):
A13) Calvin believes that sactraments do not "replace" grace, but are a "testimony" of it, citing St. Augustine, who gives the standard Catholic definition of "sacrament." {DA, 4-22-95, p.7}
A14) Thus Calvin disagrees with White on P1, and agrees with Dave on the worthwhile nature of sacraments.
A15) But Calvin is James White's mentor, and therefore must be a Christian.
C6) But Calvin cannot be a Christian according to White's P1 and its corrolary A7. Therefore, White is inconsistently following a non-Christian while at the same time railing against Catholics for being non-Christian and believing in a view of sacraments not unlike Calvin's!
C7) Dave submits as a solution to this dilemma, that Calvin is indeed a Christian, albeit a grossly deficient one, and, rather, that James White is in error concerning the propriety & validity of sacraments. Furthermore:
A16) Luther believes in sacramental, regenerative infant baptism {DA, 4-22-95, p.8}, essentially in agreement with Catholic Christianity:

"We should be even as little children, when they are newly baptized, who engage in no efforts or works, but are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Infants are aided by the faith of others, namely, those who bring them for baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others [Mk 2:3-12]. I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle." {Babylonian Captivity, Three Treatises, Philadelphia: Fortress, rev. 1970, p.197 / emphasis added}

A17) But sacraments, according to James White, replace grace (P1, A7).
A18) Whoever replaces grace with sacraments or any other "work," cannot be a Christian.
C8) Therefore, Luther (and Calvin) cannot be Christians, for this reason, as well as Luther's views on the Real Presence, Adoration of the Host, and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, among other things.
A19) But Luther founded Protestantism and originated almost all of its distinctives (with Calvin putting the icing on the cake).
A20) And only Protestants are Christians (White's P2 & C2 on p.5 above).
A21) And White is a Protestant, therefore a Calvinist, therefore able to be called a Christian. But how can non-Christians found true Christianity?
C9) Current-day anti-sacramental, "Baptist-type" Protestants have severe logical and historical problems, which are either ignored, minimized, or rationalized away by anti-Catholics such as James White, who, true to form, totally ignored the above argument as presented in Dave's letter of 4-22-95, pp.7-8. They love to cite Luther & Calvin with evident pride and respect, except where they agree with Catholic Christianity. These instances are usually hidden from the initiate lest the evident double standard and intellectual dishonesty of this position become evident. This allows professional anti-Catholics to rail against Catholic sacramentalism and Marian devotion, but not, e.g., Lutheran (esp. Luther himself) & Anglican sacramentalism and Marian devotion. Catholics like Dave Armstrong, on the other hand, need not hide anything on these scores, & can examine the issues openly & without pretense, fear, and evasiveness.

All of the above nearly five-page treatment of basic logic would have been unnecessary if you had only given my arguments the thought and consideration that they indeed deserved in the first place, rather than taking the easy fool's course of evasion and name-calling (sorry, but you thoroughly deserve this criticism). It's your positions which are irreparably contradictory here, rather than my arguments from absurdity from your premises being "dishonest," etc. You ought to either clarify or modify them.

Well, I'm at all of page 2! I got a big kick out of your fanciful interpretation of my encounter with the editor of the New Treasury.Yet your own comentary precisely proves my point. A little background is in order, as with your "handshaking" incidents. Let me explain: Here's a guy who edits an extraordinary reference work on Scripture, which book I greatly admire (and say so in my book at one point). We invite him to our ecumenical discussion group to give a presentation, and give him all the time in the world. He ends up talking about himself for far too much of the time, including much about his great debating abilities, honed at his high school's debating club (arguably the finest high school in Detroit, which I also attended). It so turns out that he is an anti-Catholic, and this can be gleaned from various polemical sections in his book. I thought to myself, "well, if he extolls his own debating ability in public, then surely he'll be willing to engage in a little dialogue with me."

He did write me a few brief letters, and even later invited me to a talk he gave at a pentecostal church (at which I had worshiped in the past, and even manned the prayer line on one occasion) about his book. I went, and endured more of his "waxing eloquent" about his debating skills. I mingled with the crowd (including his wife) afterwards, not causing a ruckus, nor intending in any way, shape, or form to be "controversial," etc. (i.e., respecting the surroundings I was in). After some small talk, I did simply mention to a few people that I was a Catholic, and received the usual bemused, dumbfounded responses.

I also met again the amiable assistant pastor whose radio talk show I was on in November 1989, discussing Jehovah's Witnesses (the only time I've been on the radio as an "expert"). He knew that I had converted and expressed great interest in discussing this with me. I also gave him my sola Scriptura treatise. He said he was shortly going to conduct a class on Catholicism and would like to get my input. I was delighted. At last, I thought to myself, friendly, courteous, ecumenical discussion without the usual hostility. I also talked with the speaker briefly, and, so I thought, amiably. Well, I later got drift that the Treasury editor had spread a false rumor about me supposedly deliberately disrupting this gathering, spreading "Romish" propaganda, etc., etc. My heart sank and I was extremely angry, since there was not a shred of truth to this accusation, not one iota by any stretch of the imagination (does this not sound like some of your recounted experiences?).

After all, he invited me in the first place - otherwise I wouldn't have even known about it! After this he totally ignored me. I wrote him another letter a year or so afterwards, with no response. Furthermore, to my amazement, the assistant pastor, who had formerly respected me, and who I thought was a friendly acquaintance (I was fond of him, too), was never heard from again either! I left him a phone message shortly after the talk, with no reply. About a year later, I wrote him another friendly letter with a few short tracts, asking if he was still interested in dialogue, and if he had perhaps forgotten about his own stated interest in this. Stony silence. Shortly after that I happened to see him by chance at a theology class a good Protestant friend of mine invited me to. He ignored me as if I wasn't there (I know he saw me). I didn't go up to him, wishing to spare him embarrassment.

These are but a few of my experiences with "knowledgeable" Protestants, yet you chide me for venting some of my frustration and felt injustice for this asinine treatment with a little sarcasm, and are certain that this is arrogance rather than an implied rebuke of a person who - in light of the above - is far more accurately characterized as "arrogant" than myself. I was gracious and ecumenical at all times, but you see how he treated me. Again, he started, like you, with the assumption that I was not a Christian, and was an apostate from the truth, as you say.

Now, as to your comment, let me show you how it applies much more to him, not me: If the Protestant Bible expert can devour Catholics for lunch (as he constantly implies in his book), wouldn't that make Dave Armstrong easy work as an hors d'oeuvre, a mere warm-up for the big meals like Pacwa, Akin, Madrid, and Keating, given my obvious (and admitted) inferiority to them as a scholar? Sort of makes his proclamations of being a great debater rather empty, don't you think? And what about the concern for my eternal soul from these Christian experts? Shouldn't that be of paramount concern to them, rather than guarding their own (I speculate) pride?

As to your gratuitous swipe at my declining oratorical debate, this is a vapid accusation for the following reason: you falsely assume that public spoken debate is the only (or at least far preferable) kind of debate. Even after I told you that this was not my forte, desire, or preference (what's wrong with that? Do you demand that everybody be just like you?), you persist in implying that I am scared to debate! As I anticipated {4-22-95, p.16 / 5-15-95, p.1} you would take my refusal as a product of fear rather than principle and preference. Well, writing is also debate, James. We are doing it right now (me writing and you reading this). Haven't you ever heard of Luther's debate with Erasmus on Free Will? Or Calvin's famous interchange with Cardinal Sadoleto? Are these not debates, according to you? And were Luther and Calvin "chickens" for not debating their foes publicly and with the spoken word? Pretty silly, wouldn't you agree, James?

Besides, the comparison falls flat (even apart from my revulsion at unethical anti-Catholic tactics) since my two Protestant former acquaintances are unwilling to engage me in any format whatsoever, whereas I will gladly take you (or them, or Robert Morey, etc.) on by correspondence or in your newsletter on any theological topic (excepting NT Greek grammar!) at any time. I think this is a vast and obvious difference - between my confident, open outlook and their (I dare say) evasive and fearful (?) approach. Remember, both of them initiated the process and sent out signals that they were willing or able to debate, not me. This makes a huge difference. You can interpret my confidence in defending my position and disgust at Protestant braggadocio and "superior" attitudes (yet simultaneous reluctance to dialogue) as my own arrogance if you like.

If so, it is clear that you have profoundly misunderstood me and my motives. To the extent that you keep doing that and keep ignoring my own first-hand accounts and expressions of opinion, we will never engage in true debate - precisely one of the reasons why I will not oratorically debate an anti-Catholic (you refuse to engage Sippo and Lewis for very similar reasons). For in the spur of the moment at one of these (usually farcical) debates, I could never come up with the carefully-and tightly-reasoned responses which I have produced here as a result of hours of thought and work (I can't think of many who could, not even you yourself). Thus the audience might get the false impression that you have great reasoning at your command, whereas the truth is quite the contrary on major points under discussion, as I've clearly demonstrated (and only in your first three pages, yet!).

You claim (p.3) that I "did not even begin to demonstrate that anything [you] said [about Roman theology] was inaccurate." This is an outright falsehood (a synonym of falsehood is "lie" - it need not be deliberate). You have indeed borne "false witness" (I do not claim deliberately). I showed you that your view of sacraments "replacing" the grace of God is false, according to your own heroes Luther and Calvin. True, this was not so much a theological argument (with which I deal in my Eucharist treatise) as an analogical argumentum ad absurdum, which I love to use (if you haven't noticed that already). But it still demonstrated that what you said created insuperable problems not only for Catholicism (assuming your correctness) but also for the Christian status of Luther, Calvin, Anglicanism, Wycliffe, Hus, etc. as well.

Likewise, I demonstrated the same thing concerning free will. It is a simple matter of logic once again (I've always admired Calvinists for their logic, at least - such frequent lapses on your part are exceedingly curious to me). If you state that the denial of one or more parts of TULIP is non-Christian, then you are indirectly dealing with "Roman" theology, which opposes this in major ways. Ditto also for denominationalism (p.9). In attacking that (and citing four biblical passages among many) I was criticizing your view that this was okay and that the opposite view (the "oneness" of Catholicism) is troublesome, since it supposedly creates clones who parrot back "Roman" infallible teachings by rote, rather than with biblical and patristic support.

Thus I was indirectly demonstrating that what you said about "Roman" theology was indeed inaccurate. My comments on St. Clement (who was, by the way, a bishop. Do you have a bishop? If not, why do you claim St. Clement as one of your own when he himself would say you weren't- 44:2, 59:1?) also delved into questions of justification, with much scriptural citation (p. 13), thus critiquing your assertions about the bankruptcy of "Roman" theology. Furthermore, I enclosed my critique of Geisler's article on "sola Scriptura," (a counter to the Catholic idea of Tradition), and my article on Luther's devotion to Mary, which is contrary to your assertions as to what is and is not proper for a good Protestant to believe and do.

So your statement at the top of this paragraph is obviously false. Apparently, by all appearances, when you ignore an opponent's argument (except for rabid pontifications about its "dishonesty," etc.), you convince yourself that it isn't there at all (kind of an Orwellian tactic of "doublethink").

I do not at present have the materials to delve properly into the vexed and complex question of the status of heretics throughout history, and how this might relate to infallibility. I'm sure Catholic apologists have dealt with this in the depth which you are (rightfully so) demanding. Perhaps you can ask your friends Patrick Madrid or Karl Keating for reading suggestions.

I do know that it is current Catholic teaching that all validly-baptized Protestants are indeed "incorporated into Christ," "Christians," and "brothers" (VII, Dec Ecumenism, I, 3). You ought to rejoice that this is the case. But I guess, given your anti-ecumenical and schismatic mentality (e.g., rampant denominationalism is no problem - 4-6-95, p.3), it rather saddens you that the Beast regards you as more of a brother than an enemy.

Since this is our official teaching, you can only repeatedly cite people like Gerry Matatics, who, apparently (and sadly) has become a schismatic. For you to insist that separatists and anti-Vatican II types are still Catholic is almost as silly as me saying that The Way International is Protestant since it still operates on the principles of private judgment and sola Scriptura. It just ain't so. It doesn't take much for the essence of a position to change. Many outward factors may still remain the same, just as in the Protestant sects. A "Catholic" who rejects a true Ecumenical Council is dishonestly using the name, and ought to become a Protestant, since he has adopted private judgment as his final arbiter.

How can I possibly not read anti-Catholic books since I am a Catholic apologist? Very simple! I employ the same reasoning that you use with regard to Vinney Lewis:

Might I suggest to you . . . that . . . some of us have standards with reference to the behavior of those with whom we correspond? I will not debate Vinney Lewis either, and there's a reason for that: he is not worthy of being noticed on that level. {5-4-95, p.1}

You make similar remarks about Art Sippo on p.16 (apparently with some justification). Well, I am merely extending such reluctance to the written page. You yourself say that there are

far too many 'anti-Catholic' books and works around that show little or no concern for accurate citation or presentation." {Fatal Flaw, p.20}.

Why should I waste my time in reading such material when you were tempted to cease writing to me and wasting your "limited time" because of my alleged "almost irreparably damaged credibility?" Until you debate Sippo and Lewis again, I will not read Chick, Alamo, Boettner, Hislop, Hunt, Ankerberg, or Brewer. Catholic Answers staff do that because they have made it part of their function (for obvious reasons). But not every Catholic apologist is so constrained (thank God!). I content myself with going back to the roots of Protestantism and reading Calvin and Luther. You surely can't be asserting that one must read anti-Catholics in order to understand either Protestantism or its disagreements with Catholicism!

Of current writers I will read people like Geisler, Samples and Miller, Pelikan, Tolbert, the Passantinos, Packer, etc. (i.e., on Catholicism) since they are ecumenical and immeasurably more logical than the anti-Catholics. I would certainly eagerly purchase and read their works, with the greatest interest. You are pretty much in a class by yourself (perhaps also Morey & Ankerberg) - anti-Catholics who show some measure of concern for sources and accuracy, and some semblance of respect for the mind and Christian history (even cogent theology). I already stated I would make an exception for your works, since they are obviously far and away the best of a bad lot, and since you were nice enough to send them to me free, provided you'll interact with my rebuttals.

Again, you should be pleased about that, rather than criticizing me unduly and saying that I may therefore not be an apologist. Tsk, tsk, James. As for Salmon, I read him because he was perfect for my needs at the time as an evangelical Protestant apologist - a scathing attack on infallibility (i.e., I was on his side when I read the book). I would certainly snatch up his book today if I saw it since (like your stuff) it is about the best you guys can come up with and not immediately dismissable as absurd and laughable hogwash. I am still proud today that as a Protestant I did not rely on blithering idiots (i.e., on Catholicism) like Boettner and Chick for my polemics, but rather, the smartest anti-Catholics, Dollinger and Salmon (I would have utilized you, too, if I had been aware of you).

I use the term "anti-Catholic" in a very basic sense -someone who is opposed to the Catholic Church (not its members per se) and does not consider it as Christian. He may or may not regard it as a consciously heinous Beast and Whore (the spectrum runs the gamut from Jack "Jesuits killed Lincoln" Chick to Dave "1 million Reformation martyrs" Hunt to you). There is nothing improper or offensive in this usage whatsoever. It is the objective stating of a fact, such as the term "anti-abortion activist" (I accept that description, though I much prefer "pro-life"). It's curious that you reject a title which so accurately portrays what you are. But I guess I'd be embarrassed too to be in the fraternity of Catholic-bashers you're in.

Throughout my book and tracts I argue that anti-Catholicism is almost (but not quite) essential for all Protestants (in order to justify their own very existence). You go on to compare apples and oranges by stating that I should consistently call myself an "anti-Protestant." C'mon, James, you're smarter than this (so many pages and hours taken up - for both of us - in all these corrections of fact and logic). I say you're a Christian; you say I'm not, therefore there is no logical symmetry here. I'm not anti-Protestant by my own criterion above. I'm a seriously ecumenical Catholic who does, however, criticize Protestants as rebellious sons within the family, not enemies.

You might call me a Catholic "polemicist" or "controversialist," but not an anti-Protestant, at least according to my objective definition of terms. If merely disagreeing with Protestant positions makes me "anti-Protestant," then the denominations would have so many "anti-Lutherans," "anti-Arminians," "anti-pentecostals," etc. as to be utterly countless. With me, it's a family squabble and in-house fight, whereas you are taking on the foreign infidels, whose views are well-nigh worthless and contemptible. This leads to two entirely different attitudes, which may explain why you continually rip my character and motives, while I try to stick to the arguments, to the extent that your diatribes against me and my patience allow. I'm quite willing to call you a Protestant apologist too. The two titles are not mutually exclusive.

As for Bart Brewer, I've seen his little letters in This Rock, read about him there, heard him on tape, and seen his comically condescending personal letter to a convert friend of mine (questioning his Protestant pedigree, etc., much like you - this guy was a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist who even studied with Francis Schaeffer!). Nothing I've seen indicates "humility" or "simple kindness" on his part (although I will not flatly deny it exists, since I don't know). My impression is guite to the contrary. And his reasoning is by no means compelling. There is only - again, as far as I've seen - lightweight, cliched salvos, to the effect that Catholics never hear the gospel, ad nauseum. This type of "argument" is inane, asinine, and insipid (sorry!). So my description stands.

On the surface it might appear arrogant, but when it is understood in the context of being directed at a person who brashly contends that I am an infidel and heaps all kinds of slanderous and unsubstantiated abuse on my Church and, by extension, on me, it is guite justified, just as Jesus' descriptions of the Pharisees (for much the same attitude) are, and also St. Paul's hard-hitting descriptions of various wayward individuals.

Being on both sides of any major disagreement is self-evidently a benefit (this was a minor point of mine and I did take pains to qualify it). The very fact that you guys trot out your Bart Brewers ("he was a Catholic priest for xx years," etc.) proves that you agree with this. Much is made of Luther's having been a monk and "understanding the Catholic position from the inside" too. Not all of us are so enlightened or blessed with the right upbringing so as to arrive at theological truth at such an early age, and stick with it through thick and thin, as it would appear from your remarks about others, you believe about yourself (a "cradle Calvinist"?). Real or so-called "traitors" are always despised by the groups they leave. That's why civil wars are the bloodiest. This is human nature, I suppose.

I might add as a parting shot that if anything is "double-minded," it is your numerous contradictory views and selective double standards of criticism, as painstakingly exhibited throughout this letter (these could rightly be called "wavering" -Jas 1:6). I would never say this unprovoked, but since you stoop to it, I only point out that one might see some hypocrisy in you using this charge. Merely changing positions, even repeatedly, is not necessarily "double-minded," nor hypocritical nor "unstable," provided there is a true developmental progression from lesser truth to greater truth, and an increase in knowledge and wisdom. I would say that the phrase "double-minded" refers more to the simultaneous holding of contradictory views, or vacillation, such as in your two letters, as I've proven several times already.

Another trivial matter: I referred to my book since I gave you (unless I overlooked this) my list of tracts, which describes it. Obviously, I was speaking in the sense of the potential for you to read various chapters as an answer to your arguments. Why should I reiterate views which I have already expressed elsewhere? Whatever you want to read, I will give to you (several are already enclosed). I didn't want to bombard you with hundreds of pages - I just wanted you to know that I've done this work and that it is at my disposal in manuscript form should it become necessary to refute your assertions. Better yet, if you want, I'll give you the whole kit and kaboodle on two computer disks (ancient Wordstar 5.00).

By "constructively ecumenical" I mean striving for increased understanding among Christians. I don't know what apologist told you ecumenism is a "joke" (although I agree much of what passes for ecumenism indeed is). I'd like to hear the context of that remark, and what he thinks of the documents of Vatican II. If the only reason I talked to Protestants (particularly of the anti-Catholic bent) was to convert them, I'd be one frustrated camper indeed, as the only ones I've helped to pope were already my friends. No, my immediate, realistic goal (aside from simple, innocent friendliness) is simply to build bridges, and to engage in the ceaseless and almost thankless task of explaining Catholicism and defending it from the ever-present disinformation and prejudice with which we Catholics have to deal as a matter of course. In this, my attitude is little different from my campus evangelist days. I was content to let the Spirit do the work of conversion - it was my privilege to be used in some small way as a vessel of Christian truth.

Likewise, in my attempts at bridge-building, perhaps occasionally someone will convert, which I regard as a great improvement in one's spiritual status, of course, since more truth is espoused than formerly. This was also the philosophy of my ecumenical discussion group, and it never changed, even though I started it as a Protestant (the dynamic is the same on either side). Lacking that, I would be ecstatic to convince Protestants with obvious zeal and abilities such as yourself that Catholicism is Christian. This would be fulfilling the "mandate" of John 17 - a quite worthwhile endeavor and the primary purpose of ecumenism. Strictly speaking, if I am actively seeking to convert someone (which is rare, anyway) I am functioning as a Catholic evangelist and apologist. When I am seeking to understand others and to explain my views (i.e., almost all the time), I am playing more the ecumenist's role. This involves no duplicity or contradiction. Anyone with strong views wishes that others could be convinced of them, too. But given inherent divisions, we all have to get to know each other's opinions also, and charity demands this.

Okay, James, so I took some liberties in speculating on your opinions as to the means and process of my conversion (er, apostasy). Perhaps my acerbic wit got the best of me. But you go beyond that. You must accuse me of (what else?) "misrepresentation." But this time I was not attempting to quote you directly, and thought that you would realize I was writing "tongue-in-cheek," being the sharp guy (I mean that sincerely) that you are. Mainly, I was reacting to the condescension of you thinking that you know so much about my theological knowledge (or lack thereof) prior to poping, which was a bit much to take - hence the sarcasm. You'll note that almost always when I utilize wit, sarcasm, parody, etc. I am either reacting to arrogance, rash presumption, or rank hypocrisy from the other party (again, just like Jesus does). It's always provoked in some manner. I do not initiate it.

When you read portions of my book, you'll find that I rarely engage in sarcasm and try to maintain a scholarly tone of understatement (I make no claim to being a scholar, however). The typical instances of my sarcasm are in response to arrogant comments from Luther, Calvin, or some other anti-Catholic which thoroughly deserve a response ("be all things to all people"). Calvin is as arrogant as they come, and I indulge myself a little bit at his expense, as well as Luther's (how would you expect a Catholic to react to their outrageous accusations?). Now, having accepted your rebuke on this point, why don't you then elaborate on what you meant by my lack of knowledge of the "why" of "Roman" theology, and the supposed "ripeness" of my views for "refutation." Since you (quite presumptuously) feel you know so much about this, I'd like to know what you know about me too, then I won't have to speculate excessively.

I'd be especially delighted to learn that you in fact don't regard the Catholic Church and its proponents as "clever," "devious," and characterized by "Babylonish guile." These are classic anti-Catholic charges, perfected in our day by Dave Hunt (following Pope Luther - Babylonian Captivity...). If you disagree with this, I wish you'd write to Hunt and set him straight. We could use a guy like you to run interference for us on occasion. If you do accept this description, then where's the beef with my witticisms?

As for the precise written content of my conversion story, how in the world is that relevant here, or even any business of yours? A conversion story is just that - a conversion story, not a treatise on theology or a library list or pro-Protestant controversialism (my prior stance), just as the Gospels have a specific purpose, and Proverbs and Psalms and Amos all have their own raison d'etre too. This is getting really ridiculous, and you force me to go back to my flow charts:

P1) Dave Armstrong writes a 12-page conversion story in Surprised by Truth (the shortest in the book).
P2) James White apparently thinks that it does or should present an exhaustive survey of Dave's grasp of Catholic theology prior to his conversion. In so thinking, James assumes that Dave would list all or most of what he has read and studied about Catholicism and Protestant critiques in this 12-page story.
C1) James White thereby concludes that whatever is not listed has not been read or studied by Dave Armstrong.
C2) White further concludes that this means Dave had not read Calvin's diatribes and defenses, nor Trent, nor even the catechisms of Fr. John Hardon prior to conversion.
C3) White concludes, with little grounds, that Dave Armstrong therefore was quite lacking in his understanding of Protestantism & why it opposes Catholicism, hence was "ripe for refutation" theologically.
C4) In other words, Dave was so lacking in knowledge of his own prior beliefs that his "conversion" is of little significance. In fact, Dave wasn't Protestant at all, since he was never a five-point Calvinist, which is the litmus test.

So then, what was I, anyway? A Pelagian? A Druid? A Rastafarian? All this based on 12 pages and a few short tracts and letters. You still don't know what and how much I've studied, yet you persist in this fatuous analysis and say things like, "am I to conclude, Dave, that I should not take what Roman apologists say at face value?" Why are you so concerned about this factor, anyway? Is it not simply a diversionary tactic? You can try to poke holes in my conversion odyssey if you like (I rather enjoy these analyses for humor's sake, much as musicians despise and chuckle at dead-wrong critical reviews of their work), but this won't get you off the hook of refuting what I know now, regardless of what I knew or didn't know then.

I didn't even mention Surprised by Truth in my first letter (strange, if I'm as arrogant as you think). You started this whole line of reasoning. But I fail to see how it is relevant. If you keep trying to prove that you were not presumptuous, I don't believe it is likely you will succeed. Now, if you'll pay me labor costs, I'll write a 300-page autobiography on the precise nature of my theological knowledge and progress at every step of the way from 1977 to 1990, so I can "tell the truth" about my "background" and "experience." It would make pretty dull reading, I think, to reel off scores of book titles so as to satisfy your strict requirements for self-revelation! But if you paid me, I would do it. C'mon! I wish we'd get to some real issues. I value my time as much as you do yours, I'm sure. I want some real, substantive dialogue.

As for "epistemological leaps" (you must have taken some philosophy, too), Protestantism is replete with them - for starters, sola Scriptura, a-historicism, private judgment, a stultifying tendency of dichotomizing ideas unnecessarily, anti-sacramentalism, anti-materialism, anti-clericalism, paper (without papal) infallibility, perspicuity, assurance of salvation, etc. You keep railing against infallibility, as if it is a totally untenable position. Well, which bucket would you pick: the one with one hole (easily patched up by Catholic apologist handymen), or the one with ten (which are denied by the Protestant apologists, who just keep filling up the bucket regardless of its leaks)?

Yes, I stand by my opposition to how you paint the picture of my being impressed by Catholics in Operation Rescue. It's not a matter of seeing "nice folks" who are sincere and consistent in their beliefs (big wow; if that was it, I'd surely be either a Mormon or a conservative Methodist!). No, it's being impressed with godly men and women of great Christian integrity. I dealt with this adequately on p.3. I find another thing very troubling. You would rather insist on evangelizing Catholics at every opportunity rather than standing together with them against the greatest evil of our age (which you admit). You think this "principle" more important than (given the reasonable opportunity at a Rescue) the very saving of babies' lives (Ecc 3:7 applies, I would say).

I can think of many legitimate reasons for not participating in Rescues (I haven't since 1990 myself), but yours is certainly not one of them. I regard it as an astounding and indefensible instance of tragically-blind legalism to the exclusion of the "weightier matters" of love and compassion for both the babies and the state of both a divided Christianity and a decadent civilization. It is as morally contemptible as Corrie Ten Boom saying that she would not assist in saving Jews unless she could convert them, too.

It's disgusting and abominable that Protestants such as Bill Gotthard, John MacArthur and even Norman Geisier (who said on a talk show that he would not save a five-year-old from a legal death camp down the street unless it was his own), cannot even give sanction to the tactic of Rescue, let alone (God forbid) sit with Catholics in them. MacArthur said on Ankerberg's anti-Catholic series of broadcasts recently that we should not even participate together in non-Rescue pro-life activities! Perhaps this is your view, too. Divide and conquer.

You didn't have to compromise or "overlook" anything as a Rescuer. I didn't compromise my evangelicalism. All you had to do was shut your mouth at the clinic entrances and in the jails. Was that really too much to ask of you for the sake of the babies about to be killed? Couldn't you just pray for the infidels (and, egads, with them) and be a shining example of a righteous Calvinist? I talked at length with the Catholics in other venues. No one could stop me from engaging in dialogue elsewhere. The leaders only had authority over me at the Rescues, not in my private life. Even in the jails, though, I talked theology, but since I was ecumenical rather than anti-Catholic, this was no hindrance to the movement. I had a Socratic attitude of being willing to learn, not just to share everything I knew with poor, ignorant papists. It's all in the approach.

If you think that the situation of 23,000 denominations is the equivalent of the "modern state of Roman apologetics in the U.S. today" I would love to see you elaborate on this contention with some real arguments, not just desperate salvos for lack of any real reasoning or response. And please leave out the separatist "Catholic" examples, if you would, for my sake, since I don't buy it.

I challenge you once again (I am at your p.6): please tell me who is and who isn't a Christian. Are Arminians Christians? You mention "Protestantism." Who are these Protestants-in-quotes? It would seem that, at a bare minimum, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, pentecostals, some Baptists, and many non-denoms are excluded right off the bat, as I earlier stated. Please tell me for sure so I can know. Surely you know, since you are quick to read others out of the faith (like the early "Reformers," especially Luther).

And again, I declare to you: if these Protestants-in-quotes are not Christian, then they are far more wicked than us poor papists, under the yoke of Rome, as there is a strong element of deception (from your standpoint) in their position. They are fake Protestants, fatally-compromised, hypocritical and nominal Protestants, "treading water in the Tiber." And who are those who reject limited atonement yet remain Christians? I'm especially curious as to Melanchthon and Wesley. Finally, St. Paul wasn't a Calvinist any more than St. Augustine was. This is made clear in my "sola fide" treatise.

Very well, then, James. I'll call your bluff again. Please send me an example (please pay close attention to what I am requesting) of a sermon intended for evangelization and as a prelude to an altar call whereby people get "saved," where TULIP is presented as the center and essence of the whole enterprise. If you can produce one (preferably more) of these, I will recant this position (it isn't as though my whole worldview rests on it, anyway). The key words were "openly presents" and I was referring to missionary-crusade type settings (or sermons, anyway), obviously not to the fact that someone might believe in TULIP. Even if you are correct on the factual point, I would still deny theologically that TULIP is the gospel. I maintain that it is a schema of heavily philosophical theology.

The gospel, as I have always believed, is, as W.E. Vine defines it,

the good tidings of the Kingdom of God and of salvation through Christ, to be received by faith, on the basis of His expiatory death, His burial, resurrection, and ascension, e.g., Acts 15:7; 20:24; 1 Pet 4:17.

{Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, under "Gospel"}

As a (")Protestant(") evangelist, I located the apostolic proclamation of this gospel in Acts 2:6-11, 3:13-15,18-21,26, 4:8-12, 5:30-32, 10:34-43, 13:23,26-33,38-39, 16:31, 17:22-31, and 22:3-16,21 (my tract, "The Gospel, as Preached by the First Christians"). One can hardly by any stretch find TULIP in these presentations, and this was my point. It's strange to me that sola Scriptura adherents would redefine the gospel message when it is clearly defined in the pages of Scripture, by example of both preaching and teaching.

In the midst of an extraordinary array of ad hominem, "bombastic" language at the bottom of p.6, you lament my "double standard" of not quoting a source in my jeremiad against the wickedness of Calvinism. I assumed you were quite familiar with my line of argument. I can't imagine a Calvinist who wouldn't be, so I thought documentation superfluous. Being, as it was, a purely philosophical and moral observation, I didn't feel compelled at all by your present demand for citations. As is so often the case, you ignore my argument here with mere rhetoric instead of a substantive reply. Is this not objectionable, when you again and again regard practically every other argument I make ("every other paragraph" - p.2) as too stupid (?) to even be worthy of a reply, and only deserving of insult and obloquy? I submit that this attitude could be far more accurately described as "arrogant" than anything I've written to you.

When I don't know how to respond to (or defend) something, I admit it, as in the Protestant-as-heretic-or-brother issue, as specifically related to infallibility, and below, concerning Joseph Smith and his background and motivations vis-a-vis Calvinism. Nevertheless, as you wish, I will now give you a little documentation (and hope again for you to actually respond rationally to my argument):

The conditional nature of Positive reprobation is demanded by the generality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. This excludes God's desiring in advance the damnation of certain men (cf. 1 Tim 2:4, Ez 33:11, 2 Pet 3:9). St. Augustine teaches:

'God is good, God is just. He can save a person without good works, because He is good; but He cannot condemn anyone without evil works because He is just' (Contra Jul. III, 18,35)

St. Augustine, to whom the opponents of this doctrine [free will] appeal, never denied the freedom of the will in relation to grace. In defence of the freedom of the will he wrote, in the year 426 or 427, the work, De gratia et libero arbitrio, in which he seeks to instruct . . . those,

'who believe that free will is denied, if grace is defended . . .' (I, 1).

Justification is not only a work of grace, but at the same time a work of the free will:

'He who created thee without thy help does not justify thee without thy help' (Sermo 169, 11,13) . . .

'His mercy comes before us in everything. But to assent to or dissent from the call of God is a matter for one's own will' (De spiritu et litt., 34,60).


{Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1954, pp.246-7}

So much for Calvinism in St. Augustine, the "protoProtestant" par excellence, and the mistaken, intellectually-dishonest constant appeal to him in Calvin and Luther (the latter eventually refrained somewhat, realizing the futility of it). Or so it would appear to the unbiased eye, I think. When will you guys stop claiming the "best and brightest" Catholics as your own, when it is clear that they are not? Again, St. Augustine was a bishop, who believed in Ecumenical Councils and the authority of the pope, and, of course, the sacraments, and many other doctrines you find reprehensible and unChristian. Do you have a bishop? Or sacraments? Do you believe in Ecumenical Councils? How could he possibly be a "Protestant," even one of your fake ones in quotes? To claim him as one of your own is sheer ludicrosity.

And the same is true of all the other Fathers, if the truth be known (with the possible exception of Tertullian in his heretical Montanist period). You might better and more consistently embrace (at least partially) the Donatists, Montanists, Novationists, Nestorians, Marcionites and even the Orthodox as your forerunners, if someone must be found to fill in the missing links of 1500 years. This constant dishonest recourse to the Fathers (e.g., your implication that you are more "in company" with St. Athanasius, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus than I am - p.7) only goes to show that thoughtful Protestants recognize the incumbent necessity of finding some figment of an historical "church" during the so-called "dark ages" (whenever that began - you don't want to tell me).

The evolution of Unitarianism in New England is an indisputable fact of history. You can only attempt (legitimately) to deny the direct causal connection. You're welcome to do so with my blessing. The same thing happened to English Presbyterianism at the same time. As to my "joke" (you miss much of my intended humor) about Puritanism evolving into Unitarianism, I cite in my defense no less a reputable scholar of Puritanism than Perry Miller:

By the middle of the 18th Century there had proceeded from it [Puritan philosophy] two distinct schools of thought . . . Certain elements were carried into the creeds and practices of the evangelical religious revivals, but others were perpetuated by the rationalists and the forerunners of Unitarianism . . . Unitarianism is as much the child of Puritanism as Methodism . . . Descendants of the Puritans who revolted against what they considered the tyranny and cruelty of Puritan theology . . . substituted taste and reason for dogma and authority.

{The Puritans, NY: Harper & Row, vol.1, rev. 1963, pp.3-4; from Intro. by Perry Miller / emphasis mine}

I guess if my views here are a "joke," then Miller's are, too (I'll bet you even have his biography of Jonathan Edwards. I do. Surprised?). So why don't you write to him (if he's alive) in the same mocking manner about the same topic? His research couldn't be that bad, could it?

Warning: another of my arguments from historical implausibility: If Calvinism is so great, and so guided by God's Providence, why is it so hard to find, both historically in Christian history, and geographically at present? Where are the great numbers of Calvinists today, even in Scotland, the Netherlands (where euthanasia is touted) and Switzerland, its historical "strongholds" (if any areas can be so described)? Are you reduced to western Michigan and Grand Rapids these days, in terms of any significant and palpable strength? If you guys are the only Christians, yours is a miserably and pitifully small "church" indeed, with scarcely little staying power (i.e., as a significant influence). This is hardly a plausible nor convincing evidence of the hand of God, in my opinion. Catholicism, on the other hand, flourishes in full splendor, as it always has (even surviving several bleak periods, humanly speaking). Much more could be said, but you don't seem to appreciate very much my historical and analogical arguments, so I'll stop.

Good news and bad news! I concede that I made a (partial) boo-boo, but the bad news is that it is an exceedingly minor point in our overall discussion. You're right about Joseph Smith not starting out as a Calvinist. I did not phrase this quite as accurately as I should have. In my book, in the "Protestant errors" chapter, I put it this way: "many founders of religious cults had Calvinistic backgrounds." Stated this way, my remark to you is at least half-true. Brushing up on my research (which wasn't originally mine on this point, since I first heard and "inherited" the argument from a prominent evangelical Protestant cult researcher friend), I couldn't confirm that Joseph Smith himself was a card-carrying Calvinist. As it turns out, he may not have even tiptoed through TULIP.

Yet I found some things that likely led to the origin of this whole argument: Four members of Joseph Smith's family became officially associated with Presbyterianism; his mother, brothers Hyrum and Samuel, and sister Sophronia, according to his own account (as confirmed by documentation: Hoekema, Four Major Cults, p.9 / Millet, Robert L., ed., Joseph Smith: Selected Sermons and Writings, NY: Paulist Press, 1989, p.13 (Introduction) / Hill, Marvin S. & James B. Allen, eds., Mormonism and American Culture, NY: Harper & Row, 1972, p.30). Furthermore, Joseph Smith's ancestral background was Puritan, according to Kenneth Scott Latourette:

Joseph Smith was born in Vermont of old New England stock. So far as the family had a religious background it was Puritan.

{The 19th Century Outside Europe, NY: Harper & Row, 1961, p.113}

As to my whole scenario of his reacting against Calvinism, etc., I will suspend judgment on that until such time as I see some proof (I do recall, however, this being a significant factor in C.T. Russell's heretical development, so it does happen among the heresiarchs). So, although partially inaccurate, I think this point of mine is a bit more worthy than, again, a "joke," as you characteristically mock it. I'd like to see you back up many of your contentions with any evidence, let alone as much as I present for even my partial errors.

I'm dumbfounded by your apparent utter misunderstanding of my intent and meaning in the bottom paragraph of my p.5. The point was emphatically not to put you down, as if you're a nobody or something along those lines. I can't help but suspect once again that you are not seriously reading my letters with an attempt to accept them at face value and an earnest effort to understand and either learn from or refute them. I mean what I say and say what I mean. How many times do I have to point this out? Like any writing, you must place my words and phrases in context. Someone reading your isolated "juicy" quotes of mine out of context in your p.7 (top) would surely think me to be a real scoundrel. But if they read (and grasped) my whole paragraph to which you refer, they would get an entirely different impression.

I feel like Rush Limbaugh (who also loves, as I do, the argunentum ad absurdum, and is a master of it) after reading an article about himself in the Washington Post. The best thing for you to do would be to just read my paragraph again (maybe two times). I'll give you a big clue as to its meaning: it is one massive argument from absurdity, throwing your infallibility critiques back in your face, showing that your position of everyone-is-his-own-pope is both untenable and unworkable. The "stalwart figures" are Melanchthon, Wesley, Finney, C.S. Lewis, Bonhoeffer, and pre-conversion Newman, Chesterton, Knox and Neuhaus, who were mentioned a page before.

"Little old" is a figure of speech (for Pete's sake!). I could tell how old you were from the picture on one of the flyers you sent me! (I also read Madrid's article where he stated you were "barely out of your twenties"). I deduced that you had a pulpit from the back of Fatal Flaw, where you are described as an "ordained Baptist minister." What "Baptist minister" worth his salt doesn't have a pulpit! But one might say you are "preaching" via your books, newsletter and tapes. It's all the same difference. The fact that I am indeed a "little fellow," a "novice," "far too young to have the whole story," etc. is precisely the point I was making on p.5. I couldn't have put it any better myself (I admit as much in the Introduction to my book). I won't give the argument again. Why should I have to? Just read it again, and then perhaps you'll answer it for a change, instead of either misunderstanding, mocking or trashing it.

Duh, whose this Gerstner guy? Did'nt he start a baby food cumpany? Gee, i did'nt know he dun some theeoligy, too. But i do too know who Jonathan Edwards is! He had a hit song in 1971 called "Sunshine." So there! And Whitfield is da guy who produced some a da Temptations' songs (only a Detroit naytiv coulda knowed dat one). Glad to hear your'e a music fan like i is. As for Carp Haddock Sturgeon, that sounds pritty fishy ta me. So i ain't near as dumm as ya think.

I get the distinct feeling, James, that you don't like the apostolic, biblical, patristic, historical and Catholic gospel. No surprise, given your love for Calvinist theology. Those who have never realized their own helplessness often hate to submit to the ecclesiastical authority established by Christ, I've discovered. I've seen similar paragraphs from other "Protestants," from snake handlers, Shakers, Quakers, Dake-ers, the Bakkers, fakers, tithe-takers, TULIP-makers, Coplandites, Mennonites, Scofieldites, "Israel"-whites, Swaggartites, Church of Christ, Church of God, United Church of Christ, Church of God in Christ, Disciples of Christ, and the Christian Church, and eponymous "Christians," even from some "Catholics" too.

Your whole diatribe in the bottom paragraph of p.7 has already been dealt with quite adequately by the entirety of my contentions on pp.5-7 and comments on the Catholic Fathers above. I can add nothing substantial to that, and so desist for space and time's sake. What is this: a Jeopardy game, where I give the answer first and then you ask the question that the answer already answered?

Your second paragraph on p.8 is an absolutely astonishing rapid-fire assault on my (and others') character. I should ignore it, but I'll comment due to its incredible nature:

1) You say I wouldn't have talked (or written) a certain way in 1990 ("that's for certain" - because you have my 12-page story to prove it, I guess you'd say).
2) You object to my use of epithets, in the midst of your use of countless ones yourself!
3) Then you brag about your abilities in defending a logically indefensible position.
4) You throw in some gratuitous digs at Madrid and Matatics for good measure (I'd love to see your 60 pages of refutation of Madrid's 5-page article. Gee, I wonder if there are any "epithets" in there? What tedium it must contain!).
5) Then it's back to my style, which is "tinny" (I've been called much worse, thank you).
6) The "scared-to-debate" charge rears its ugly head again. I've already disposed of that above.
7) I "hide behind a word-processor" (so asinine that my satirical affinities fail me this time).
8) I "blow smoke" (exactly what you're doing here).
9) Then it's back to the "but how can I read your book if I don't have it?" lament.
10) Then there are multiple views of Catholic "tradition" (how many? 23,000? Why don't you be precise when you make these wild charges, for once?). Are Kung's and Dollinger's and Curran's and Wilhelm's and McBrien's views included in your tally? Is Newman's view of Tradition mine? Yes, since his is the Catholic view. I really don't think Patrick Madrid disagrees with Newman, who will in all likelihood be a saint one day and possibly a Doctor of the Church. Again, if Matatics is a schismatic, his view is irrelevant to my work as a Catholic apologist. If 90 to 95% of Protestants-in-quotes don't speak for you, then don't make schismatics speak for me and my Church. This is silly. You say there are many views of Tradition. I say there is only one, and you can discover it in the standard Catholic sources. If you think there are "all sorts of different takes" on Tradition, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this, not just talk about it for rhetoric's sake alone.

All of this in one paragraph. Yet you wonder why I refuse to engage a person who "argues" in such a way in public debate. You can rail against me all you want about that (it will fall on "deaf ears" from now on), but I'll tell you one thing. You're sure gonna get a run for your money in this writing debate. Your constant resort to vilification of me and the ignoring of many of my arguments only proves that your oft-proclaimed debating abilities are already failing you. Call that statement pride if you want. I don't care.

I've only heard one of your debates - with Fr. Pacwa on sola Scriptura, but I don't have a copy of it. Rather, since you issued the challenge, I will make a similar type of argument to those I utilized earlier with flow charts:

P1) X, Y, & Z are regarded by all as Church Fathers.
P2) James White thinks X, Y, Z are either outright Protestant or more so than Catholic, & therefore are not Catholic, & can't be "claimed" by Catholics.
A1) But X, Y, & Z's views on A, B, & C, etc. are contrary to White's conception of what Christianity is, & ought to be.
C1) Therefore, X, Y, & Z are in fact Catholics, as in Dave Armstrong's view.
A2) But this contradicts White's P2.
C2) Therefore, White must either give up citing X, Y, & Z as "his own" & consider them infidels or apostates or else become a Catholic so as to avoid historical contradictions.

We will select (a random choice), the three Fathers you cited on p.7:

How do you know you are in company with, say, Athanasius or Ignatius or Irenaeus? In the final analysis, is it not because Rome tells you so?

We will examine some of their "unprotestant" and "Romish" views. Now, if I was out of the fold of Protestantism due to the rejection of just T and U of TULIP, then the multiple errors in the views of these Fathers which I will prove certainly render them infidels all the more so. I'm pleased you want to do this, since I asked for it on p. 7, 2nd paragraph. All emphases will be added. The battle can finally be joined. Amen!

St. Ignatius (d.c.110)

1) Denominationalism:

"It is, therefore, advantageous for you to be in perfect unity, in order that you may always have a share in God." (Eph., 4,2)

"Let there be nothing among you which is capable of dividing you . . ." (Mag., 6,2)

"Flee from divisions, as the beginnings of evils." (Sm., 8,1)

"Focus on unity, for there is nothing better." (Pol., 1,2)

"If anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Ph., 3,3)

2) Bishops:

"Whoever does anything without bishop and presbytery and deacons does not have a clean conscience." (Tr., 7,2)

"You must all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father . . ." (Sm., 8,1)

"Cling inseparably to Jesus Christ and to the bishop . . ." (Tr., 7,1)

"Let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters as God's council and as the band of the apostles. Without these no group can be called a church." (Tr., 3,1)

"It is good to acknowledge God and the bishop. The one who honors the bishop has been honored by God; the one who does anything without the bishop's knowledge serves the devil." (Sm., 9,1)

"It is obvious, therefore, that we must regard the bishop as the Lord himself." (Eph., 6,1)

3) Real Presence:

"I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ." (Rom., 7,3)

"Participate in one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup which leads to unity through his blood. . .)." (Ph., 4,1)

"They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." (Sm., 6,2).

4) Vicarious Atonement (A Species of Penance):

"I am a humble sacrifice for you." (Eph., 8,1)

"Grant me nothing more than to be poured out as an offering to God while there is still an altar ready." (Rom., 2,2)

". . . I might prove to be a sacrifice to God." (Rom., 4,2)

"May my spirit be a ransom on your behalf." (Sm., 10,2)

"May I be a ransom on your behalf in every respect." (Pol., 2,3)

5) Justification:

"Those who profess to be Christ's will be recognized by their actions. For the Work is not a matter of what one promises now, but of perseveringto the end in the power of faith" (Eph., 14,2)

6) Infallibility:

"The Lord accepted the ointment upon his head for this reason: that he might breath incorruptibility upon the church." (Eph., 17,1)

St. Irenaeus (c.130-c.200)

1) Sola Scriptura / Tradition: see my Sola Scriptura treatise, pp.19-20.

[since James made a great fuss about my not immediately providing him with my manuscripts, I will now cut-and-paste from the cited sections]

"The Church . . . has received from the Apostles and from their disciples the faith." {Against the Herestics, 1,10,1}

"The Church, having received this preaching and this faith . . . guarded it . . . She likewise believes these things . . . and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth . . . the authority of the tradition is one and the same." {Ibid., 1,10,2}

"Every Church throughout the whole world has received this tradition from the Apostles." {Ibid., 2,9,1}

"Polycarp . . . was instructed . . . by the Apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ . . . He always taught those things which he had learned from the Apostles, and which the Church had handed down, and which are true." {Ibid., 3,3,4}

"The true gnosis is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world . . . and the very complete tradition of the Scriptures." {Ibid., 4,33,8}

2) Real Presence:

"The bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of (the) Lord, and the cup His Blood." {Ibid., 4,18,4 / cf. 4,18,5; 4,33,2}

3) Justification: see my Sola Fide treatise, p.42.

"[Paul], an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown, and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle, and which does not grow on us spontaneously. And because it comes to us in a struggle, it is therefore the more precious." {Ibid., 4,37,7}

4) Penance:

Ott cites his mention of backsliders re-accepted after public confession and penance {Ibid., 1,6,3; 1,13,5; 4,40,1).

5) The Blessed Virgin Mary:

"Mary . . . by obeying, became the cause of salvation both for herself and the whole human race . . . What the virgin Eve had tied up by unbelief, this the virgin Mary loosened by faith." {Ibid., 3,21,10}

6) The Preeminence of the Church of Rome (i.e., Catholicism): see "Papacy & Infallibility" treatise, p.53.

". . . Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church . . . the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

"The blessed Apostles, having founded and built up the Church, they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate . . .

"In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith." {Ibid., 3,1,1; 3,3,2-3}

St. Athanasius (c.296-373)

1) Real Presence:

"After the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ." {Sermon to the Newly Baptized}

2) Justification (Arminianism): see Sola Fide Treatise, p.44.

"Since we are sons and gods because of the Word in us, so also, because of the Spirit's being in us, - the Spirit who is in the Word which is in the Father, - we shall be in the Son and in the Father . . .

"Therefore, when someone falls from the Spirit through any wickedness - that grace indeed remains irrevocably with those who are willing to repent after such a fall. Otherwise, the one who has fallen is no longer in God, because that Holy Spirit and Advocate who is in God has deserted him." {Discourses Against the Arians, 3,25}

3) The Papacy: see Papacy Treatise, p.34 (by strong implication).

[St. Athanasius repeatedly aligned himself with the Roman See in his struggles for orthodoxy and against heretical rulers in the East]

I rest my case. Is this a "fine" enough "brush" for you? St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus each fail six of your litmus tests for bona fide Christianity, and St. Athanasius three. All this was found in my limited patristic resources (Lightfoot and Jurgens - I may get the whole set for $300 from CBD one day). This enterprise is so patently unnecessary as to be almost absurd - so self-evident is it that the Fathers were Catholic. When will this ridiculous game of desperate Protestant pretense cease? I don't look at all kindly on historical revisionism, especially in the cause of schism. I'll be looking forward eagerly to your Protestant interpretation of the above data. Good luck! You'll need it.

I wrote much (115 pages) in 1990 against Catholicism (see Surprised by Pelagianism, pp.245-6. For me, a "research project" always involves writing). But I will not show any of this to you for two reasons: 1) you will most likely use it against me (!), and cite it as proof that I - like Newman - am wishy-washy and "unstable" because I had a sincere change of mind. I don't have the patience for that sort of tactic; 2) I don't want to further strengthen you in your various errors, especially with regard to the Fathers (my reasoning then is so similar to yours now that this is a distinct possibility). If not for these factors, and if you would just retract the insult that I wasn't Protestant, I might send some of it to you. I think you'd find it extremely interesting. I was almost your counter-ego (I re-read some of it just now). My blistering attack on the Inquisition and its implications for infallibility could have been part of your two letters, verbatim, and in my letter to Keating in early 1990, I make an extended analogy between Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses (sound familiar?).

I am enclosing my treatise on development in order to deal with that subject. You certainly understand development better than most Protestants and "Protestants," but given several of your remarks (to which I've previously made reference), I suspect you have a great distance to go to achieve a fully developed comprehension (pun intended).

I suppose Newman was dishonest with himself and others, too over the issue of papal infallibility? Not quite, James. He was what is called an "inopportunist" before the definition - one who thought that the time was not right for it. Primarily, he was opposed to the ultramontane faction. The definition was actually a triumph of the center or the moderate viewpoint, so to speak, since it limited infallibility quite a bit and gave it very specific criteria. Newman had full liberty as a Catholic to question the possible future dogma before it was defined, and in so doing, showed great courage, concern for the well-being of the Church, and integrity. In fact, I believe (I'd have to verify this) he questioned only a more sweeping definition, as proposed by the ultramontanes.

He was just as consistent and honest when he submitted (what you call a "collapse" - I used to make the same argument, by the way, after Salmon) to the definition afterwards because this is how Catholicism operates. Those are the rules of the game, and those who can't abide by them (such as Dollinger and millions of liberals today) ought to get out of the game and play another one where they can avoid being disingenuous, to put it mildly. What Newman did was no different than opposing a proposal for a change in a civil statute but then agreeing to obey it if it becomes law.

I suppose one can never make a square peg fit into a round circle, and it will always be well-nigh impossible for the "free" Protestant, with his "Christian liberty" to grasp the idea of submission to Church authority. This act is regarded as a crutch and wimpish intellectual suicide, when in actuality it is simply the common-sense realization of one's own clear limitations and the simultaneous acknowledgment of a much greater, corporate, divinely-instituted, Spirit-led Church. I've never understood how Protestants can (often slavishly) follow either their own fancies or those of their pastor, oftentimes thoroughly ignorant of, and divorced from Church history, yet excoriate Catholics for showing the same deference to the pope and the whole grand Tradition of the Church. Our view is by no means less plausible, even on the face of it. My "Papacy" paper gets into much more of this.

I referred to your "treatment" of Canon issues in your letter of 4-6-95, p.3.

I will refrain from commenting on your computer debate with Akin because it is multi-faceted and nuanced and because I am at 30 pages. Perhaps I'll take it up later at some time.

The validity of Ecumenical Councils is determined by their approval (in entirety or in part) by the pope, not my own particular preferences. Otherwise we do indeed have a certain chaos and indeterminism, as you note (the Orthodox have this very difficulty). Refer to my "Papacy" paper, pp.62-71 for a treatment of the relationship of popes and Councils.

I have a simple suggestion for you to fiqure out what Catholics are bound to believe: pick up the new Catechism. Whatever you find in there is - you can rest assured - Catholic teaching. As for the various levels of doctrinal certainty, read Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. When he describes a doctrine as "de fide," it has been infallibly defined, usually by a Council, sometimes by a pope. "How truly won\-derful" indeed. By the way, is TULIP infallible? On what grounds? And if it is, along with so many other Protestant dogmas (such as your "epistemological leaps" which I listed on p.19 above), how is your philosophical stance any less "problematic" than ours? If TULIP isn't infallible, then why did I flunk Protestantism 0101 for not espousing it? Hmmm?

Who are you to be criticizing Matatics for saying someone wasn't a Catholic, anyway? People in glass houses . . .

If Protestantism isn't man-centered, why do congregations all too frequently have one heaven of a time coping when one man - the pastor - leaves? At three of the churches with which I had ties: a Lutheran, an Assembly of God, and a non-denominational church, there occurred severe "succession crises" - twice at the latter (I took no part whatsoever in any of these civil wars, in case you're wondering). Now, why would this be, unless they were man-centered? What's the big deal about one man moving out and another moving in? All of these instances were typified by great animosity, lack of commitment among many members towards the church (with them leaving), and petty, backbiting politics. And you guys talk about us and our "sacerdotalism," etc. Also, the mentality of selecting a church based on ear-tickling doctrines (which is so easy to do in Protestantism - the spectrum runs the gamut) - is also man-centered. Pragmatism, experientialism, worldliness, antinomianism, "cheap grace," materialism, narcissism, public relations, church growth rather than individual growth in spiritual maturity - all these trends are strong.

What would you expect, though, from an outlook that made individualism supreme, even over against truth, when they conflict? All Catholic doctrines which you think detract from Christ do not at all, rightly understood. You are again the unconscious victim of the "dichotomous mentality" which Louis Bouyer talks about with such keen insight.

Funny that you chide me for noting your "mental state" when writing, after constantly accusing me of "dishonesty" and (one suspects, deliberate) "misrepresentation" of your views, and of being "scared" to debate you (I hope 36 hard-fought pages will put that one to rest once and for all).

I noted above that I don't have the (technical) materials to delve into this obsession you have with Lateran IV and persecution of heretics. But even if I did, I would not answer until you dealt with the same type of persecution within Protestantism, and what it does to your lofty claims of spiritual superiority to us (see enclosed tract on that). You've absolutely ignored this thus far (do I detect a pattern here? Might it be called . . . evasion?). As usual, the Protestant has to create a double standard when comparing the rival claims. It's okay to talk about Catholic historical shortcomings, but not Protestant ones, and conversely, it's alright to extoll the virtues of Protestantism (and there are many), but we must not note anything good about "Romanism." That's too dangerous. I agree, you don't claim infallibility, but you do claim superiority. That being the case, there is good reason to be suspicious of super-pious claims from the Deformers, when one learns about the horrible crimes committed and/or sanctioned by them.

At last! Something with which we can agree and cooperate in opposing: various Jehovah's Witnesses heretical doctrines of the Godhead. What a breath of fresh air. God's Omnipresence is denied in Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p.665:

The true God is not omnipresent, for he is spoken of as having a location. His throne is in Heaven.

Dud Rutherford even went so far as to state that

the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God. {Reconciliation, 1928, p.14}

As for "Jehovah's" body:

God is a person with a spiritual body . . . They will then see God . . . and also be like him (1 Jn 3:2). This, too, shows that God is a person, and that he has a body. {You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 1982, pp.36-7}

The bodies of spiritual persons (God, Christ, the angels) are glorious. {Aid . . ., 1971, p.247}

They deny God's omniscience as well: Aid, p.595; Watchtower, 7-15-84, pp.4-5. But they'll contradict themselves elsewhere, too, as I'm sure you're well aware.

"I'm not going to be referring people to a source they can't even read." Well now you can read it! You had to wait all of a month or so (I know how excited you are to receive my arguments, which are fatal to your position). Your comments on the "98 pages" are the hysterically funny ones, if you ask me. If you'll go back to my p.11 you'll find that I make a simple, unadorned statement of fact, i.e., that I have written extensively on the papacy, and that this will provide my answer to your arguments on that subject. There is neither pride, nor any implication that thereby the debate is "finished," as you comically reply. I merely make reference to my paper. Eight lines are obviously not "all [I] can come up with." Get real! This is the whole point: that if you want to delve into the papacy and infallibility (which is probable), you can read my paper (the longest in my book). Did you think I would keep it from you?! I'm trying to save space (and my eyes and fingers) by referring to completed works.

[Note: an abridged 293-page version of my original 750-page manuscript, entitled A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, has been accepted for publication by Basilica Press]

You, on the other hand - it must regrettably be pointed out - constantly drone on about all the people you've debated and how they were all beaten, etc., and how much you know about sola Scriptura ("a recognized expert") as, e.g., in your raving paragraph on p.8.

It could only be your apparent unfounded assumption that practically every critical comment I make is motivated by conceit, ignorance, or an intention of sophistry, that makes you construct an elaborate scenario of my mindset out of a reference (much like a footnote) to an existing paper. I belabor this minor point because I think it illustrates well the difference in how you regard me versus how I view you. I think you're sincerely misinformed and wrong about Catholicism, with a considerable bias against it which often blinds you, and that you have many (I believe unconsciously held) contradictory views.

I make no negative judgments as to your motivations, intelligence (which I have praised several times), honesty (excepting intellectual dishonesty, which I consider, again, largely unconscious anyway), or character. If it ever appears that I do, please be assured this is not my intention and interpret overly harsh words in light of this statement of belief and purpose. I try my utmost to critique your ideas, not you (and these observations can be quite scathing, as you know). You, on the other hand, indisputably question my character and competence, in terms of intellectual ability, deliberate (I believe this is your view) misrepresentation of your opinions, a supposed marked arrogance, a false charge of cowardice, and many other personal descriptions and slander which have no place in a reasoned debate. As I dealt with these elements early on I will leave it at that and plead for more detached, "scholarly" objectivity from you in the future.

You go on to assert that I am hypocritical since I supposedly avoided your argument but accuse you of the same tactic. You are again making a false analogy. I referred you to the longest chapter of my book, which you now possess on paper. This is no avoidance whatsoever; quite the contrary. If anything, it is overkill! You, conversely, did indeed "blithely dismiss my points 7 and 8" of my first letter. True, for #7 you (like me) referred me to your book for an answer, but I replied that the specific question I raised was not dealt with there (the inconsistent Protestant appeal to Councils). Since you have not answered #7 to the slightest degree in this letter, it remains unanswered, like so many other of my challenges to you. #8 was conveniently dismissed as irrelevant with, as I noted, a 14-word sentence. I clarified my intent in my last letter (p.13, top) but to no avail. It, too, awaits a real answer, and I submit that some kind of reply, however short, would be a requirement of both courtesy and a healthy, self-confident intellect (which you do possess).

You think that my query is answered by an attack on Catholic popular morals and the bad popes, and a mention of Packer's A Quest for Godliness, as if any of this has the slightest relevance to the original question #8. To parody you, I do think you have no answer, and that is indeed to my advantage in this debate, since it confirms my opinion on this matter. Yet you accuse me of hypocrisy. How many examples of this sort of thing do I have to point out to you? They are the primary reason why this letter is 36 pages! (I pray that I am near the end. I'm trying - I really am).

If you have a good patristic library and know Greek and history, all the more pathetic are your claims that the Fathers were Protestant (or perhaps "Protestant" in some cases; but I know for sure you don't consider them papists). My examples of the three fathers you brought up above are a case-in-point. I literally can't wait to see what you do with that information.

I don't know Greek, so what am I to do with your lengthy Greek quote? Stay up all night with my Englishman's Greek Concordance deciphering its literal meaning? Maybe I'll have my friend, who teaches Latin, transcribe my next letter, so you can do some similar work. Fair is fair, after all. Uh oh! St. Clement used the term elect?! Really?! Egads! Now, I'll have to rethink my whole position! This is a classic case of your Protestantism (and Calvinism in this case) blinding you to objective truth. You think that Catholics must somehow avoid and rationalize away the very word "elect" in order to prevent grave danger to our doctrine. This is sheer nonsense and foolishness, and ought to embarrass you. obviously - eklektos being a prominent NT word - it has been dealt with by Catholic scholars down through the ages, believe it or not. We don't have to ignore biblical words and entire biblical sub-strata, as Protestants constantly do.

The cogent point here is whether or not free will is wiped out by the concept of divine election, since that's the primary bone of contention, as Luther himself states. I think it is not, and St. Augustine agrees with me on that point, not you and Calvinism (I'm eagerly awaiting your reply to those quotes above, too). "St. Paul and St. Augustine and Melanchthon and Wesley and C.S. Lewis I know, but who is this White guy?"

Next (3rd par., p.15), you counter my substantive arguments of pp.13-14 with banalities, non sequiturs, a personal insult of my intelligence, and a failed attempt at humor. I await with a severely-tested patience a reasoned reply to those arguments (the list is getting longer and longer).

Oh, the tedium! Have mercy on me! And, may the Lord grant me the forbearance to answer these questions. St. Ignatius is referring to the desertion of God, not the bishop (the parallels to Eph 6:10-18 are pretty unmistakable, I think). Jurgens uses the Divine pronoun in 6:2: "Be pleasing to Him whose soldiers you are . . ." Now, I think my original point was clear enough. But that's only my opinion. Maybe it wasn't. Since the context is the use of military metaphor, as in St. Paul, desertion, it would seem to me, is a metaphor here for falling away from the faith. Since Calvinists presuppose the impossibility of this, they can only postulate that such a soldier was never really in the ranks to begin with (i.e., never among the elect). But this is clearly nonsensical and does violence to the metaphor. A soldier is a soldier. The notion of military desertion assumes that the soldier had to desert from something.

Likewise with the many scriptural admonitions warming against "falling away," etc. This is why I said, "so much for Calvinism," since St. Ignatius' word-picture seems to me to run counter to U, I, and P of TULIP. I think this is as sensible an interpretation as any. How is context "an inconvenient problem" for me here? Lacking a lucid response, you instead again resort to tired insults of my intellect, and employ a diversionary tactic of switching the subject to the papacy, whereas my point clearly had to do with justification and perseverance. But you are welcome, as always, to give me your alternate explanation. If you can't give me anything else, you're no better in this instance than the Democrats squawking about the Republican budget while offering nothing themselves. It's always pretty easy to run down the other guy's position; something else again to produce a better one.

How ironic that your next sentence contains the statement: "I've put far too much time into this already." I believe I am about to close, too, if you don't come up with anything else outrageous (hence requiring a rebuttal) in your last 1.3 pages.

I will postpone any reply to your additional materials, as I want to get this out and have to do some other things (painting, for one) before I can devote more time to that endeavor. I'd appreciate it if you don't accuse me of ignoring that stuff because I am merely putting off my reply!

I didn't make "blanket accusations against Protestant apologists" but against "anti-Catholic debaters," which is quite different and a vastly smaller fraternity. I came up with three examples, plus an unremembered individual or group. How many anti-Catholic debaters can there be? So this is justification enough, I think, for the description "widespread," referring to the "dishonesty, evasiveness, and uncharitability" (the last two being much in evidence in your letter of 5-4-95). After all, I haven't made a study of the same (as you recall, I won't even read these books), but have noted this tendency in the normal course of my studies in apologetics and reading of This Rock, etc.

I went over the "anti-Catholic" terminology bit already. If the "Catholic" debaters are separatists, then they are "anti-Protestant" in the same sense in which I use "anti-Catholic." If they are true and consistent Catholics (who accept Vatican II, including its Decree on Ecumenism), they are not "anti-Protestant," any more than ecumenical Protestants are "anti-Catholic."

I accept your version of the incident with Art Sippo (not having any other information). I can't resist adding, though, that you yourself exhibit many of the traits that so offend you with regard to Sippo. Your repeated ignoring of, and snide remarks about my arguments might be compared to "walking off the stage while I was speaking" and being "rude" and "making mocking gestures." Do you think you were very "kind and gracious" to me in your last letter? You object to him saying you are "boasting" about your own "righteousness," yet turn right around and make blanket, unqualified statements about my alleged "arrogance," call my entire letter "sophistry," and accuse me of "an inability to honestly face the issues." I've seen how you describe other Catholic apologists, too. Forgive me if I suggest a diagnosis of at least the beginning stages of log-in-the-eye-disease in your case. There is still time to get cured.

I disagree with you about the "Lord's Prayer" incident. I don't accept your first reason. I think, rather, that communion requires, and is the sign of, unity, and don't think any pretense is involved here. But then, again I am an ecumenist and you're not. I would hesitate only in praying with someone who was invoking an entirely different God or some lesser entity, as in eastern religion. I guess that's how you see Catholics, so, given this premise, I suppose you couldn't pray with them. Your third objection is legalistic and proves too much (do you object to invocations at graduations and in the Senate, and grace at family reunions, too?). But I'll grant you the consistency of your convictions, even though, at bottom, I find the premises and attitude reprehensible, as I do anti-Catholicism in general.

I don't know what to make of your interpretation of the Madrid debate. Perhaps there was a subjective misinterpretation on his part as to your willingness to shake hands. I even considered that possibility when reading the account. This is a plausible enough scenario, all things being equal. But knowing Pat a little bit, and your reasoning and general negative attitude towards Catholic apologists pretty well by now, I would have to defer to his account if all the evidence I have is your word versus his. One thing I'm absolutely sure of: he is not the compulsive liar and buffoon you make him out to be, with your "20 pages of small-print, triple-column text" (to refute his errors) remark concerning his article. This is a very low blow, and, having experienced your venom towards myself, I would not be at all surprised if much of your objection consists of non sequiturs there as well.

Sure, I'll listen to your debate, but I fully expect to find exactly what was described by Madrid and Akin because I've observed how you often ignore or irrationally misunderstand my challenges and how Protestants in general have a massive blind spot with regard to sola Scriptura, and, indeed, almost all of their serious deficiencies (a fish doesn't know it's in water, either). I also watched Dave Hunt make an ass of himself in "debate." He wrote to me and said he didn't have to quote the Fathers to show what the early Church was like, but only the Bible!!!!!

I will ignore your cheap shots at my honesty (twice), courage, and scholarly abilities. I told you who Gary Michuta is, so your remarks about him are plain silly. Why should you care what Catholic you debate if we're all idiots, idolaters, Pelagians, and fools, anyway?

You also completely ignored my arguments about Wycliffe and Hus on pp.14-15. I'll accept in good faith your word on p.15: "There is more I'd like to get to . . ." and assume that you do have some sort of answer to this contention of mine as well as the twenty or so other unanswered ones to be dealt with, and will respond in due course.

You are also silent with reference to my question concerning why you felt compelled to send your letter and mine to Eric Pement. Why bother? Very few are answering anyway (which fits into my stated theory as to why Protestants will not correspond with Catholics or talk seriously with them - because of the bankruptcy of their case). Morey sent a form for possible debaters which is to be considered by his board (no personal letter). Wessels sent a friendly, preliminary note, saying he might want to do something in the future. One more said he was too busy right now (he didn't seem anti-Catholic). Other than that, zilch. Par for the course.

In Christ & His Church, with Scripture & Tradition, Faith that Works, Grace & Sacraments, Mary & the Saints, Penance & Purgatory, Pope & Bishops, Peace & Truth, Love & Mercy,

Dave Armstrong

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11-10-95

Dave Armstrong

"Catholic Apologist and Free-Lance Writer"

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

I am in receipt of yet another of your letters [I couldn't locate these in my files, but as I recall I did become overly-agitated by White's continual refusal to respond] designed to distract and goad me into investing time in answering your letter of 5-15-95. I confess, you have me. I have never figured out how to answer letters that are filled with whining, crying, complaining, and general substanceless meandering. And sadly, I can't suggest anyone else who would be willing to invest their time in responding to such materials, either. Most folks I know are too busy doing constructive things with their lives. Personally, I'm busy teaching for Golden Gate and Grand Canyon, writing a book on Roman Catholicism for one of the largest Christian publishers in the U.S., and producing chapters like the one I am attaching for you that will appear in the upcoming Soli Deo Gloria publication on sola scriptura, along with chapters by John MacArthur, John Gerstner, and R.C. Sproul. My travels will soon be taking me to British Columbia, and hopefully, to New York to debate Gerry Matatics yet once again, sometime early next year. So, Dave, I'm sorry to have to inform you that I have far more pressing issues to address than your letter and its extensive flights in illogic and personal attack. I hope you enjoy the chapter.

Sincerely,

James White

Go to Part One

Uploaded from the 1995 snail-mail debates by Dave Armstrong on 4 February 2000, with express permission from James White.

How on Earth Can Christians Vote For Pro-Abortion Candidates?

The following is derived from letters and dialogues I had with Catholic Democrats:

How can a "faithful Catholic" (or a faithful orthodox Protestant who accepts the historic Protestant doctrines and moral teachings) vote for a politician who sanctions the practice of sticking scissors in the neck of a full-term baby and sucking its brains out (let alone abortion in general)? That's not even including things like homosexual "marriage," radical feminism, fetal
experimentation, assisted suicide, and suchlike.

They can try to separate their vote from the responsibility of the promulgation of abortion, but I just don't buy it. Our choices have consequences. Legal abortion arrived in the first place in large part because the Catholic Church was weak. The dissidents were already attacking the ban
on contraception, heroically reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae in 1968. Contraception was legally crucial as the groundwork for Roe (the Griswold case). It paved the way, very directly. So the time was ripe.

Catholics vote for pro-abortion politicians and this allows abortion to continue. This is contrary to Church teaching. Such voters participate in a causal sense in promoting abortion if they vote in men and women who believe that it should be legal. It is an outrage. It seems to me the only way they can possibly defend this is to separate their vote for a Democrat from the causal factor of how this
might perpetuate the status quo of Roe v. Wade. And I think that will be an uphill battle (to put it mildly).

One must flat-out deny what the Catholic Church teaches in order to make the assertion that one can be a "good Catholic" and also a card-carrying Democrat today, given the morally-troublesome Democratic platform and advocacy of various immoral issues. This is why I maintain that it is impossible to synthesize the two at present (it wasn't always so - before legal abortion).

I agree that the Democrats have traditionally had a more fruitful social conscience. They were in the forefront of the fight for racial equality and justice (though more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964; Al Gore's father, e.g., voted against it, along
with many Southern segregationalist Democrats). They brought us social security, Medicare, and praiseworthy programs for first-time home buyers, etc. which are social goods. But that was then; now they are a force for child-killing, homosexual rights (i.e., preferential treatment), radical
feminism, assisted suicide, etc.

This is the sad state of affairs that we live in today. Now we have serious debates about whether the brutal, savage slaughter of a full-term baby about to be born should moral and legally permissible. It's almost beyond belief. I can't even comprehend this level of moral lunacy
and outrageous injustice anymore. Yet we went into a lengthy national mourning after 9-11, which (horrible as
it was) caused less deaths than a day's work in an abortion clinic. And at least those people had some sort of life before they were killed, and some chance to escape (however slight, in many cases). The baby about to be ripped to shreds has neither.

In presidential elections, it has been clear for years now that the Democrat has to favor legal abortion to run at all. So no Catholic or pro-life non-Catholic Christian can vote for such a person. It can't be justified, just as we now condemn anyone who voted for Hitler (who only
killed 6 million, compared to the 50 million legal abortions in the US in 30 years). I think this is morally and ethically obvious.

I think it all comes down to the willingness (conscious or otherwise) to separate public and private morality; personal and civic virtue. That's what brought us abortion, the sexual revolution, and also the schizophrenic nonsense of being so-called "pro-choice" (i.e., "personally opposed" to abortion, but willing to allow it to continue legally).

This derives historically, I would argue, from elements of the Renaissance, the so-called Enlightenment, English Deism and rationalism, and onto more modern forms of secularist philosophy and thought (liberalism, Marxism, libertarianism, legal positivism, humanism, pragmatism, et al). They all separated things such as faith and reason, private and public morality, Christ and culture, church and state, etc. And these strains of thought have deeply penetrated into the American psyche, if not all of the western world.

That bizarre inconsistency is the foundation for millions of professed Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike) voting for people whose principles are diametrically opposed to Christianity; in fact they are often outright espousals of rank paganism and blatantly utilitarian,
even at times nihilistic, ethics. Ignorance of one's own supposed religious beliefs doesn't help, either, of course.

I have lambasted Republicans also on my website. But I continue to say that a Catholic in good standing cannot possibly defend a vote for a pro-abort. I have voted for pro-life Democrats in local races, and will not vote for any pro-abort Republican. Abortion is the morally-defining issue of this generation. It is immediately morally schizophrenic to vote for a guy like Kerry, whereas one can vote for Bush without violating any Catholic precept.

It is largely a failure of consistent thinking, and of molding one's outlook in harmony with the "mind of the Church." One's view of culture and politics (indeed, all of life) must be synthesized with their religious worldview. That's what it means to be a disciple of Christ: everything (that includes politics and government) comes under His Lordship. But if someone is informed of, say,
partial-birth abortion and continues to vote for the guy who upholds it, what do we conclude then? Is there not some sin in that?

A position which is the moral equivalent of Naziism is neither respectable, nor arguable in "polite circles." Many
pro-lifers act as though a person can be both "respectable" and "honorable" and a pro-abort.

We don't regard the Nazis in that fashion; we loathe them because they were for wanton massacre. Yet many conservatives (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) express such admiration for, say, Colin Powell, as a "great man," even though he is a pro-abort. More schizophrenia. We must qualify his "greatness"; we can say he was a great general. But a "great man"? Not if we are pro-lifers . . . .

I am not seeking to judge any person's heart or soul. I am addressing hypocrisy and moral schizophrenia, just as Jesus did, particularly with the Pharisees. I haven't yet found a Catholic Democrat who put up any sort of reasoned defense for why they vote the way they do (particularly regarding abortion). I either get nothing, theological liberalism, or a pack of propaganda-induced lies about both the nature and motivation of Republicans and Conservatives. It gets very frustrating.

When people vote for politicians who favor abortion, they are a party to that outrageous crime. They don't get off by taking the libertarian route and simply saying that they personally oppose abortion. 4000 babies die every day. Al Gore and Richard Gephardt were pro-life at one time; so was Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson. They all caved because any Democrat running for President, or hoping to, has to be in favor of child-killing. This is the party that Christians want to support (God help us)? It can't be justified from a Catholic or a conservative Protestant standpoint. Christianity is about love and compassion and putting the
little guy first: not about butchering defenseless babies. A Catholic cannot vote for a politician who supports abortion. He just can't do it. he have to choose between his Church and his political party, I'm afraid, on this issue.

And that is, of course, exactly what many Catholics do: they are much more "American" and "Democrat" and "liberal" than they are Catholic. And so they will ditch those teachings of the Church that they don't care for, such as the ban on contraception, the immorality of fornication, and of abortion. It always seems to be the sexual issues, for some strange reason.

Jesus tells us to protect the innocent. And that is why a Catholic or any sort of Christian who believes in the inspiration of the Bible cannot vote for people who sanction the slaughter of children. I've always opposed racism and prejudice and the oppression and exploitation of the poor, as a political conservative (generally-speaking); so-called "liberals" and mainstream Democrats should oppose child-killing as political liberals, since liberalism historically was in favor of the little guy and the oppressed and exploited. This is the inconsistency in the Democratic Catholic position (insofar as the person votes for a pro-abortion candidate).

The Democrats are no longer the party of JFK or FDR, because advocating abortion is not helping the "little guy" and the oppressed. It's one thing to advocate social reform along more traditionally liberal or left-leaning lines (New Deal, Great Society, unions, civil rights, equality
for women and minorities, health care provisions, social security and Medicare, etc. -- much of which is very good and consistent with Catholic social teaching); quite another to adopt wholesale radical moral teachings that contradict Christianity, as formerly understood by both liberals and conservatives.

Malcolm X was a greater revolutionary than Dr. Martin Luther King, because he stressed personal behavior and ethics as well as social reform, which the latter almost solely concentrated on. I think Rev. King (much as I immensely admire the man) should have publically taught much more biblical personal morality, but that was a function, I think, of the separation of "social gospel" from personal righteousness, which unfortunately occurred in Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant).

The theological liberals (who tended to be politically liberal) emphasized the social and institutional, while conservatives (who tended to be politically conservative as well) emphasized individual traditional Christian morals and the family. The Catholic Church brings both impulses together and refuses to separate them. That's why I consider it a "third way" -- distinct from both political
parties, which have become polarized in such an unnecessary manner, and mostly secularized, too.

Poll on Topics to Discuss (Come Vote!)

Hello to all,

I've been trying to generate significantly more discussion on this blog, and not succeeding very well lately . I thought the Civil War posts would do it for sure, but they haven't provoked many comments. My next post will be on politics and abortion. :-)

I guess I was "spoiled" early on by the 60 responses to a post about contraception and thought it would be fairly easy to get those numbers again. Perhaps it is partially due to Lent. Numbers of visitors are slowly increasing but comments have been decreasing.

So I am very curious what my visitors would like to discuss. My goal is to have dialogue and discussion here, not just put up papers (which I could do on my website already). Please tell me what interests you, and what would cause you to post replies. What topics are you working through, or what would you like to learn more about? Or which do you feel strongly about and wish to defend against those who would challenge your opinion?

I thought that if each person who replies to this listed up to five choices, then I could add up the tally and post stuff about the topics with the highest figures ( I would give 5 points to #1 choices, 4, for #2, etc.).

So come vote today! Thanks!

Slavery as America's Original Sin & Root Cause of the Civil War (Expanded)

My esteemed friend (and Southerner) Rod Bennett wrote:

[T]he issue of slavery brought the matter to a head…but was not, in and of itself, the basis of the conflict. That basis, or underlying cause, was already present 250 years earlier – right from the start at Plymouth (Massachusetts) and Jamestown (Virginia).

I would disagree with this, because it reduces to the same thing. It is a distinction without a difference. If we ask what was the major issue that divided the states (at least by the time of the Declaration of Independence and the drafting of the Constitution), it was clearly slavery.

That's why I say that this is America's "original sin." It was wrong and could not be justified, and the South's greatest minds, figures, and influences (Washington, Jefferson, Madison) knew this. It created what must have been tremendous cognitive dissonance.

The North, of course, was equally to blame, because it tolerated the institution, traded with the South for goods that were a result of it, passed fugitive slave laws, etc. And it goes without saying that the people in the North were every bit as much racist as Southerners were -- if not even more so (then and now).

So this is not a "moral superiority of the North" tract; it is simply an analysis of American history with Christian ethics brought to bear. There is plenty of blame to go around. The North is much more morally bankrupt with regard to the leading moral issue of our time: abortion. And soldiers from North and South participated in the near-extermination of Native Americans from 1865-1890 (or at least the extermination of their culture and dignity, if not all of the people).

What I find curious is: why, if Rod is correct about slavery being only a precipitating but not underlying cause of the Civil War, did the seceding states place it front and center in giving their reasons for secession?

For example, the Georgia statement concedes that "The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution." So even when referring back to the colonial period, slavery is right in the middle of the debate over federalism and the new constitutional republic.

The Mississippi declaration states:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery . . . a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

And the Texas declaration made very clear what it was opposing in seceding from the union:

. . . an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, [Northerners were] proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.

Now, if the problems were much deeper than this, and slavery was only on the surface, why were these declarations written in this manner, where slavery almost completely dominates the grievances?

The great ambivalence and guilt which the South's greatest statesmen felt over slavery is apparent in a text from Thomas Jefferson which was removed from the final draft of the Declaration of Independence. He stated that King George II had:

. . . waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation hither. The piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain, determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold. He had prostituted his negative [veto power] for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce . . . he is now exciting these very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them by destroying those people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Historian Page Smith, author of an eight-volume history of America, comments:

This effort to indict George III for the misery of slavery was surely one of the most exaggerated efforts in the history of political rhetoric . . . the king had aided and abetted, indeed had ruthlessly foisted slavery upon the defenseless Americans . . .

It should not take a trained psychologist to discern in this mistaken indictment the strength of Jefferson's feelings about slavery. What we cannot bear to face ourselves, we are most prone to blame on others. Jefferson's fear and horror are only too clearly manifest in these sentences . . . thus the paradox of a people claiming their rights as free men while holding other human beings as slaves might be obscured or somehow palliated . . .

But Congress would not buy a denunciation of slavery for a moment. Those delegates who were opposed to slavery felt the passage smelled of hypocrisy -- not Jefferson's, but Congress's. Those who were disposed to defend the institution felt personally impugned by Jefferson's attack on it. In short, it upset nearly everyone, making them either embarrassed, uncomfortable, indignant, or guilty; some of the delegates felt all of those unpleasant emotions . . . and Jefferson was certainly not the only Southerner whose deepest feelings were reflected in it.

(A New Age Now Begins, Vol. I, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1976, 704-705)

Historian Forrest McDonald, in a book about the Constitution, wrote, concerning slavery:

Some Americans expressed concern about the matter. No small number of Virginia slaveholders, including Jefferson, Madison, and George Mason, agonized over it, though few made serious efforts to free their own slaves . . . Mason's remarks in the Constitutional Convention were almost repetitive of Jefferson's observations in his Notes on Virginia . . .

". . . Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this . . . providence punishes national sins, by national calamities."

[Footnote 53: . . . "Madison's difficulties in reconciling theory with the reality of slavery were clearly heartfelt. See his June 19 statement . . . 'Where slavery exists, the Republican Theory becomes still more fallacious.' "]

[Dave: Mason sounds downright Lincolnesque . . . ]

(Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1985, 50)

James Madison nevertheless indulges in moral absurdities in his Federalist Paper No. 54, justifying the notion of slaves as 3/5 of a person legally and population-wise:

In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another -- the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property . . .

The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live . . .

Such is the reasoning which an advocate for the Southern interests might employ on this subject; and although it may appear to be a little strained in some points, yet on the whole, I must confess that it fully reconciles me to the scale of representation which the convention have established.

(The Federalist Papers, New York: New American Library, 1961, 337, 340)

The self-contradiction in the "orthodox" Southern position prior to the Civil War is still evident in an essay by a Southerner in 1930, from the famous compilation of twelve Southern writers, I'll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition (New York: Harper Torchbooks; reprinted 1962):

For ten years the South, already ruined by the loss of nearly $2,000,000,000 invested in slaves, with its lands worthless, its cattle and stock gone, its houses burned, was turned over to the three millions of former slaves, some of whom could still remember the taste of human flesh and the bulk of them hardly three generations removed from cannibalism. These half-savage blacks were armed . . .

(Frank Lawrence Owsley, "The Irrepressible Conflict," 62)

Yet Owsley states eleven pages later (p. 73): "Slavery, as we shall see, was part of the agrarian system, but only one element and not an essential one."

Why, then (back to my earlier argument), do the statements of secession read the way they do? There the overwhelming concern is the potential horrific equality of the races as a central platform of Lincoln and the Republican Party, and the loss of $3 to $4 billion dollars worth of slave property. Hence, Owsley states:

The irrepressible conflict, then, was not between slavery and freedom, but between the industrial and commercial civilization of the North and the agrarian civilization of the South. (p. 74)

It was no essential part of the agrarian civilization of the South -- though the Southerners under attack assumed that it was. (p. 76)

But this reasoning breaks down, too, once we realize that this agrarian society was based on slavery and free labor (to the tune of $2-4 billion, depending on whose figures we accept). Without that slave labor, all the wealth produced for the rich plantation owners would obviously be much less (just as corporate profits today would be much less without cheap overseas labor -- some literally in slave camps, as in China).

Any way you look at it, the system rested upon slavery and free labor acquired therein. Otherwise, how could the South be "ruined", according to Owsley, because it lost $2 billion worth of property (i.e., the human property of slaves), yet slavery at the same time was "no essential part" of the economy? That makes no sense. Elsewhere, he freely admits the financial goldmine:

[T]he invention of the cotton gin and the opening of the cotton lands in the Southwest, 1810-36, made the negro slave an economic instrument of great advantage. With the aid of the fresh cheap lands and the negro slave vast fortunes were made in a few years. Both North and South having now conceded that emancipation was impossible, the Southern planters made the most of their new cotton kingdom with a fairly easy conscience. They had considered emancipation honestly and fairly and had found it out of the question. Their skirts were clear. Let the blood of slavery rest upon the heads of those who had forced it upon the South. (p. 78)

Owsley also adopts the same silly, self-serving reasoning that Jefferson tried to include in the Declaration:

Slavery had been practically forced upon the country by England -- over the protest of colonial assemblies. (p. 77)

So England forced America to be slaveholders and the North forced the South to do so also so plantation owners could make a fortune. Yeah, right.

Negroes had come into the Southern Colonies in such numbers that people feared for the integrity of the white race. For the negroes were cannibals and barbarians, and therefore dangerous. (p. 77)

If this weren't enough justification, then Owsley gives us the coup de grace:

. . . slavery as a moral issue is too simple an explanation . . . as one of the many contributing causes of war it needs an explanation which the North has never grasped -- in fact, never can grasp until the negro race covers the North as thickly as it does the lower South. (p. 68)

Be that as it may, Owsley virtually clinches my case for me when he states:

. . . had there not been slavery as an added difference between the agrarian South and industrial North, the two sections would have developed each its own political philosophy to explain and justify its institutions and demands upon the federal government. (p. 84)

If indeed slavery wasn't the central or "essential" issue, then the South should have done what General Longstreet (who later converted to Catholicism) said: it should have freed the slaves before seceding. Then the righteousness of its cause would have been far more defensible, since it wouldn't have been guilty of fighting for states' sovereignty and freedom while upholding slavery, just as the American revolutionaries had been guilty of the moral absurdity of fighting for freedom from colonialism while sanctioning slavery in the Constitution.

I concede that the South had a legal right to secede, every bit as much as America did to secede from the British Empire (that's not my issue). But in both cases, the "cause" was shot-through with a huge moral (not legal) self-contradiction: slavery. The American experiment was thoroughly flawed from its outset: slavery was the original sin.

The American flag represents slavery far more than the Confederate flag does (as black economist Walter Williams points out), because it flew over a nation of legal slavery for 89 years. Therefore, slavery is not a "Southern" flaw; it is an early American flaw that we all share, to our shame (in terms of history and heritage).

Pre-union exploitation of labor in the North and the sad history of subsequent race relations show us, I think, the root of the evils of slavery: cheap labor, racism, and class prejudice. Again, the South had no lock on these faults: it was a nationwide epidemic.

Today we face an evil exponentially greater than slavery ever was: child-killing. At least black slaves were allowed to live, by and large, and they were fed and housed; at least Indians had some length of life before it was snuffed out, and (in many cases) could defend themselves and their homelands.

Now, the greatest crime is to be in one's mother's womb. Preborn children are defined out of the sphere of the human race and legal rights. The Nazis killed 6 million Jews and perhaps 3-4 million more Gentiles in their camps. Stalin starved 10 million Ukrainians. That's a Sunday picnic compared to America's outrageous evils: we have "legally" slaughtered some 47 million babies. Hitler and Stalin murdered because of ethnic background; we murder simply because a human soul and body dares to come into existence apart from the God-like will and sexual and financial conveniences of one or both parents.

How far we have progressed . . . so some Northerners (and "good liberal" Southerners) want to look down their noses on Southerners for a fault that took place 139 or more years ago, while this abominable butchery takes place every day, day in and day out? Talk about beams in one's own eye . . .

Basic Tenets of Leftist Fundamentalism

This comes courtesy of a forward from my friend Jared Olar; it was written by one Steven Plaut:

-- The Catechism Of Politically Correct Progessive Fundamentalism (PCP-ism)

November 19, 2003: I would like to most strongly suggest that we all STOP referring to the cult of leftism as if it were some sort of political ideology. I insist that from now on we all should refer to it as leftist fundamentalism. After all today's leftist belief system is a really a theology and not a political ideology.

So to get you into the swing of things -- having consulted with the cream of left-wing theologians in such bastions of leftist belief as Harvard, Stanford and the London School Economics -- I proudly present to you The Canon of Basic Tenets of Leftist Fundamentalism.

If you truly wish to convert to being a politically correct progressive (PCP), here is a list of the most important principles of PCP theology. Try to remember them all -- even if this requires an act of faith rather than reason -- so that you too can be a caring and open-hearted individual faster than you can say "race, gender, class" (the PCP Trinity):

1. The transformation of Cuba from Latin America`s wealthiest country into its poorest does not mean that socialism does not work.

2. The transformation of Russia from the world`s largest food exporter, before communism, to the world`s largest food importer, during communism, does not show that socialism does not work.

3. Comparing East Germany (before unification) with West Germany, or North Korea with South Korea, one cannot conclude that capitalism works and socialism does not.

4. The fact that Marx was wrong about every empirically-testable hypothesis does not mean that Marxism is wrong.

5. The fact that Marxism caused a conservatively-estimated 100 million deaths in the 20th century does not mean that Marxism is bad or a failure.

6. Those 100 million deaths notwithstanding, Marxists care about people.

7. Conservatives hate all people and small animals.

8. The fact that socialized medicine does not work anywhere does not mean that it would not work in America.

9. The fact that the green lobby was screaming just a few years back about global cooling (and sometimes still does) is no reason why its warnings about global warming should be regarded with skepticism.

10. The fact that black Americans live better on average than white people in Europe or Japanese people in Japan does not disprove the charge that black Americans are the most oppressed and impoverished people in the world.

11. If one country is rich and another poor, it must be because the rich one stole all the wealth away from the poor one.

12. Most Arabs are interested in peace, even though they prefer war.

13. National Public Radio is objective.

14. The New York Times is not liberal

15. Native Americans and Eskimos have always spent their days worrying about the environment.

16. All Christians are racists.

17. All Jews are racists.

18. Moslems can never be racists.

19. Blacks can never be racists.

20. Mowing your lawn and using insecticides is murder; partial-birth abortion is not.

21. Poverty is caused by low self-esteem.

22. Poor school performance is caused by low self-esteem.

23. Low self-esteem is caused by white, male capitalists.

24. The fact that Asian Americans make more money and are better educated than American whites does not disprove the claim that America is a racist country in which only whites can succeed.

25. If there are proportionately more blacks in prison than whites, it is because the courts and police are racist (and not because blacks commit more crimes).

26. Hollywood actors are more sensitive and caring individuals than the rest of us.

27. White, male corporate executives are all selfish, scheming, greedy polluters.

28. Workers in poor countries would be better off if all the overseas corporations were kicked out (even though the massive loss of jobs would mean they would no longer be workers).

29. Mentally ill people are better off on the streets than in psychiatric institutions.

30. Marching against AIDS helps prevent AIDS

31. Leftism is an ideology rather than a theology or a personality disorder.

[Dave Armstrong adds one more:

32. John Kerry is not a "liberal" because, you see, "labels" are not helpful at all in advancing the political debate. If he must be "labelled" at all (SIGH -- what an ignorant populace to absurdly desire category labels in the first place . . .), he is a "centrist" and "mainstream" politician, whereas President Bush is "extreme right."]

So you see, practicing the theology of PCP is easy -- just repeat three or four of the above assertions every day before breakfast, and you too will soon be a caring, compassionate, progressive humane person!

Steven Plaut
The Iconoclast

The Real Diet of Augsburg (1530)

From my review of the movie Luther:

The movie ended with the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 between Protestants and Catholics, and the Protestant "triumph" -- as their "case" was allowed to be presented (announced on the hilltops by jubilant Protestants to the surprised Luther). Then writing appears on the screen to the effect that these momentous events heralded a huge step forward for the cause of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

If the stereotypes of the movie are to be believed, the Protestant princes and other representatives were (to a man), noble, selfless, sincere, committed Christians who simply wanted to worship in peace and to read their Bibles in German without harassment. The Catholics, represented in the scene primarily by Emperor Charles V, only wanted (as the myth would have it) to suppress the Bible, so that no one would see the self-evident biblical truth that Catholicism was false.

The reality, was, of course, far more interesting and complex. Protestant historian Philip Schaff
(the very definition of a "biased but fair-minded person") wrote in his History of the Christian Church:

The Emperor stood by the Pope and the Edict of Worms, but was more moderate than his fanatical surroundings, and treated the Lutherans during the Diet with courteous consideration, while he refused to give the Zwinglians even a hearing. The Lutherans on their part praised him beyond his merits, and were deceived into false hopes; while they would have nothing to do with the Swiss and Strassburgers, although they agreed with them in fourteen out of fifteen articles of faith . . .

Margrave George of Brandenburg declared that he would rather lose his head than deny God. The Emperor replied: 'Dear prince, not head off, not head off' . . .

The only blot on the fame of the Lutheran confessors of Augsburg is their intolerant conduct towards the Reformed, which weakened their own cause. The four German cities which sympathized with the Zwinglian view on the Lord's Supper wished to sign the Confession, with the exception of the tenth article, which rejects their view; but they were excluded, and forced to hand in a separate confession of faith.

Catholic historian Warren Carroll described the proceedings and the lack of tolerance in the Lutheran party:

Early in July the bishops presented their complaints to the Diet of the plundering and destruction of churches, seizure of monasteries and hospitals, prohibition of Masses, and attacks on religious processions by the Protestants. When Charles called upon the Protestants to restore the property they had seized, they said that to do so would be against their consciences. Charles responded crushingly: 'The Word of God, the Gospel, and every law civil and canonical, forbid a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.' He said that as Emperor he had the duty of guarding the rights of all, especially those Catholics unwilling to accept Protestantism or go into exile, who should at least be allowed to remain in their homes and practice their ancestral faith, specifically the Mass; the Protestants replied that they would not tolerate the Mass . . .

By July it was clear that on matters of doctrine the Lutherans at Augsburg were dissimulating, concealing their real beliefs in the hope of avoiding a final breach without making genuine concessions. On July 6 Melanchthon made the incredible statement:

We have no dogmas which differ from the Roman Church . . . We reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome, and are prepared to remain in allegiance to the Church if only the Pope does not repudiate us.

As it happened, on the very same day Luther, in an exposition on the Second Psalm addressed to Archbishop Albert of Mainz, declared:

Remember that you are not dealing with human beings when you have affairs with the Pope and his crew, but with veritable devils! . . .

On the 13th [of July] Luther announced from Coburg that the Protestants would never tolerate the Mass, which he called blasphemous, and said of the Emperor:

We know that he is in error and that he is striving against the Gospel . . . He does not conform to God's Word and we do . . .

Luther stated in a letter to Melanchthon Agust 26:

This talk of compromise . . . is a scandal to God . . . I am thoroughly displeased with this negotiating concerning union in doctrine, since it is utterly impossible unless the Pope wishes to take away his power.

In subsequent letters he declared that no religious settlement was possible as long as the Pope remained and the Mass was unchanged . . .

Luther prepared the final Protestant answer:

The Augsburg Confession must endure, as the true and unadulterated Word of God, until the great Judgment Day . . . Not even an angel from Heaven could alter a syllable of it, and any angel who dared to do so must be accursed and damned . . . The stipulations made that monks and nuns still dwelling in their cloisters should not be expelled, and that the Mass should not be abolished, could not be accepted; for whoever acts against his conscience simply paves his way to Hell. The monastic life and the Mass covered with infamous ignominy the merit and suffering of Christ. Of all the horrors and abominations that could be mentioned, the Mass was the greatest.

. . . no Catholic of spirit and courage could be expected, let alone morally required, to give up all his religious rights without a struggle; and few Protestants, at this point, would allow Catholics to exercise those rights if the Protestants were strong enough to deny them. These were the irreconcilable positions taken by the two sides at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, which made those long and bloody years of conflict inevitable.

(The Cleaving of Christendom; from the series, A History of Christendom, Volume 4, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, 103-107)

So we see that this supposedly wonderful newfound "tolerance" and freedom of worship among
the early Protestants was shot through with hypocrisy. The Lutherans were obviously courting the Catholic Emperor's favor (putting politics above principle to some extent), whereas they would have "nothing to do" with their fellow Protestants, the Swiss and Strassburg theologians, even though they disagreed on one article of fifteen; and the Zwinglians wouldn't sign the confession because of dissent on one article. They held to a symbolic view of the Eucharist (identical to the view of the majority of evangelical Christians today).

And of course, at the same time or shortly thereafter, Luther and Melanchthon and the Zwinglians and Calvinists were executing Anabaptists (who weren't allowed to speak at all at the Diet of Augsburg) because they believed in adult baptism (like today's Baptists), and forbidding religious freedom to Catholics. Catholics were required to give up their belief in the authority of the pope and their central religious rite, the Mass; Catholic properties which were stolen and plundered would not be returned, in the name of "conscience," while the Augsburg Conession is an oracle from God; indeed the veritable "Word of God" itself, practically divinely inspired in every syllable (according to Quasi-Prophet Luther).

This is "tolerance" and "religious freedom"? How does one "negotiate" with such people, who consider every utterance in their statements inspired and infallible and their opponents "devils" who engage in "blasphemy" every Sunday when they worship? Truth is always stranger and more fascinating than fiction.

Nor were things very "tolerant" in Augsburg itself, in matters religious, following the Diet. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

At the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, at which the so-called Augsburg Confession was delivered to Emperor V in the chapel of the episcopal palace, the emperor issued an edict according to which all innovations were to be abolished, and Catholics reinstated in their rights and property. The city council, however, set itself up in opposition, recalled (1531) the Protestant preachers who had been expatriated, suppressed Catholic services in all churches except the cathedral (1534), and in 1537 joined the League of Smalkald. At the beginning of this year a decree of the council was made, forbidding everywhere the celebration of Mass, preaching, and all ecclesiastical ceremonies, and giving to the Catholic clergy the alternative of enrolling themselves anew as citizens or leaving the city. An overwhelming majority of both secular and regular clergy chose banishment; the bishop withdrew with the cathedral chapter to Dillingen, whence he addressed to the pope and the emperor an appeal for the redress of his grievances. In the city of Augsburg the Catholic churches were seized by Lutheran and Zwinglian preachers; at the command of the council pictures were removed, and at the instigation of Bucer and others a disgraceful storm of popular iconoclasm followed, resulting in the destruction of many splendid monuments of art and antiquity. The greatest intolerance was exercised towards the Catholics who had remained in the city; their schools were dissolved; parents were compelled to send their children to Lutheran institutions; it was even forbidden to hear Mass outside the city under severe penalties.

Civil War #2: Biblical Arguments for Slavery & Liberal Theological Arguments Against it

Truth is stranger than fiction once again. Articles like the one from which I draw the following remarks illustrate why I love history so much; i.e., real history, as opposed to the propaganda (or at least skewed, highly-biased, one-sided perspective) we often get in school textbooks or in TV presentations.

Slavery (much as it might seem difficult for our modern ears to hear) was a complex issue even among conservative Bible-believing Presbyterians and other Christians. There are a variety of reasons for this: one being that the Bible did not seem to condemn slavery outright.

The reviewer also notes the distinction between slavery per se as an institution and slavery-as-practiced in America, which can be condemned based on its abysmal failure in applying biblical ethical standards. I myself would
agree that slavery is permitted in the Bible. Arguably, however, it is presupposed that a Christian society would in due course render it unnnecessary and inadequately reflective of Christian ideals, and biblical slavery is closer to the notion of medieval serfdom than American slavery and the horrific abominations of the slave trade.

I would, therefore, condemn (in no uncertain terms) slavery as practiced in America (while noting that there were many many exceptions to the rule). The problem came because the Northerners usually failed to see that slavery per se was a biblical concept, while the Southerners would not sufficiently criticize existing practices and abuses in light of biblical ethics (and the notion of equality of all men under God regardless of race). But as usual, sides became polarized, and (sadly) the compromise solution seems not to have been much of an option in the 1850s.

One would do well to ponder the following so as to understand how complex both history and the history of ideas are, and how difficult it is to achieve on a culture-wide level what might be called "moral progress".

This comes from Eugene D. Genovese's review of Mark A. Noll's book, America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, in The New Republic online (9-04-03). Noll is a very readable andf interesting evangelical historian. Genovese appears to be a Catholic (not a Protestant, at any rate).
-----------------------------------------------------
. . . America's God features a civil war between "proponents of alternate versions of the same ideology made up of evangelical religion, republican political principles, and commonsense moral reasoning." Yet Noll acknowledges that the South remained closer than the North to "the deferential, class-stratified, and socially organic" republicanism of the eighteenth century. Southerners tended to view "commercial individualism as the enemy of republican liberty."

. . . [Southerners] James Henley Thornwell and George Frederick Holmes, among others, foreshadowed J. Gresham Machen's powerful work Christianity and Liberalism, published in 1923: they charged liberals with espousing an essentially different religion.

. . . along with Charles Hodge's embattled orthodox Presbyterian remnant at Princeton Theological Seminary -- it was the Southerners who firmly refused to abandon the essentials of Christian doctrine.

. . . In any case, Robert Lewis Dabney of Virginia accused . . . all anti-slavery men of abandoning Calvinism, denying the divinity of Jesus (the heresy known as Socinianism), and making benevolence God's central quality while ignoring the justice of His self-proclamation as a "consuming fire." Dabney charged that they were transforming benevolence into a doctrine of utilitarian selfishness and marketplace ethics.

In the North, orthodox Calvinists . . . could not stem the retreat of the mainline churches from the doctrine of original sin. Even Trinitarianism went up for grabs.

. . . In Noll's view, American theologians offered "little of theological profundity" on the meaning of the Civil War, but Lincoln did just that in his "moral reflections," especially in the second inaugural address. "None probed so profoundly the ways of God or the response of humans to the divine constitution of the world. None penetrated as deeply into the nature of providence. And none described the fate of humanity before God with the humility or the sagacity of the president" . . . In Noll's reading, Lincoln refused to play a virtuous North against a sinful South. He sought to draw the nation back together after the war, and his "magnanimity and moral even-handedness" contrasted with the calls for blood and vengeance that were coming from Northern divines.

. . . Noll has Lincoln stand almost alone among public figures: "Lincoln's concept of providence combined the conventions of his age with a much more primordial vision." The content of that vision is much clearer to Noll than it is to me. I am not at all sure what he is talking about. There is no reason to believe that Lincoln accepted Jesus as Lord, Savior, Redeemer -- as the Resurrection and the Life -- however sincerely he embraced a code of ethics compatible with or even derived from Jesus's teachings, but every reason to credit him as a statesman who sought a post-war reconciliation that would facilitate the spread of the Republican Party in the South.

. . . "If within the dominant interpretive framework of the period," Noll writes, "proslavery won the exegetical battle, no Bible-believing abolitionist would believe it." He remarks that, while a majority of Americans probably believed in biblical sanction for slavery, no significant body of Protestants elsewhere in the English-speaking world agreed. True enough. But it is hard to fathom Noll's conclusion that the inability of the pro-slavery side to win adherents abroad somehow rendered their interpretation of Scripture wrong.


How strong were the abolitionist and pro-slavery appeals to Scripture? Twentieth-century Americans might not wish to bother, but millions of nineteenth-century Americans cared passionately. The Reverend Leonard Bacon pleaded, in words made famous by Lincoln without attribution, that if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. The Reverend Ferdinand Jacobs of Charleston replied, "If the scriptures do not justify slavery, I know not what they do justify. If we err in maintaining this relation, I know not when we are right -- truth then has parted her usual moorings and floated off into an ocean of uncertainty."

The pro-slavery arguments were straightforward. Nothing in the Old Testament condemns slavery. The great patriarch Abraham and other of God's worthies held slaves with God's blessing. Solomon built the Temple with slave labor as well as a corvée. Jesus drove moneychangers, not slaveholders, from the Temple. Every church mentioned in connection with the Apostles included slaves and slaveholders. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles uttered a word against slavery, much less declared it sinful. The strength of the pro-slavery performance makes comprehensible the ease with which Southern whites satisfied themselves that God sanctioned slavery.

The abolitionists did not successfully make their case for slavery as sin. Noll recognizes but dangerously underestimates the influence of radical abolitionists, including leading clergymen, who declared that if the Bible could be shown to sanction slavery, it should be discarded as the devil's own book. By the 1830s abolitionists were leading the war against Christian orthodoxy. They unfolded an interpretation of higher law that played the Spirit of the Bible against the Word and then transformed the Holy Spirit, as objectively manifested in the Word, into the subjective spirit or opinion of every man. Thus they transformed conscience from being the impress of the Holy Spirit on men's minds into a higher standard than the Word. Noll, his verbal restraint notwithstanding, demonstrates that rejection of the letter for the spirit undermined belief in Christianity itself.

Abolitionist arguments from Scripture ranged from the laughable to the flagrantly dishonest, as when leading lights made themselves ridiculous by denying that the ancient Israelites held slaves at all. Noll acknowledges the pro-slavery biblical argument as "formidable." He recognizes, too, the intellectual power of Thornwell and Dabney, but like other historians he does not consider the form of the antebellum debates. The principal defenders of slavery cited the abolitionists' books, often quoting at length to assure readers that they were quoting in context. The abolitionists did not return the courtesy. They did not even mention pro-slavery books, much less present their arguments concretely and in context. Their preferred method was to dismiss pro-slavery positions with sneers, or with elaborate argumentation against views that their opponents did not hold.

. . . Noll has sport with Henry Ward Beecher's announcement that he could easily prove the Bible to be anti-slavery. Alas, Noll observes, Beecher "did not adduce a single text to that end." Elsewhere Noll quotes Beecher at length only to expose his statements as false. As religious thinkers, Noll lets the abolitionists off lightly. He sighs that those who tried to reconcile the Bible with anti-slavery had to "perform an intellectual high-wire act." They had to show how anti-slavery arguments could be read as other than "infidel attacks on the authority of the Bible itself." Noll claims that the Bible, like commonsense moral reasoning and republican principles, simultaneously sanctioned and condemned slavery. But whereas the pro-slavery divines piled up evidence of biblical sanction, Noll bypasses textual evidence of condemnation and regrets that the debate reduced to a "forced dichotomy" of orthodoxy with slavery or heresy without it. He arrestingly suggests that a faulty hermeneutic imposed severe rigidity on both the pro-slavery and anti-slavery theologians, and that peculiarly American conditions prevented a turn to the alternative hermeneutics offered by African Americans, Roman Catholics, and certain Reformed Protestants, which could have established the anti-slavery case. His illuminating discussion clarifies much, but it does not demonstrate how any of the alternatives convincingly grounded the opposition to slavery in Christian doctrine.

. . . He adds that the distinction between slavery in general and black slavery in particular was completely lost on Southerners. In a book that is a model of scholarly accuracy, he is on this matter breathtakingly wrong. Thornwell, Dabney, and other leading Southern theologians could hardly have been clearer on the distinction. They defended "slavery in the abstract" -- slavery as the proper condition of labor regardless of race. One after another they demonstrated that the Bible sanctioned slavery without racial referent.

Noll laments that Bible-believing emancipationists felt they had to find slavery malum in se in Scripture in order to campaign against it. But he shows that while Charles Hodge and other Northern conservatives found nothing in Scripture to condemn slavery as sin, they found other grounds to oppose modern slavery as incompatible with Christian practice. The issue, in Noll's view, concerned "cultural hermeneutics as well as biblical exegesis." He credits Hodge with seeming to recognize "that when conditions in which words were spoken changed, the meaning of the words also changed." He charges, unjustly I think, that Hodge ended by being "hamstrung by a constitutional conservatism that left him more troubled by the abolitionist threat to biblical truth than by slavery's threat to holiness."

In my reading, Hodge, like Thornwell and no few Southerners, made the final test the extent to which Southern slavery could be made to approximate an Abrahamic or Christian model for master-slave relations. But the radical abolitionists cast anathema on the adherence to such a standard. For if accepted, emancipationists would have to work patiently with Southern slaveholders, not assault them as the anti-Christ. The radicals may well have been right that the South would not give up slavery without war. But they failed miserably to make their case for scriptural condemnation of slavery as inherently sinful, and therefore they could not justify the holy war that they desperately sought.

Dialoguing With Dr. James White (Oral vs. Written)

[To an anti-Catholic inquirer],

Thanks for your reply, but I must say you did not interact with the many different points I made about the inferiority of live debates vs. written ones and other aspects of this whole discussion. So I have no idea why you disagree with my reasoning. You have merely given yours in a bit more detail. That's fine in and of itself, but let's call it what it is: it was not a response to my reasoning. You still haven't said a single word about White's comparison of myself and Catholic answers with Jack Chick, or about Sproul and MacArthur not wanting to do live debates with Catholics. You don't change my mind by completely overlooking my arguments. They have to be dealt with before I can change my mind (if it is warranted).

And so it has always been where it concerns Bishop White. He won't reply and those who think highly of him don't seem to have a clue why he acts the way he does, either. But you brought up many of these questions, so I responded. It never gets resolved . . . it's one of those weird things in life you just shake your head at after a while and then move on to other projects.

No, dialoging with James White is not impossible.

Maybe not technically, but practically speaking, and in the sense of what a true dialogue is (at least according to my definition -- which was my primary sense), it is. Socrates believed (and I fully agree) that for a constructive dialogue to occur it is almost necessary for the persons to have mutual respect and to even be friends, if possible. White personally despises me (he has made no bones about it) and has less than no respect for the Catholic position. Hence, dialogue with him is impossible. It can never achieve its goal.

You really could call him up and present your list of his “often ludicrous and self-defeating arguments.”

I oppose this on principle, as explained. I'm not interested in making him look like a fool in public. That's not my goal. That's what he longs to do to Catholics on his show and in his debates, but I don't share that outlook towards my theological opponents. I see these things as two brothers having a hearty disagreement, not a cosmic battle of Good vs. Evil or Christianity vs. idolatry and Heresy.

I for one, would be very interested in hearing this show, and I think I can safely say many Catholics and many Protestants would listen to it, as I know you have quite a fan base (I run across people referencing your site often).

How many people listening has no bearing whatsoever on positions taken on ethical and intellectual principle. If I didn't have this principle and I thought one person was listening who might be positively affected, then I would do it.

Dave, I think dismissing James White as espousing “sophistry and Catholic-bashing” and “rhetorical and sophistical techniques” sounds more like avoidance,

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I've been dealing with this man for nine years, and you don't know one-tenth of the sort of things he has publicly stated about me (and about many others). My opinion is directly based on my own long, sad experience with him.

I’m sure that if you were to listen to James White debate the pro-gay-advocate Barry Lynn on the topic of homosexuality, you would not accuse James White of “rhetorical and sophistical techniques.” If you were to listen to James White debate Greg Stafford on Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, you would not accuse him of “sophistry and Jehovah’s Witness-bashing.” If you were to listen to James White’s series where he debated a bunch of atheists, you would be pleased at the particular method of logic he utilizes in proving the meaninglessness and sinfulness of atheism.

With those groups, he doesn't have to use sophistry, rhetoric, and all the other tricks that he utilizes with Catholics because there he is operating on correct first principles, and his opponents really are what he says they are (sexually-immoral, cultists, and disbelievers in God). Therefore, I'm sure he does a great job, and I have already said as much, to a personal friend of James who I also am getting to know.

But with Catholics, he starts with the absurd premise that we aren't Christians. and then it goes from bad to worse. He won't deal with the bedrock issues that are underneath his erroneous opinions. That's why (one reason, I believe) he chooses to ignore me, because I go right to those premises, per my usual socratic methodology. He doesn't want that because (in my opinion) I think he knows that his premises cannot withstand scrutiny where it comes to Catholicism.

However, it seems that even though James White has proven in many non-Roman Catholic contexts that his knowledge, skill and zeal for truth are impeccable,

It's not "knowledge" when you can't even figure out that Catholicism is a Christian belief-system, and when your own explicit opinions reduce to a state of affairs where neither St. Augustine nor Martin Luther can be Christians. You may think that is clear thinking; I think it is ludicrous and ridiculous.

somehow on the topic of Roman Catholicism we’re all supposed to find Dr. White to be a sneaky-unscrupulous-anti-catholic-master-of-deception.

But you have no objection to White comparing Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin and I to Jack Chick?

Whatever I thought of him, it would still be his intellectual duty to defend his viewpoint when challenged. He can't keep going around for another nine years comparing me to Jack Chick and completely ignoring critiques of his statements and arguments, and then challenging me to a live debate every year. That just won't wash.

Sorry Dave, while this falls within the realm of probability, I think your comments are driven more by your devout emotional commitment to your church.

It has nothing to do with that (this particular issue is much more one of intellect rather than faith), and it has everything to do with White's lamentable modus operandi.

I do though admit you are correct that if you were to call the DL that “White controls those environments.” Indeed, we both know a key to winning a debate is controlling the context.

I'm not interested in "controlling" or "winning," but in truth. I'm happy (in fact, utterly delighted) to "lose" a debate if by so doing I have arrived at more truth in the process. Thus, I was glad to be thoroughly "beaten in argument" by Cardinal Newman in 1990, when I read his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

In fact, I’ve always thought that your long “web-dialogs” on your web site are a method of controlling the context. BTW, I do not mean this as an insult; take it only as my observation.

It's not so much an insult as it is a groundless accusation. Let me repeat this for the zillionth time: there are different ways to edit. I am as fair as I can possibly be to my opponent. People object to breaking up paragraphs for the purpose of presenting a dialogue format. But that is overcome by my color-coding, which enables the reader to read one color and get all the context they want.

Occasionally things are omitted, but only if they are off-subject or repetitive, etc., and always with fairness to my opponent. People complain about me getting the last word, but I base the dialogues on rounds: each one consisting of my opponent making his argument, and my reply.

People don't seem to realize, either, that it is not in my interest to make people mad or to make them look like fools on my website. I want the best opponents I can possibly find. I want to work together with dialogue partners, often giving them the last word or happily changing things they are upset about. Eric Svendsen, e.g., claimed that I was dishonest in one of our dialogues. I wrote him back offering to do whatever he felt to make the dialogue agreeable to him. He ignored it (if you want details, I have my old letter).

Lastly, I always say I will include someone's e-mail if someone wants to write and get their edit. I include the URL if the discussion was from a discussion board. I don't see what else I can do. If someone doesn't like my editing, fine. Let them edit the discussion how they want, put it on their website where they have to pay for server space (as I do, courteously including several megabytes of my opponents' words), and I will gladly link to it.

You are being honest and frank; so am I: I am sick and tired of this accusation that I am screwing around with my opponents' words dishonestly or to present them in a negative light, when in fact I bend over backwards to be as fair as possible and oftentimes it is the other guy who is being completely disagreeable and refusing to work together. Furthermore, I give then the opportunity to present an opposing viewpoint on my website, yet so many times this is not appreciated, and instead I become a living dart board for a million complaints about my alleged "unfairness" and "editing." Lately, when this comes up I promptly remove the other guys' words. If they don't want to be heard on my website (which is read by many many thousands), that's fine with me. Why should I bother to be so fair to them if all they can do is moan and groan about it?

I link to your web-papers on our posted dialogues. People can go read them if they think I have butchered 'em, and then write to me and make a cogent argument.

If you really believe your church is “true,” and Dr. White is as bad as you say he is, why not rely on God like the people in the Bible? Go into the arena of ideas, even if it’s not a context you can control, and rely on God like David against Goliath, or Moses against the Pharaoh.

That would hold for White, too. If he thinks that the written medium is stacked in my favor, or that it gives me a chance to manipulate his words on my website, then let him rely on God and make his own edit on his website and expose my ignorance and dishonesty to the world. God gave us a brain to think through issues. I've thought for many hours about what constitutes good discussion. Nothing you have said even remotely affects my reasoning, because you are mostly ignoring it.

I think you may have missed it on this blog when I somewhat jokingly said I even had a hard time reading my own long papers. I don’t mind long papers too much, what I find tedious are long written debates and dialogs.

I'm the opposite: I don't care much for mutual monologues. You wanna monologue here about White, whereas I am trying to make my point through various arguments. So it's two ships passing in the night. You keep defending White's tactics and I will keep refuting his reasoning. If he wants to ignore that, let him. He will only further harm his reputation which is already very low among Catholics and even many ecumenical Protestants (as mine is very low in circles due to incessant gossip and lying about me in various chat rooms and boards -- some of which I know you have witnessed personally). But if he responds, he could gain a lot of respect for himself.

The live medium is a better vehicle for discussion and debate- the issues are brought into focus- the tedium is cut out.

I disagree thoroughly, and I have explained why.

BTW, I am also quite fond of time restraints as well in debate. So, no I am not “quite the conflicted personality” you imagine.

Good! I just wish you would directly reply to my reasoning. That would be fun and helpful.

God bless,

Dave

Civil War #1: Slavery as Stated Primary Cause for Secession

This will be the first of what I hope will be many threads about the Civil War, or War Between the States, or War of Northern Agression (as it is variously known). I've asked several Southern or "Southern sympathizer" friends of mine (I'm a lifelong Michigander who loves the South and whose mother's father was born in Alabama -- my father was born in Canada, too, so I am half-Canadian) to write a guest post. So far, one has said
he would in the near future. I am very interested in this topic and would like particularly to learn more about the Southern perspective on it.

One of my friends up here in Michigan is fond of telling me that slavery was not the primary cause of the Civil War (as I will call it, because of normative usage -- I don't
begrudge people using the other terms at all). In digging up some resources for a new post on this topic today, I ran across the following very interesting information, which (I would contend) highly suggests otherwise.

It is from a website called "Declaration of Causes of Seceding States" and it simply cites the
documents of secession from four Southern states: Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. Here are some highlights, but I would urge anyone who wishes to pursue this discussion to read the documents in their entirety, which will make abundantly clear that slavery was the overwhelmingly dominant reason for the secession of these states. I can't demonstrate that by the selected quotes I have chosen for (relative) brevity's and summary's sake (all bolded emphases added):

Georgia

[Beginning]: The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the
world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.

. . . A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been
committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party . . . anti-slavery is its mission
and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen.

. . . The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was . . . her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.

. . . The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its [i.e., the Republican Party's] leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

. . . for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.

. . . In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and
being subjected to infamous punishments . . .

For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us.

[End]: . . . by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

[Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861]

Mississippi

[Beginning]: In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we
should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become
necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

[Short paragraphs of grievances follow -- eleven of which give specifics: of those, six mention slavery or race; e.g., "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."]

[End]: Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

South Carolina

[begins with an exposition on the sovereignty of states, but as soon as specifics are mentioned, slavery is obviously the primary consideration]

. . . The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an
increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

. . . In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice
fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by
the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

. . . We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of
the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

[End]: . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind
must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of
self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other
States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

[Adopted December 24, 1860]

Texas

[begins with the history of Texan independence and conditions of joining the United States as a state]

. . . She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the
white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other
slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and
of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

. . . The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation . . .

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with
nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

[ten short paragraphs of grievances follow: seven of which mention slavery]

. . . We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding
states.

[adopted: February 2, 1861]

Lenten Meditation #1: NT on Suffering With Christ

From my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, pp. 158-161.

Matthew 10:38 / 16:24 And he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

(see also Mark 8:34-35)

The disciple of Christ is called to suffer (Matthew 10:22, Mark 10:37-39, Luke 6:22, Acts 14:22, Romans 5:3-5, 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, Philippians 1:29, 1 Thessalonians 3:3, 2 Timothy 1:8, 2:3, 3:12, Hebrews 5:8, James 1:2-4,12, 1 Peter 1:6-7, 2:20-21, 4:12-19, Revelation 1:9).

No biblically-informed Christian would dispute that. Controversy only arises over whether such sufferings can improve one's estate vis-a-vis salvation, or help anyone else in the Body of Christ. Catholics believe that all our sufferings can be a source of grace for the one experiencing them as well as helpful with regard to the spiritual graces of another (Romans 15:1, 1 Corinthians 12:24-26), to whom these penitential sufferings are applied (as in intercessory prayer), thus giving suffering the highest possible purpose and meaning.

Furthermore, the painful experience of being corrected by God, as parents discipline their children (Leviticus 26:23-24, Deuteronomy 8:2,5, 2 Samuel 7:14, Job 5:17-18, Psalm 89:30-34, 94:12, 103:9, 118:18, 119:67,71,75, Proverbs 3:11-12, Isaiah 48:10, Jeremiah 10:24, 30:11, 31:18, Zechariah 13:9, Malachi 3:3, 1 Corinthians 11:32, Hebrews 12:5-11, Revelation 3:19), is quite similar to the Catholic notion of temporal punishments for sin, which can be lessened by penance.

St. Paul explicitly expounds the Catholic doctrine of penance, suffering, and vicarious atonement in the following sixteen passages:

Romans 8:13,17 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live . . . and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

(see also 1 Corinthians 15:31, 2 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Peter 4:1,13)

1 Corinthians 11:27,30 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord . . . That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

(see also 11:31-32, 1 Corinthians 5:5)

2 Corinthians 4:10 Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

(see also 2 Corinthians 1:5-7)

Philippians 2:17 Even if I am to be poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.

(see also 2 Corinthians 6:4-10)

Philippians 3:10 That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.

(see also Galatians 2:20)

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come.

(see also Romans 12:1)

In this verse and in Philippians 2:17, the Greek word for libation and sacrifice is spendomai. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was the Bible of the early Christians, this term is used for a variety of offerings and sacrifices commanded by the Mosaic Law (for example, Genesis 35:14, Exodus 29:12,38 ff., Leviticus 4:7 ff., 23:37).

Most intriguing is its occurrence with reference to the Messiah, Jesus, in Isaiah 53:12: . . . he poured out his soul to death . . . It appears, then, that St. Paul is stressing a mystical, profound identification with Jesus even in His death (as also in 2 Corinthians 4:10 and Philippians 3:10 above).

This comparison leads inexorably to the Catholic doctrine of vicarious atonement among members of the Body of Christ. In some mysterious, glorious way God chooses to involve us in the very Redemption (always in a secondary and derivative sense, but actual nonetheless), just as He voluntarily involves us in His Providence by means of prayer and evangelism, and in His Creation by our procreation and childbirth.

Our sufferings become identified with those of Christ (instances of the stigmata, whereby saintly persons -- such as St. Francis of Assisi -- actually receive the wounds of Christ in their bodies, are an extremely graphic image of this scriptural teaching).

Since we are the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:30, Colossians 1:24 below), such a "radical" convergence is not to be unexpected. For instance, when St. Paul was converted to Christ, Jesus said to him, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting (Acts 9:5). This couldn't literally refer to Jesus the Divine Person since He had already ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). Rather, Jesus meant that Christ's Church really was His Body, whom Paul (Saul) was persecuting (Acts 8:1,3, 9:1-2).

Jesus also identifies the Church with Himself in Matthew 25:34-45 (25:40 -- brethren. Compare Matthew 12:50, 28:10, John 20:17). Thus, Jesus' sufferings are ours, and ours are His in a very real sense, as St. Paul unmistakably teaches, particularly and most strikingly in Colossians 1:24:

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

(see also 2 Corinthians 11:23-30, Galatians 6:17)

Why Catholics Believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The following is based on a chat on a blog with two Protestants (both Presbyterian, I believe, and one a
pastor). It is, therefore, written in the first person.
---------------------------------------------------------
[It was stated that nothing in the New Testament "even remotely suggests" the perpetual virginity of Mary.]

But there is nothing in the Bible that even remotely suggests the biblical canon, either, yet you accept a tradition handed down to you by a local council, approved by the pope (excepting the "apocryphal books" which were also accepted by that council and never
separated from the other books in Scripture until the 16th century).

This is the point: we all accept some traditions which are not, or may not be (arguably) explicitly biblical, or in the Bible at all. You haven't answered my question yet (this is now my 3rd time asking -- Ted Koppel style) about why Protestants have shifted away from this and why Luther and Calvin accepted it, but I am happy to answer your question (Why do I believe in this doctrine?). I believe it first of all because it is received Christian tradition; denied by virtually no one until liberal theology started becoming a force. That's an argument in and of itself, of course, but we all accept received traditions in some manner.

You accept the Westminster Confession and TULIP and the Protestant canon, and so forth. A Catholic accepts the perpetual virginity of Mary, as it is a dogma, proclaimed early on by an ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431). That's more than enough reason for us, given our epistemological presuppositions and our Rule of Faith.

But of course you are probing beyond that and want to know the biblical and theological "why's". That's fine; that's what I do as my profession: an apologist, and I appreciate the opportunity and your congeniality and graciousness to this Catholic guest on your blog.

The Catholic believes about this the same thing that he believes about the Immaculate Conception of Mary: neither doctrine is ontologically, intrinsically necessary. Rather, both are seen as "fitting" and the way things should properly be. I can't think of a Protestant
parallel to this offhand but I'm sure there are some.

It was fitting (but not absolutely necessary -- where it couldn't have been otherwise in any other world) for Mary to be without sin (actual and original) because she was the Mother of God (Theotokos). Likewise, we think it is altogether fitting that she remain a virgin after bearing Christ.

Partly this is because of the nature of the miracle itself: Mary was a virgin and we believe that even the birth was miraculous (that Mary's virginity -- without getting
physiologically graphic -- was retained even during and after the birth). This is traditional Catholic dogma (and, I believe, Orthodox, too).

It strengthens and supports the doctrine of the Virgin Birth (Mariology is always christocentric). It's a miracle to have a virgin birth: a conception without the participation of a man. If Mary had had other children, and a normal sexual life after, people could always say, "well, how do we know that Jesus' birth was before she started being sexually active? Why should we believe all this Holy Spirit 'overshadowing' foolishness?"

I believe that is part of the traditional theological reasoning on this, though I am basically speaking for myself here, not necessarily "officially" for what the Catholic Church would say. If we pursue this, of course I could look up what Aquinas and Augustine and others said about it.

The second thing is the appropriateness or propriety that the womb which bore the God-Man should not bear another child. One either grasps and accepts that notion or they don't. It is not an argument from reason or Bible but from propriety (which is a very subjective thing and often culturally-determined). It can't and won't be perceived or understood by the usual Protestant outlook of "everything must be fairly explicit in the Bible or else we reject it utterly."

Traditional Catholic thought (particularly regarding Mary) does not operate along those lines. The Church ponders things for centuries. It did so with regard to christology (up to 451 and even after if we include the Monothelite controversies); it did with regard to the biblical canon (up to 397) and it did so with Mariology.

So that is the argument from tradition and "fittingness." I know it sounds very foreign to Protestant ears, but I can't help that, in explaining why we believe as we do, and how I understand the belief, in my apologetic, reason-loving mind. The biblical data is another matter; of a different nature. What we have would not require (and perhaps not even suggest) this belief on the surface, but I think that when we examine it closely, it at least suggests it, or at the very least shows us that the data we do know about is perfectly compatible with the notion. One can make many deductions from what we know: some of which rule out that blood brothers are being referred to in specific instances of "adelphos."

There are other "situational" arguments from plausibility, such as: "where were Jesus' siblings when He went to the Temple at age 12? If he had them, certainly they would
have been around, no? -- unless there was a 12-year gap between births. The narrative (Lk 2:41-52) gives not the slightest hint that there were any brothers involved. When Joseph and Mary were looking for Him, it doesn't say they went to His supposed five brothers and four sisters (I would certainly do that first, as a parent); rather, "they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances" (Lk 2:44; RSV). When they leave, it reads, "And he went down with them and came to Nazareth . . . " (2:51).

Now, this doesn't technicaly rule out siblings, true, but it sure doesn't positively suggest them, does it? If I took my three sons and a daughter down to Cedar Point for a day of fun, would I talk about it as "I took my first son . . . " without mentioning the other three? No, not likely. You could do that if you were talking about one child specifically in another context ("Joe's a good kid; we have a lot of fun together; the other day I took him to the carnival . .," etc.), but chances are if you were simply describing the day, you would mention all the children.

Why did Jesus ask John to in effect be Mary's son after He died? Semitic custom would have dictated that He ask His blood brothers to do so. All you have to go by, on the
other hand (that I can see) is mention of "brothers" -- but this proves nothing because there is such a wide range of meaning for the word adelphos.

[The pastor stated that the Bible gives "explicit" reasons for not accepting perpetual virginity.]

This I deny. It's based on an interpretation of the meaning of adelphos in specific instances that is by no means necessary or certain (or even plausible, I would contend). Unless you have some new arguments I haven't run across before . . .

[The second person said that much of my biblical argument was merely an argument from silence.]

I dont see how. I gave two positive arguments: Jesus at the temple at age 12 and John taking Mary as his "mother" rather than all these supposed siblings running around everywhere. I also noted that there were deductive arguments that ruled out blood brothers in various specific instances. I have yet to present that, so all my cards aren't on the table yet.

Tradition trumps the (current, not traditional) Protestant position on this one. The ancient Church was right when its councils proclaimed on things like the Holy Trinity and
the canon of Scripture. I see no reason to believe that it erred with regard to the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin in 431.

And what is the "positive" evidence to deny this? Interpreting adelphos literally as "blood brothers" when any lexicon will quickly show you that it has a very wide range of meanings.

Sometimes Protestants will say, "well then, why didn't the Bible use the Greek term for "cousins"? The reason is simple. Adelphos and the Hebrew equivalent (I forget what it is) functioned much like our word "brother" in English. We have the word "cousin" too, but we use "brother" for friends, ethnic groups, religions (e.g., how Catholics say "separated brethren" and Protestants will say "my Catholic brother"). We say "brother in Christ,"
"brothers" in terms of fellow soldiers, the "big brother" mentoring system where the man is not a sibling and functions like a father in some cases, etc. So the word can mean sibling, but it can also mean much else. In Semitic culture, extended family was much more important too, so a cousin could be called a "brother."

The biblical evidence can be summarized as follows:

1. Many Protestants assume that whenever they read of Jesus' "brothers," this is referring to His siblings, other sons and daughters of Mary. But it is not that simple. "Adelphos," the Gk. word for "brother" in the NT, has multiple meanings (like the English word), and they all appear frequently in Scripture. In addition to sibling, it can also denote
(1) those of the same nationality (Acts 3:17;
Rom 9:3);
(2) any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29);
(3) persons with like interests (Mt 5:47);
(4) distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5);
(5) persons united by a
common calling (Rev 22:9);
(6) mankind (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17);
(7) the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn
20:17);
(8) all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10).

Clearly, then, this issue is not at all settled by the mere word "brother"/"adelphos" in the Bible, and a more in-depth examination of the biblical data will be necessary.

2. "Brethren" - Biblical Exegesis

A. By comparing Gen 14:14 with 11:26-7, we find that Lot, called Abraham's "brother", is actually his nephew.

B. Jacob is called the "brother" of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:10,15).

C. Cis and Eleazar are described as "brethren", whereas they are literally cousins (1 Chron 23:21-2).

D. "Brethren" as mere kinsmen: Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Ki 9:13; 2:32; 2 Ki 10:13-14; Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9.

E. Neither Hebrew or Aramaic has a word for "cousin." The NT retains this Hebrew usage by using "adelphos," even when non-siblings are being referred to.

F. In Lk 2:41-51, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve, with no sign of any other siblings.

G. Jesus Himself uses "brethren" in the larger sense (Mt 23:1,8; 12:49).

H. By comparing Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; and Jn 19:25, we find that James and Joseph - mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brethren" - are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Mary's "adelphe" in Jn 19:25 (two Marys in one family?! - thus even this usage apparently means "cousins" or more distant relative). Mt 13:55 and
Mk 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all "adelphoi". Since we know that James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, it is likely that all these other "brethren" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above.

I. Even standard evangelical Protestant commentaries such as Jamieson, Fausset & Brown admit that the question is not a simple one: "an exceedingly difficult question . . . nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . vexed question, encompassed with difficulties." (commentary for Mt 13:55)

J. Some Protestant commentators maintain that Mt 1:24-5 ("Joseph knew her not till . . .") implies that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. This does not follow, since "till" does not necessarily imply a change of behavior after the time to which it refers (cf. similar instances in 1 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 12:20; Rom 8:22; 1 Tim 4:13; 6:14; Rev 2:25).

K. Likewise, "firstborn" (Mt 1:25) need not imply later children. A mother's first child is her "firstborn" regardless if any follow or not (Ex 13:2). Also, in the Bible, "firstborn" often means "preeminent," and even applies to those who are not literally the first child (Jer 31:9), or, metaphorically, to groups (Ex 4:22; Heb 12:23). Thus, "firstborn" in Mt 1:25 actually is more of
an indication that Jesus is Mary's only child, than that there were others. This position is held by many evangelical Protestant scholars on these criteria, rather than Catholic dogmatic grounds.

Reply to Dr. James White's "Random Thoughts" on The Passion

From his website / blog, 2-25-04 (White's words will be in blue):

Random Thoughts on The Passion

OK, saw it.

Yes you did, but you have seen "with" but not "through" the eye, as William Blake would say.

. . . 1) When Jesus said "I AM" to the soldiers, they fell back upon the ground. Why on EARTH delete that even when Jesus says "I am"?

This seems to have been overlooked. Perhaps it is a sinister Catholic plot?

2) "It is accomplished" and "It is finished" are not, in the context of the atonement, the same things.

That's interesting, since in the KJV, John 19:28, using the same word, "teleo," reads, ". . . all things were now accomplished." They gave Jesus vinegar, and He said "it is finished" (19:30). It's not rocket science to see that it is the same thing. NEB translates 19:30 as "accomplished."

Strong's Concordance gives as a possible rendering of the word for "finished", "teleo" (word # 5055): "accomplish," along with several other synonyms.
"Teleo" is translated as "accomplish" in the KJV at Luke
12:50, 18:31, and 22:37. Much ado about nothing . . .

3) Jesus was wearing clothing when He came out of the grave. *Not* the way to end.

He wasn't wearing the same clothes He was buried in (see John 10:6-7), and the film doesn't show Him leaving the tomb, so this is a non sequitur.

4) The apostles addressed Mary as "Mother"?

Why not? After all, Jesus told John that she was his mother (Jn 19:27).

5) Mary had supernatural knowledge even prior to the coming of the Spirit?

Yes; it is called the Annunciation. The angel Gabriel came to her and told her she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and would bear the son of the Most High. What do you call that? "Natural knowledge"? It is also written that Simeon was "inspired by the Spirit" to speak about Jesus to Mary (Lk 2:27; c. 2:26). That ain't "natural" either, and it is the same Holy Spirit.

6) Relics, relics, and more relics (straight out of Emmerich).

Straight out of the Bible too: Elisha's bones raised a man from the dead; Peter's shadow and Paul's handkerchief healed people, etc.

Stations of the cross,

Heaven forbid any Christian meditate on the cross. The Greeks thought it was foolishness. Funny that certain anti-Catholic Reformed Baptists would, too.

"St. Veronica," the whole nine yards.

I saw nothing whatever contrary to the Bible in the movie. I don't see you condemning the host of Protestant beliefs that can't be found in the Bible, such as altar calls and church buildings. The canon of Scripture is an extra-biblical tradition. Is that to be condemned too because it isn't in there?

7) We might well see the founding of the Roman Anti-defamation League as a result of this.

That, too? If anything, Pilate was portrayed too sympathetically.

8) What on EARTH was that hideous baby thing in the devil-woman's arms?

A demon who was mocking the nurturing love of a mother at the worst time in Jesus' life. What did you think it was? A Muppet?

9) Most, but not all, of the overt Roman Catholic elements were kept at the "subtle enough not to catch the mind of the evangelical, prominent enough to assure the Roman Catholic that all is well" level.

Thankfully, the Passion of Christ itself is often an "overt Roman Catholic element" since Protestants of your sort have been minimizing it for hundreds of years. Why they do so, I have not the slightest inkling, as it is the central act of redemption in salvation history, and central in the New Testament.

10) The emotional element was not quite as strong as I expected, but then again, I have never gone into a film more primed to be watching it closely, so I am hardly a meaningful barometer. Besides, I'm Scottish.

Me, too. And I had to wipe my eyes three times. Even anti-Catholicism could not blind one to the exceptional power and profundity of this film.

11) Will I think of this film at the next Lord's Supper? Probably.

Good.

12) Will I envision Jesus as Jim Caviezel? No. Not for a moment. Not once during the film did I make that connection. That was Jim Caviezel up there, not my Lord.

No kidding? Likewise, your caricature of yourself on your blog is a painting, not you. You don't need to point that out; nor do you need to remind anyone that an actor is not Jesus.

13) Will the emotions over-run commitment to the why of the cross, leaving people emotionally committed to whatever traditional lens through which they viewed the film? For many, yes.

Why do the two have to be opposed to each other? How could a Christian not be emotional, in seeing portrayed the biblical theme of God's unfathomable love for us?

14) Does the film open the door for proselytization of "evangelicals" by zealous Roman Catholics? Yes and no. Outside of the unbiblical and extraneous Marian elements, the issues are what they were before the film was released, and, sadly, evangelicals remain just as ignorant of the importance of sound doctrine regarding God's purposes in the atonement as they were before. This just opens up more opportunities either for that ignorance to be corrected, or, negatively, to be taken advantage of.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The movie had nothing about the four spiritual laws or TULIP. It presented the gospel in its original meaning: "Good News" (i.e., Jesus died for us so we can be saved and go to heaven and be reconciled to God).

15) Could an evangelical successfully "filter out" the extraneous stuff? I suppose so, but it would take a conscious effort.

One you obviously did not pull off . . .

So, to see or not to see? Tough call. It is culturally relevant. A person who has seen it is in better position to speak to its issues than one who has not. On the other hand, it is not nearly as accurate as we were told; it is truly a prize for Rome, and it may well bother many believers with its portrayal and presentation. If you go, don't go because of the herd mentality. Go realizing what you are seeing, or don't go at all.

Thanks for the advice. At least you are not an iconoclast. You watch movies to keep up to cultural speed. Good for you.

Did you say anything at all good about the film? If so, I missed it. But you did say it was "random thoughts," so I look forward to unrandom coherent thoughts from you.

God bless,

Dave

Lowly Apologists and "Parachurch" Groups

The following is a brief reply to comments by Reformed Protestant Kevin Johnson on his blog (see the sidebar): 2-6-04. He is off the computer for Lent, but I couldn't resist this. His words will be in blue.

In Protestantism, particularly in conservative evangelical circles, we're quite used to parachurch organizations that are apologetic in nature. But, over the last few decades more than one Roman Catholic lay apologist

I'm proud to be of that tribe . . .

(often with little or no formal theological training)

That's me too. But TONS of informal training and experience. But I don't see the twelve disciples having much "formal theological training" either (some of 'em could fish pretty well, though). And I don't see St. Pater's injunction to "stand ready to make a defense" (1 Peter 3:15) confined to the educated types or the scholars, either. It's not as if every person who defends Christianity or Catholic Christianity has to have taken courses in theology. That quickly becomes to a reductio ad absurdum.

has entered the arena among Christian churches to defend (as well as proselytize among Protestants) what they view as the "one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". This defense, from what I've read and experienced, is often bound to emotional appeals, unsophisticated treatments of Catholic doctrine,

Is it "often"? I guess that depends on how Kevin defines "lay apologist." If it is anyone who writes anything at all in defense of Catholicism anywhere on the Internet (or off it), then I'm sure one can find many shortcomings (just as in Protestant circles).
If he is referring, however, more to the well-known and established apologists and apologetic groups like Catholic Answers, Envoy, Mark Shea, Steve Ray, etc., then I don't see this tendency at all. It's more than a bit broad-brushed . . .

and a heavy and dogmatic emphasis on the antiquity of the Roman Church and her head, the papacy.

One would expect that; these people being Catholics (so that is no surprise or scandal).

In general, they very much resemble mainline evangelicals (except for all that Catholic stuff).

In other words, we don't resemble Reformed. :-)

Kinda makes you wonder how far apart we think we are from those on the other side of the Tiber.

Well, these are asusmptions built upon unproven assumptions.

Of course, responses from the apologetic evangelical community are found in force and typically counter with classic restatements of sixteenth century formulations of evangelical and Reformed doctrine on issues such as justification by faith alone, the inadequate claims of the papacy, purgatory, the Roman mass, and the atonement. Debates are scheduled, performed, and executed with all the pomp and ceremony that doubtless attended such events some 500 years ago (maybe even more). But, is there any lasting value attached to such debates here in our own century?

Not if anti-Catholics are involved. But I think there is great value in two ecumenical Christians (like Kevin) who regard each other as Christians, amiably discussing differences.

And, among both Protestant and Roman Catholic laymen, does the apologetic work in this regard tend to isolate and keep people in their respective communions or do we see a tremendous amount of in-one-door-out-the-other activity?

I don't know. I see a lot of conversions to Catholicism. And these are largely people who knew their faith well as Protestants, whereas I don't see a lot of people like that converting to Protestantism. I see many Catholics who knew very little about their faith and saw stuff in Protestantism that appealed to them. Just my impression, and a generalization, of course. I'd like to hear from Kevin or other Protestants what their perception is.

Aside from practical concerns, perhaps it is time for Protestants to question the legitimacy of parachurch organizations designed to function in the place of the Church herself.

Insofar as they do that, yes. Of course, defining the "Church," let alone functioning practically in it, is a huge problem itself. I think parachurch (either Protestant or Catholic) can supplement the Church and not compete with or replace it. Speaking for myself; I am just an individua. I don't have an organization. I just write and do apologetics and evangelism for a living.

Perhaps we need to sit back and learn from some in the Roman Catholic world who are questioning both the legitimacy and the effectiveness of such self-appointed laymen and others who have felt that they are to take the place of the teaching office of the Church in defending the faith.

I agree. A Presbyterian apologist would, I imagine, submit himself to the creeds and confessions of that faith tradition, just as I submit myself to Catholic dogmatic teaching and always try to express myself in complete harmony with it.

Does the defense and existence of parachurch apologetic organizations call for an extremely low view of the teaching office in our churches?

No. I wouldn't abolish either Inter-Varsity or Catholic Answers. They are both wonderful organizations. My niece is involved in the former (as I was, in college) and she is a lovely young Christian lady (Protestant).

Are we content to allow the Lord to work through the ministers in our churches

I hope so, but sometimes they are lax in their teaching duties and could use a little help.

or are we more satisfied with creating artificial organizational constructs to provide what the Lord has presumably failed to give us?

I think this is more of a problem in Protestantism because it has difficulty defining "Church" in the first place, let alone "parachurch."

Would such parachurch organizations have survived during the Reformation--would they even have been thought of?

I dunno. Good question. Back then most folks believed that their group was the best and truest one in Protestantism, and tended to anathematize others. Now Protestants are one big happy family, and "isn't diversity" great?, etc. A big change has occurred.

What is different between the monasticism of Roman Catholicism so harshly rebuked during the Reformation and a group of men committed to live their whole lives separate from the ecclesiastical accountability of the Church in order to adequately defend the faith in this day and age?

A big difference, because Catholic monks were entirely accountable to the Church. I don't see much of a comparison here.

How is the personality cult of a Christian apologist any different from the creation of monastic orders that almost always wind up centering on the personality of certain individuals such as Ignatius Loyola.

If there is any such "cult" around me, I haven't seen any particular benefits from it (esp. financial ones). I thihnk this depends on how the individual approaches things. There are proud apologists with an arrogant streak and desire for fame, etc., I'm sure. But I don't thnk they are nearly as prevalent as critics of apologetics claim.

Are we to believe that Loyola somehow had more influence among his followers than men like Hank Hanegraaf?

I don't see anything wrong with starting a new order, in submission to the Church. That's not "parachurch," and it is a lot better than starting an entirely new denomination.

Last, where is the biblical justification for parachurch apologetic organizations?

Where is it forbidden? If it doesn't contradict doctrinal standards according to legitimate ecclesiastical authority, I see nothing wrong with it, any more than the organizational structure of a local Methodist women's group clashes with the governmental structure of Methodism. I think Kevin is assuming that they must inevitably clash. This is not the case at all.

Are we really to believe that they should exist, as Deborah did for the Israelites, because there was no suitable or qualified male leadership among the people of God to do His bidding?

Individuals can do lots of stuff. I agree that they should be in submission to their church. No argument there. I am to mine.

Thanks for the stimulation!

In Him,

Dave

Thoughts on Mary in The Passion and So-Called "Catholic" Elements

Hi CM,

>First, let me note that I've been reading your material for quite some time, but never contacted you. I love your website and refer to if often. I was excited to learn that you now have a blogspot.

Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad my website has been helpful to you and a hearty welcome (to you and everyone else here) to Cor ad cor loquitur!

>On to the movie. As you mention, words cannot explain the emotion one feels, especially as a Christian. The one thing I think you failed to mention was that the symbolism was entirely Catholic and the film, I believe, was quite Marian.

There were a few reasons for that. First of all, I am always interested in speaking the language that my Protestant brothers and sisters can relate to, according to the dictates of Vatican II, ecumenism, and my emphasis of building bridges between the two camps (stressing things where we entirely agree) and working for greater mutual respect and understanding. So in the present context, I naturally tended to write in ways which did not sound specifically "Catholic." St. Paul urged us to "be all things to all people."

Secondly, I actually don't believe there is all that much in the film specifically "Catholic" at all. What is there is explicitly biblical, for the most part. We can all agree on this. It has been said a lot that Protestants don't emphasize the suffering of Christ as much as we do, and tend to go right to the Resurrection and Glorified Jesus (I heard a Protestant scholar from Fuller Seminary on a news show yesterday humbly concede this very point).

This is true, but I wold contend that it is not intrinsic to Protestantism. I think it is a failure in practice and in emphasis that has come about probably largely due to over-reaction against Catholicism.

It's not inherent in Protestantism because Lutherans (the original Protestants) have a robust theology of the cross, and traditional or "Anglo-Catholic" high church Anglicans hold to many of the same beliefs and emphases that we do. Many individual Protestants of many stripes do not fall into this trap. I was never of this mindset when I was a low church evangelical Baptist-type Protestant -- who didn't care much for liturgy or sacramentalism -- (though I certainly understand these things better as a Catholic than I used to). We would put out our little sculpture of Michelangelo's Pieta during Easter season just as we do now. We understood this. It was common (biblical) sense.

I have a little semi-humorous response that I make when a Protestant asks me why I am concentrating on Jesus on the cross when He is in heaven now. I ask them, "then why do you reflect upon Jesus in a manger as a baby at Christmas, then?"

Failure in practice in Protestantism is the same as the failures in practice of Catholics; e.g., our abysmal lack of Bible knowledge and Bible study. That is not intrinsic to Catholicism, but it is, sadly, the way things are for many, many Catholics (for a variety of reasons), and Protestants understand this far better than we do. We can help each other and complement each other. Likewise, the ignorance of Church history among many Protestants . . .

That said, I do think there were arguably some particularly "Catholic" elements in the film (in some sense) and I will now note them. One was the wiping up of the blood of Jesus after the scourging. That is very "Catholic" because it constitutes a relic. But even here, this is a "biblical thing" at bottom, not a "Catholic thing," because the Bible reports how the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life; the shadow of Peter healed people, and Paul's handkerchief did the same. Therefore, to the extent that Protestants would frown upon this, they are not being as "biblical" as we are. Ironic, isn't it? Opposition to this would be every bit as irrational and unbiblical as opposition to crucifixes or meditation upon Jesus' sufferings in the Rosary or in other ways. It so happens that we Catholics "get" this and many Protestants don't, but that doesn't make it intrinsically "Catholic" -- just "Catholic-practiced" and (mostly) "Protestant-ignored."

One might say that the big role for the Blessed Virgin Mary in the film was a "Catholic thing." I don't see how, because this is simply historical fact. We know from the Bible that she and John and a few other women were the only followers of Jesus present at the crucifixion. So it is not unreasonable to assume that she was present for some or all of the other proceedings (especially since it was all on one day and mostly in one area). Mainly it shows her following Jesus and suffering with Him, empathetically and maternally.

This is simply history (or reasonable assumptions about what probably occurred). It is no more "Catholic" (whatever one's Mariology might be) to show a mother concerned about her son being tortured and killed than it is to show John watching the whole thing, too, or for any of us "watching" vicariously through the medium of cinema.

The film presents a visual representation of the "Pieta": Mary holding her dead Son Jesus (as in Jesus of Nazareth which had a very moving similar scene -- that gets me every time -- , but with Mary wailing uncontrollably). Is this peculiarly "Catholic"? If it is, it is only insofar as Protestants wish to deny that it might have happened just like that, since Mary was at the cross, and loved her Son, and would want to hold Him even in death, as the natural impulse of any mother (or father) would dictate. So I just don't see it. That is not Catholic theology (i.e., no more Catholic than Protestant): it is simply being a normal human being and a mother.

What I found very "Catholic" myself was the careful way in which Gibson portrayed Mary: she was (of course) extremely distraught and in agony, yet it was with a certain stoicisim and acceptance that this was the way it had to be (and this interpretation was followed through in the "pieta" scene as well).

She knew her Son came to die and redeem the human race and she knew it early on (arguably from Simeon's prophecy (Luke 2:35) but in all likelihood earlier, because she knew He was the Messiah (right from the angel at the Annunciation) and if she knew her Scripture she would have known that Messiah was to suffer and even die for us (e.g., Isaiah 53). Furthermore, He talked about it quite a bit. The disciples may have been dense about that, but it doesn't follow that she was, too. She heard this and understood it. Views about the "ignorance" of Mary with regard to Christ's mission are unbiblical, implausible, and "liberal" in the same way that views about Jesus' "ignorance" are.

Therefore, Mary willingly accepts His passion and death. That doesn't mean she was overjoyed about it (any more than Jesus Himself was); only that she suffered in a way that excluded the total despair of a person who has lost all hope and sees no meaning whatsoever in some suffering or calamity. There is a huge emotional and existential difference between despair and a distraught state and utter, black despair without hope or meaning.

I believe Gibson was consciously aware of this and incorporated it into the film; otherwise Mary would have cried and carried on much more than she did (just as we viewers cried and carried on).

Lastly, here is what I thought was perhaps the most distinctively "Catholic" moment in the film (and no one I have yet read caught it). It's just my opinion and mere speculation, but see what you think: During the "pieta" scene, Mary looks straight at the camera for a long time and I agree that this could be read as her saying "why did you do this to my Son?," or "look what love my Son had for you."

But a detail I noticed was that her right hand was opened, either heavenward or towards the viewer (I'd have to see it again). That might be construed as Mary offering Jesus her Son up to the Father, much in the way that we participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass every Sunday. This is quite Catholic. My wife noted that it might also signify Mary saying, "come accept the salvation that my Son just made possible by His horrible suffering." Mary in turn helped make that possible by bearing Jesus in the first place (being the Theotokos); thus participating in the Incarnation, without which there is no Redemption. Does that make Mary equal to God or Jesus, or make her role in salvation history at all equal or on the same level as the work of Jesus. No, no, and NO (with the highest emphasis). But it does make her a key human "player" in redemptive history. And that is very "Catholic" indeed, but also -- I firmly believe -- not contrary to biblical teaching, even if not explicitly spelled out in it.

But I admit that this is speculation based on one observation of a gesture in the movie. Take it for what it's worth. If Gibson ever confirms this, then my impression will have been justified.

In Him,

Dave

The Passion: My Reaction (and Yours)

The following is one of the most difficult things I have ever written (and writing comes very easy for me), because words are so utterly inadequate to describe the impact of this film. One could cite Holy Scripture, but Christians are already familiar with that, and the biblical passion is a different thing than the filmed version of it (i.e., one is real; the other is artistic depiction, which can be done in many kinds of ways). I'll try to do the best that I can do, given these limitations. I wanted to write "fresh" from seeing the movie . . .

One could talk about the now-familiar phenomenon of the silent audiences after it is over (so I will). I didn't look around too much because I was almost in front (I didn't want any distractions), but I did see many people sitting in stunned shock, teary-eyed, in a daze.
The two women about ten seats away from me in my row certainly broke down several times, but that wasn't all that different from my own reactions (I maintained general composure -- being a guy and all -- but I had to wipe my eyes three times so I could keep watching).

The most difficult scene to endure for me was the one where it shows the Blessed Virgin Mary comforting Jesus as a child, juxtaposed with His carrying of the cross and His mother watching in agony and yearning to comfort Him again. I don't think any mother in the world could get through that dry-eyed (and fathers are not all that different, when it comes down to it). It's enough to break your heart all by itself in a film otherwise far and away the most emotionally intense imaginable.

Driving home, about 15 minutes after it ended -- in a daze and moved beyond words, I happened to look over to a car at an intersection and I noticed a couple waiting at a red light, both with their heads tilted to the side and buried in their hands.

This is the way to do a biblically-based movie. It is absolutely realistic; it shows what it would have been like to be there at the time. It took over a hundred years for the movies to finally show the day of crucifixion as it was. We have long since known all the technical and physiological details of crucifixion, scourging (and those scenes in the movie are arguably more excruciating than even the crucifixion, apart from the unbelievably graphic "nails" sequences), the brutality of Roman soldiers, etc., from historical research.

But no one (for some odd reason) ever put it all together in one film, as Mel Gibson has done. The Passion, in its extraordinary realism, makes the similar scenes of Jesus of Nazareth (my favorite Christian movie up till now, and superb in its own right) look like a tea party in the park.

It is real and gory and gruesome and almost impossibly painful and gut-wrenching to watch, while at the same time the direction and cinematography and acting and editing and music are all first-rate (so that it is so much more than what a video recording of the same events might have looked like).

It is art gloriously at the service of history and Christianity. The use of slow motion and flashbacks to related incidents; the devil figure, insinuations of demons (both outward and inner ones) the crushed-yet-accepting reactions of the Virgin Mary, the mocking soldiers and sneering Jewish leaders: all are brilliantly done.

What I felt as I watched it, is fairly simple to at least summarize, if not to fully describe: how it feels "on the inside". I kept thinking to myself: "God loves us THIS much; He was willing to go through all THIS! What love, what love, what love, what mercy, what forgiveness; what an awesome, GOOD GOD we have! How unworthy WE are to deserve any of this . . . "

Those who know a bit of theology about what God had to do and what He chose to do, may know that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas held that there could have been another way to accomplish redemption: God being God (with all power and knowledge). That only makes the impact of this film all the more profound: Jesus went through these unspeakable tortures for our sake.

He did it willingly. He knew what was to happen (many passages in Scripture). He chose to suffer for us and with us, because that is such a prominent characteristic of life for most human beings throughout history -- for the purpose of saving our souls (we who are absolutely unworthy of such salvation).

And beyond that, the biblically-literate person knows that our Lord Jesus had the load of the entirety of human sin on His shoulders as well. There is no way to adequately portray the unfathomable horror and ugliness and "cosmic catastrophe" of that, even in a remarkable film like this. It can't be described in words, either (even the Bible doesn't attempt to say all that much about it). It can scarcely be comprehended by our small human minds.

That's what I thought of and felt soul-deep while watching this film. You can read the well-known passages in the Scripture, such as "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). We Christians hear and read that all the time and casually process it into our brains, more or less abstractly.

But a film like this shows what the kind of love that the God-Man Jesus has for us, entails. We believe it, but The Passion gives us a chance to SEE it and experience this love, right before our eyes and deep down into our hearts and souls.

And that is the beauty and power of dramatic presentations of the biblical events -- especially of the life of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. They appeal to the whole person and make the Bible come to life. I've always been very moved by the better biblical films (sadly, there aren't many which don't have some phony or corny or "Hollywoodish" elements in them).

This one is perfect. I don't see how it could have been done any better. I'm no film expert, but I could easily see how someone might think this is among the best movies ever made, in any genre. After all, Gibson won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Movie for Braveheart, so he is not without great skill as a filmmaker.

How one reacts, watching this, is not just the emotion that any normal human being would feel, seeing a person tortured and mistreated for the better part of two hours; it is the realization of what redemption cost God. And the more we realize what it cost Him, the more we see how utterly lost in sin we all were before the spiritual power of regeneration was graciously applied to us by God the Father, through the Holy Spirit, as a result of what Jesus did for us on that dreadful, horrific Good Friday.

If this film doesn't move a person down to their bones and fingernails and the deepest recesses of their souls, -- both emotionally and (hopefully) spiritually -- then they are as un-alive as a rock. And no one who is not changed in some way for the better by watching this, has any inkling of the sublime events which it portrays.

To recognize that level of spiritual deadness in oneself (itself only by the grace of God) would be even more terrifying that what the sin of mankind caused Jesus to have to endure -- what this film enables us to SEE as we never have before; "Jesus died for you" -- , yet it would be the first step towards redemption and salvation (which, in a word, is the entirety of what this film is about).

May all Christians unite in our prayers and efforts: that this extraordinary movie may bring about many changed lives, and more and more committed disciples of our Lord Jesus. This is our moment. The time is now. Let's stop our stupid and petty in-fighting (over these basic issues where we should all readily agree) and show the world what Christianity is really all about. The film is the first step: our behavior as Christians is the crucial second part of the witness. Please God, be with us; it's the least we can do to thank You for what You have done for us . . .

Luther ---> Death Penalty for Anabaptists | My Luther Research Attacked Yet Again

If I hear another Lutheran try to deny that this is true, I think I'll scream. It's happened once again, and comically (for those who love irony as I do), from one who has been a vocal critic lately with regard to my supposed profound ignorance about Luther. He wrote on the Catholic Message Board:

. . . he was imperfect too. But not all the stuff you have read is true. He was not a fornicator, he was a good father and husband. His language was sometimes enough to make your skin crawl. He was "rough", but not evil. There were Lutherans who took things too far and yes they killed people for their beliefs. Not a good thing, not Luther either.

Here are the documented facts:

Luther sanctioned capital punishment for doctrinal heresy most notably in his Commentary on the 82nd Psalm (vol. 13, pp. 39-72 in the 55-volume set, Luther's Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al), written in 1530, where he advocated the following:

If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed -- for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold -- such teachers shuold not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers . . .

By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme.

(Luther's Works [LW], Vol. 13, 61-62)

Is this merely my interpretation of his words and thoughts? Hardly. The famous Luther biographer Roland Bainton wrote:

In 1530 Luther advanced the view that two offences should be penalized even with death, namely sedition and blasphemy. The emphasis was thus shifted from incorrect belief to its public manifestation by word and deed. This was, however, no great gain for liberty, because Luther construed mere abstention from public office and military service as sedition and a rejection of an article of the Apostles' Creed as blasphemy.

In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary
Anabaptists was obliterated . . .

Melanchthon this time argued that even the passive action of the Anabaptists in rejecting government, oaths, private property, and marriages outside the faith was itself disruptive of the civil order and therefore seditious. The Anabaptist protest against the punishment of blasphemy was itself blasphemy. The discontinuance of infant baptism would produce a heathen society and separation from the Church, and the formation of sects was an offense against God.

Luther may not have been too happy about signing these memoranda. At any rate he appended postscripts to each. To the first he said,

I assent. Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is crueler that they condemn the ministry of the Word and have no well-grounded doctrine and suppress the true and in this way seek to subvert the civil order.

. . . In 1540 he is reported in his Table Talk to have returned to the position of Philip of Hesse that only seditious Anabaptists should be executed; the others should be merely banished. But Luther passed by many an opportunity to speak a word for those who with joy gave themselves as sheep for the slaughter.

. . . For the understanding of Luther's position one must bear in mind that Anabaptism was not in every instance socially innocuous. The year in which Luther signed the memorandum counseling death even for the peaceful Anabaptists was the year in which a group of them ceases to be peaceful . . . By forcible measures they took over the city of Munster in Westphalia . . .

Yet when all these attenuating considerations are adduced, one cannot forget that Melanchthon's memorandum justified the eradication of the peaceful, not because they were incipient and clandestine revolutionaries, but on the ground that even a peaceful renunciation of the state itself constituted sedition.

(Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: Mentor, 1950, 295-296)

Moreover, Luther wrote in a 1536 pamphlet:

That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.

(Martin Luther: pamphlet of 1536; in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891]; Vol. X, 222-223)

The person who denied this has been publicly trashing my Luther research, even to the extent of deliberate dishonesty. I responded yesterday on that board (see one of the papers below), and he has been strangely silent since then, even urging others (i.e., in other threads) -- within 90 minutes of my long reply (just a coincidence, of course) -- to now "ignore" and "forget" Luther because he has been dead for 450 years and his life "shouldn't mean a thing."

I found this to be a quite curious and surprising development, since a search on that site revealed that he had talked about Luther in posts 96 times in the last 42 days, for an average of 2.29 times a day. In the same time period he mentioned our Lord Jesus only 58 times, faith 43 times, and the Bible 25 times. Aren't search engines a load of fun?

Utterly unable to resist (due to the incorrigible influence of Malcolm Muggeridge and G.K. Chesterton) the inherent and rather spectacular comedic possibilities of this turn of events, I wrote:

One can readily see, then, what a revolution this newfound realization will be in [so-and-so's] day-to-day life. Luther has nothing to do with one's faith; should be forgotten and ignored, yet he has talked about him in the last six weeks more than twice as much as "faith" and almost twice as much as Jesus, and nearly four times as much as the Holy Bible. He mentioned him ten times yesterday alone, or almost four times more than his average frequency. So this will be quite a change. Just in time for Lent . . .

People have tried to discredit my Luther research before, with the same dismal and semi-humorous result. It seems that the bogus charge flows readily, freely, and frequently from their overly-busy mouths, but the proof is (one might be excused for perceiving this) infinitely postponed. They make their claims and then disappear and head for the hills in terror the very moment my reply is given.

The most famous example was another Lutheran (about a year and a half ago) who was convinced that I was utterly dishonest with Luther primary texts, and accused me of skipping over 25 pages of text without using ellipses (i.e.: . . .). That temporarily provided great fun and frivolity in the very busy Protestant forum where this took place, until, alas, I proved that the alleged text-botching was committed by Will Durant, the well-known secular historian (whom, I hear, converted on his deathbed), not myself.

Durant was citing German Luther sources which may very well have been different from the 55-volume English set my cheerful opponent was talking about. Thus, either no wrong was done or Durant was the guilty party. In any event, the fault was not my own. Needless to say, this guy became scarce almost immediately . . .

Sometimes apologetics is "more fun than a human being should be allowed to have" (to quote Rush Limbaugh -- presumably not out of context or with missing ellipses and a deviously unmentioned 23-minutes of radio time gap).

For the latest nonsensical and ludicrous charges, see my two new papers (warning: it makes for quite tedious but occasionally very enlightening reading as to the tactics of some of my harsher critics):

My Alleged Pathetic Martin Luther Research, Luther-Bashing and "Dishonesty""

Does My Luther Research Lack Proper Documentation? (Particularly Regarding Primary Material From the 55-volume Luther's Works)

I did a related one recently, too, to make it a trilogy:

My Alleged Excessive Reliance on Catholic Luther Biographer, Hartmann Grisar, S.J.
(vs. Edwin Tait)

Edwin, a friendly acquaintance I like and respect a lot, admitted - to his great credit -- that I had proven my point, over against his charge. That's more than I can say for the present critic. I think they're looking for him in the Black Hills of South Dakota as I write . . .

Reformed View of "The New Ecumenicity"

[Unrelated Note on the movement of topics: I have set my blog controls so that no more than seven posts are on the front page at any given time. When they roll off the page they are still in the archives. The speed at which the front page moves will be determined by the amount of participation. If it is relatively slow (as it seems lately), I will keep adding material until I can achieve more participation. If there are a lot of comments, then I will make sure the post getting them stays on the front until the discussion dies down]

Bravo! and kudos to P. Andrew Sandlin, whose blog, Center for Cultural Leadership I link to on my sidebar. Writing on February 20th, about The Passion and its larger cultural and ecumenical implications, he states:

Less noble, it seems to me, is the more than a little anti-Roman bigotry that has accompanied some of the criticism of the movie. As a proud Protestant, I stand against certain Roman Catholic distinctives (the papacy, synergistic soteriology, the sacerdotal mass), but I gratefully acknowledge the Roman Church’s historic contribution to basic orthodox theology and to Christian culture. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are the three main sectors of Christendom, and we do no good by denying to any one of them its rightful place.

. . . In fact — and this is my chief point — the Christian groundswell created by Gibson’s “Passion” is largely the result of — and will likely only enhance — today’s New Ecumenicity at which all orthodox believers can be elated. As Thomas Oden observes in his fine work The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, the New Ecumenicity is far removed from the Old Ecumenical Movement, epitomized in the World Council of Churches in the 20th century. The old movement, now in decline and disarray, shed the bold tenets of Christian orthodoxy in favor of a vague religiosity, interpreted cultural relevance as capitulation to the depravities of secular culture (abortion, homosexuality, radical feminism, goddess worship, socialism), and bandwagoned with political Leftism in supporting Marxist regimes in the Third World.

In bold contrast, the New Ecumenicity champions without apology historic catholic orthodoxy and its creeds, resists the secularized ethics of the 20th century, and refuses to be held captive by a political ideology — from the Left or Right. The New Ecumenicity, pervasive not only among the evangelicals and conservative Protestants and in the free churches but now also gaining entrance into the mainline denominations and Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, poses a direct threat to the older, tired, toothless religious liberalism, as well as to the secular ideology of the cultural elites in Hollywood and elsewhere. It is an event in which I am proud to participate and to play a small role.

Gibson’s “Passion” is a testament to this valid ecumenicity, and let us all pray that God uses it to further His Son’s righteous Kingdom in the earth. Great days are ahead. Let us rejoice.

Guest Post: C.S. Lewis, Romanticism, & Asceticism(Keith Rickert, Jr.)

If God, alone IS, then evil is merely a privation, a subtraction of good. Evil is what is not. Therefore sin is the preference for what is, in the end, not even real. The good that we attach to sinful activities, is illusive, a lie. Sin is, literally, a rejection of reality, of what really is--of being. As such, it is a rejection of real goodness, real beauty, real truth—and real joy. Lewis, in The Great Divorce, makes the point that only those go to Hell who refuse Joy. God’s grace brings everyone to a place where they choose—imperceptibly and in the deepest, innermost parts of themselves (but in the most real way possible)—between (1) evil: cheap, counterfeit, illusive “good” which is really a privation of goodness, being, reality, and, as such, doesn’t satisfy, but it does afford one the illusion of being in charge, or (2) genuine goodness: which really is because it “comes from” God who, alone, is, but is so captivating that it takes one’s heart away, demanding all.

In The Great Divorce, souls from a place Lewis defines as either Purgatory or Hell, take a bus trip to the outer perimeter of Heaven where they are met by souls from Deep Heaven who try to help them choose to reject miserable unreality for joyous reality. The narrator, one of the souls visiting Heaven, relays this from one of the Heavenly souls:

====================
“Milton was right,” said my Teacher. “The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in words ‘Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.’ There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy—that is, to reality... There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.”
====================

“No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it.” How true this is! Joy can only be found in being--in truth, goodness, and beauty--and the soul which seeks this out ends in finding the aim of all his desires—God, the source of all being. In hindsight, I can see, prior to my re-conversion to Christ, God’s grace calling me toward Him. I thought I was simply seeking good feelings. I slowly started to notice that some good feelings I sought clashed with other good feelings I sought--feelings which seemed more real, of more substance. This is because the former had sinful activities as their object, while the latter had genuine being as their object. God’s grace brought me to a place where the two could no longer coexist. If I sought the good feelings, which, as it turned out, were derived from sin, I found myself curiously incapable of enjoying those other, “deeper” good feelings, which, as it turned out, were derived from tending to being—truth, goodness, beauty. This clashed with the relativism to which my intellect had conceded, but I could not discount my experience. I only knew that there were things that felt more real and there were things that, although they felt good, they detracted from what felt more real. Here, there emerges an element of choice; I had to chose, and it was difficult indeed, because what was becoming less real to me involved powerful addictions. I had to chose between, on the one hand, release and relief accompanied by a strange emptiness, or, on the other hand, inklings of joy accompanied by the anguishing torments of going without release and relief.

This, I think, is the nitty-gritty of conversion. A person either holds on through the anguishing torments, believing and choosing the more real, or he opts for relief and release, and placates himself with the lie that it is just as real as that other. As Lewis wrote: “There is always something they [the damned] prefer to joy—that is, to reality... No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it.” And Fr. Dubay: “Those who love goodness and beauty will find God.” (For a particularly haunting depiction of a human soul choosing the unreal—Hell—see Charles Williams’ Descent Into Hell.)

Under this light, asceticism is highly romantic; for it is the purging of the false, the unreal. The Fall has bequeathed us an inordinate appetite for good things, which falsely makes them ends in themselves or downright perverts them altogether. Because of the Fall, we no longer tend to God as our last end. Asceticism is the denial of the appetite for lesser or distorted things for the purpose of redirecting it to God as our first love and last end. Suddenly, fasting, penance, mortification become the stuff of fairy tales. The prince will complete any journey, risk any danger, endure any hardship in order to be reunited with his lover—for he knows that life without her is no life at all. Likewise, the princess, separated from her lover, will not pacify herself with the love of other men, but will hold onto her first, true love as she longs for their reunion. This is Catholicism: Lent, salvific suffering, the sacrament of confession, abstinence vs. artificial contraception, the fantastic mortifications of the saints (esp. in the stigmata), purgatory. It is no mere coincidence that St. Francis of Assisi was a Catholic—with his profoundly joyful romanticism side-by-side with his crushingly rigorous asceticism.

At the Fall, we were cast out of Eden and into a world where what is real coexists with what is not real. Lewis called our world “the shadowlands” because it is tainted by evil, and, thus, it is not fully real; it only bears the shadow of the fully real. Our longing for the fully real inspires a bittersweet asceticism, a painful abstinence from the less real, as we wait in joyful expectation for the coming consummation of the fully real...which will be in Heaven. (Brian: this deal with the points you raised.) In The Last Battle, the concluding book in the The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis describes how Heaven will be a realization of the fully real:

====================
Suddenly Farsight the Eagle spread his wings, soared thirty or forty feet up in the air, circled round and then alighted on the ground.

“Kings and Queens,” he cried, “we have all been blind. We are only beginning to see where we are. From up there I have seen it all—Ettinsmuir, Beaversdam, the Great Tiver, and Cair paravel still shining on the edge of the Eastern Sea. Narnia is not dead. This is Narnia.”

“But how can it be?” said Peter. “For Aslan told us older ones that we should never return to Narnia, and here we are.”

“Yes,” said Eustace. “And we saw it all destroyed and the sun put out.”

“And it’s all so different,” said Lucy.

“The eagle is right,” said the Lord Digory. “Listen, Peter. When Aslan said you could never go back to Narnia, he meant the Narnia you were thinking of. But that was not the real Narnia. That had a beginning and an end. It was only a shadow or a copy of the real Narnia which has always been here and always will be here: just as our own world, England and all, is only a shadow or copy of something in Aslan’s real world. You need not mourn over Narnia, Lucy. All of the old Narnia that mattered, all the dear creatures, have been drawn into the real Narnia through the Door. And of course it is different; as different as a real thing is from a shadow or a waking life is from a dream...”

The difference between the old Narnia and the new Narnia was...that...the new one was a deeper country: every rock and flower and blade of grass looked as if it meant more. I can’t describe it any better than that: if you ever get there you will know what I mean.

It was the Unicorn who summed up what everyone was feeling. He stamped his right forehoof on the ground and neighed, and then cried: “I have come home at last! This is my real county! I belong here. This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now. The reason why we loved the old Narnia is that it sometimes looked a little like this. Bree-hee-hee! Come further up, come further in!”. . .

Lucy said, “Were so afraid of being sent away, Aslan. And you have sent us back into our own world so often.”

“Never fear of that,” said Aslan. “Have you not guessed?”

Their hearts leaped and a wild hope rose within them.

“There was a real railway accident,” said Aslan softly. “your father and mother and all of you are—as you used to call it in the Shadowlands—dead. The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning”

And as he spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion; but the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them. And for us this is the end of all the stories, and we can most truly say that they all lived happily ever after. But for them it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the one before.

Guest Post: More on Romantic Theology (Keith Rickert, Jr.)

Just some further thoughts and comments on Romantic, Imaginative Theology...

Re: lightning, forest fires, earthquakes, cancer, AIDS, famine, drought, F5 tornadoes:

Romantic Theology does not blithely rule out the reality of natural evil. Charles Williams (I’m thinking specifically of Descent Into Hell) talks about a “terrible good”. One who experience it experiences terror, dread, as well as goodness in full potency. And I’ve noticed, when reading Narnia to my children, C.S. Lewis visit this idea, specifically in Aslan. Aslan is at once both good as well as terrifying. When Peter, Susan, Lucy, Edmund, etc. approach him, they are always filled with a strange admixture of joy and dread—both emotions at full strength, in a manner they’ve never experienced before. There are other instances; this is a recurring theme in Lewis.

I sense this in nature. Being out on the sea, one experiences a lot of beauty, but there is a terror that lurks deep down. An eruption of a volcano is, at once, beautiful as well as terrifying. And while death may not be beautiful, why does it haunt us so to see it, to meditate on it? All these things seemed to me to speak of the transcendental—something beyond the material world.

Now, as a Christian, I explicitly meditate on God’s power when I come into contact with it in nature. The terror that lurks in my heart while out on the sea, or watching a volcano erupt, or seeing an F5 volcano blow houses around like paper bags—is an itsy bitsy teeny weenie hint of the terror I will feel when I come before my Lord and my God. This is a part of Romantic Theology, too.

But, usually, as I understand it, the object of Romantic Theology is the religious impulse man finds arising within himself as he comes into contact with beauty and goodness in the created order, in myths, and in the arts. Stated less succinctly, Romantic (or Imaginative) Theology is the rational exploration of the phenomenon in which, through contact with goodness and beauty encountered in creation (including, of course, man himself) the arts, and stories (more properly, myths), a person experiences moments of joy and inexplicable bittersweet longing for some indescribable, elusive, transcendental “other-ness”, which, in turn will (if he so chooses) lead him onto a path by which he will (if, again, he so chooses) come to truth, that is, to God.

This is eminently Catholic. From the official Catechism of the Catholic Church:

====================
33 With his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence.

35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God.

41 The manifold perfections of creatures—their truth, their goodness, their beauty—all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures’ perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.” (Wis 13:5).

46 When he listens to the message of creation and to the voice of conscience, man can arrive at certainty about the existence of God, the cause and the end of everything.

288 Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step toward this covenant, the first and universal witness to God’s all-powerful love.

299 The universe, created in and by the eternal Word, the “image of the invisible God,” is destined for and addressed to man, himself created in the “image of God” and called to a personal relationship with God. Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work.

315 In the creation of the world and of man, God gave the first and universal witness to his almighty love and his wisdom, the first proclamation of the “plan of his loving goodness,” which finds its goal in the new creation in Christ.
====================

Vatican Council I, reiterating explicit biblical teaching, declared dogmatically and infallibly that “God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” As I see it, Romantic Theology is merely about the influence of non-rational experiences of goodness and beauty upon this process.

Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M, a foremost Catholic spiritual director, retreat master, and teacher of philosophy and theology asserts in Faith and Certitude, “Those who love goodness and beauty will find God.”

I find that the Catholic Church recognizes this reality more so than any other religion or theological system. Romantic Theology is exceedingly at home in the Catholic Church. The path my romantic experiences set me upon led me not only to God and Christianity, but, ultimately, to the Catholic Church, where I found everywhere in her worship, teaching, and saints not only eminently biblical truth but unrivalled romanticism.

So, I don’t see Romantic Theology as some alternative, esoteric theology. It is a philosophy of “Being”, just as is the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, who is venerated by the Church as not only a profoundly mystical and holy saint, but her primary theologian, philosopher and doctor. I find Romantic Theology all over the Summa Theologica:

-God, alone, is His very being; God, alone, is without contingency; God, alone, is. [1; q. 2-26] -Everything that is, that has being, gets its “is-ness”, its being, from God. [1; q. 2-26] -Therefore, when we, through contact with the created order, experience goodness and beauty and seek the essence thereof, we put ourselves on a path leading directly to God, who, alone, is good essentially—the source of all goodness. [I; q. 6, a. 1-4]

The late great Thomist, Walter Farrell, O.P., S.T.M., in his A Companion to the Summa, puts it succinctly in his description of the fourth of St. Thomas’ five ways to demonstrate the existence of God:

====================
In the world about us we see these perfections existing in things in greater and lesser degrees: that is, we see things that are more good and less good, more and less true, and so on; we see life within human limits, animal limits, plant limits. Now these limited degrees of limit-less perfections can be explained only by the existence of something to which these perfections pertain in their fullness, something which does not possess this or that degree of goodness, truth, life, but which is, by its very nature, limitless goodness, limitless truth, limitless life. . . . we cannot contact anything of reality without confronting divinity...
====================

Later, Farrell, expounding on the philosophy of the primary doctor of the Catholic Church hits dead center upon the very heart of Romantic Theology (Sorry for the length, but this is too good to edit down any further):

====================
That there is an all perfect being means that all the beauty, the love, the goodness that lift the heart of a man out of himself are but the shadows of the infinite on the pool of life, vague hints of the ineffable that lies at the beginning and end of life. . . . The conclusion that all reality is godlike is quite true. What we see in the world of existence, of beauty, of goodness, of grace and all the rest is had from God Who is overflowing with perfection. These creatures share, participate in the perfection of God. This was a truth close to the heart of Francis of Assisi and Martin de Porres, a truth that made all irrational creation and the whole world of men a lover's note to be read slowly, tenderly, repeatedly, to be treasured caressingly until the writer in person made plain all the beauties that could not be squeezed between the lines. It is right that the strength of a storm at sea, the innocence of a child, the calm of a country twilight should stir us to the depths of our being for these are shadows of divinity passing by... The notion of goodness adds nothing to being but the smack of desirability, that is, a thing can be good, desirable, only insofar as it is possible or thought to be possible; it can be pursued and enjoyed only insofar as it has being.... Bluff, defect, incapacity have nothing desirable about them because there is nothing real about them. But He Who is, the cause of all reality, the perfect Being, is the highest goodness for He is the most real Being. Not that He has goodness; rather He is goodness, as He is reality. On His goodness all other goodness is modeled, from His goodness all other goodness proceeds; all other goodness is a similitude, a participation, a limited miniature of the limitless goodness of God. Because of the smack of desirability which goodness adds to being, God is most desirable, most lovable. So true is this that everything in the universe hustles eagerly to this goal of goodness, each in its own way: man with alert steps along the dangerous road of knowledge and love, brutes with the unerring aim of instinct, the inanimate world with the blind, plodding step of physical necessity devoid of all knowledge. For each creature in the universe is spurred on to action by the goal of its own perfection, a goal which is nothing but a similitude, an image, a mirroring of the goodness of God... In a very real sense, this utterly limitless God overflows the limits of the universe. He is everywhere within it, yet not contained by it. Everything in the universe comes from God; existence is His proper effect. Where anything exists, there is God. Understand, now, this is not merely a matter of God first giving existence and then abandoning the universe to its fate; He does not give us a pat on the back as we leave the corner of nothingness to jump into the ring of life, leaving us to take the blows while He shouts advice that takes none of the sting out of the blows. Existence belongs to God; as long as existence endures, there is the hand of God sustaining it as a mother supports her infant or the throat of a singer sustains his song. God is everywhere, and only God; for only God is the infinite, the first cause explaining every existent thing. The ubiquity of God, in common with all the divine perfections, is not a cold, abstract thing meaningless to men. Its significance for human living is inexhaustible. In the concrete, it means, for instance, that God is in the surge of the sea, the quiet peace of hills and valleys, the cool refreshment of rain, the hard drive of wind-driven snow. In the cities He is in the bustling of crowds, the roar of traffic, the struggle for pleasure, for life, for happiness, in the majesty of towering buildings. In homes He is not to be excluded from the tired, drowsy hours of night, the hurried activity of morning, from the love and quarrels, the secret worries and unquestioning devotion, the sacrifice and peace that saturate a home. In every individual one of us God is more intimately present than we are to ourselves. Every existing thing within us demands not only the existence of God but also His constant presence, from every rush of blood from our hearts to every wish, every thought, every act. In other words, everything that is real must have God there as the explanation, the foundation, the cause of every moment of its reality.
====================

This is pure, undiluted Romantic Theology. It is fully biblical, fully Thomistic, fully Catholic. Again, from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church:

====================
213 The revelation of the ineffable name "I AM WHO AM" contains then the truth that God alone IS. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and following it the Church's Tradition, understood the divine name in this sense: God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is.

290 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth":[Gen 1:1] three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being.

291 "In the beginning was the Word. . . and the Word was God. . . all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." [Jn 1:1-3] The New Testament reveals that God created everything by the eternal Word, his beloved Son. In him "all things were created, in heaven and on earth.. . all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."[ Col 1:16-17] The Church's faith likewise confesses the creative action of the Holy Spirit, the "giver of life", "the Creator Spirit" (Veni, Creator Spiritus), the "source of every good".

292 The Old Testament suggests and the New Covenant reveals the creative action of the Son and the Spirit,[ Ps 33:6; 104:30; Gen 1:2-3.] inseparably one with that of the Father. This creative co-operation is clearly affirmed in the Church's rule of faith: "There exists but one God. . . he is the Father, God, the Creator, the author, the giver of order. He made all things by himself, that is, by his Word and by his Wisdom", "by the Son and the Spirit" who, so to speak, are "his hands".[St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres] Creation is the common work of the Holy Trinity.

293 Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: "The world was made for the glory of God." St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things "not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it", for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: "Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand." The First Vatican Council explains:

This one, true God, of his own goodness and "almighty power", not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel "and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . .

294 The glory of God consists in the realization of this manifestation and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created. God made us "to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace",[Eph 1:5-6.] for "the glory of God is man fully alive; moreover man's life is the vision of God: if God's revelation through creation has already obtained life for all the beings that dwell on earth, how much more will the Word's manifestation of the Father obtain life for those who see God." [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres] The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become "all in all", thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude." [1 Cor. 15:28].

299 Because creation comes forth from God's goodness, it shares in that goodness - "And God saw that it was good. . . very good" [Gen 1:4,10,12,18,21,31] - for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world.
====================

More Reaction to The Passion

(edited versions of two articles)

The Passion' … for Its Author, Is a Mass

Vittorio Messori on Mel Gibson's Work

ROME, FEB. 18, 2004 - Vittorio Messori is the first journalist in history to publish a book-length interview with a pope, the multimillion-selling Crossing the Threshold of Hope (1994), as well as numerous other works such as The Ratzinger Report (1987) . . . After seeing Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, he wrote the following article for the Italian daily Corriere della .

A Passion of Violence and Love By Vittorio Messori

After two hours and six minutes, the lights flick on again in the little soundproof room. There are only about a dozen of us (I the sole journalist), and we are aware of a privilege. By invitation of Mel Gibson and producer Steve McEveety of Icon Films, we are the first in Europe to see the final copy of this film which just arrived from Los Angeles.

. . . Two women weep quietly, without sobbing; the monsignor in clergyman's dress who is next to me is very pale, his eyes closed; the young ecclesiastical secretary nervously fingers a rosary; a tentative, solitary start of applause quickly dies out in embarrassment.

For many, very long minutes, no one stands up, no one moves, no one speaks. So, what we were being told was true: The Passion of The Christ has struck us, it has worked in us, the first guinea pigs, the effect that Gibson wanted.

For what it's worth, I myself was disconcerted and speechless: For years I have examined one by one the Greek words with which the Evangelists recount those events; not one historical minutia of those 12 hours in Jerusalem is unknown to me. I have addressed it in a 400-page book that Gibson himself has taken into account. I know everything, or rather, I now discover that I thought I knew: everything changes if those words are translated into images of such power to transform in flesh and blood, striking signs of love and hatred.

The Gamble

Mel has said it with pride tempered by humility, with pragmatism kneaded with mysticism which becomes in him a singular mixture: "If this work was to fail, for 50 years there will be no future for religious films. We threw the best in here: as much money as we wished, prestige, time, rigor, the charism of great actors, the science of the learned, inspirations of the mystics, experience, advanced technology. Above all, we threw in our conviction that it was worthwhile, that what takes place in those hours concerns every man. Our eternity is bound up forever with this Jew. If we don't point this out, who will be able to do so? But we will point it out, I am sure of it: Our work was accompanied by too many signs that confirm it."

In fact, on the set much more happened than what is known; much will remain in the secret of consciences: conversions, release from drugs, reconciliation between enemies, giving up of adulterous ties, apparitions of mysterious personages, extraordinary explosions of energy, enigmatic figures who knelt down as the extraordinary Caviezel-Jesus passed by, even two flashes of lightning, one of which struck the cross, but did not hurt anyone . . .

Gibson remembered Blessed Angelico's warning: "To depict Christ, it is necessary to live with Christ." The atmosphere, between the Sassi di Matera and the Cinecittà Studios seems to have been that of the sacred medieval representations, of processions of scourged pilgrims before the relics of martyrs . . .

This film, for its author, is a Mass: Let it be, then, in an obscure language, as it was for so many centuries. If the mind does not understand, so much the better. What matters is that the heart understands that all that happened redeems us from sin and opens to us the doors of salvation . . . After a while, one stops reading the subtitles to enter, without distractions, in the terrible and marvelous scenes -- that are sufficient in themselves.

The Quality

On the technical plane, the work is of a very high quality, so much so that previous films on Jesus might seem reduced to poor and archaic relatives: in Gibson, strategic lighting, skillful photography, extraordinary costumes, rugged and sometimes sumptuous set designs, incredibly convincing makeup, recitations of great professionals supervised by a director who is also one of their illustrious colleagues. Above all, such amazing special effects which, as Enzo Sisti, the executive producer, said to us, will remain secret, to confirm the enigma of the work, where the technique is intended to be at the service of faith. A faith in the most Catholic version -- no accident that it was pleasing to the Pope and to so many cardinals, not excluding Ratzinger, for whom The Passion is a manifesto that abounds in symbols that only a competent eye can fully discern . . .

Very briefly, the radical "Catholicity" of the film lies first of all in the refusal of every demythicization, in taking the Gospels as precise chronicles: The things, we are told, happened like this, precisely as the Scriptures describe it. Catholicism is present, then, in the recognition of the divinity of Jesus which exists together with his full humanity. A divinity that bursts forth, dramatically, in the superhuman capacity of that body to suffer a level of pain as no one before or after ever has, in expiation of all the sin of the world.

But the radical "Catholicity" is also in the Eucharistic aspect, reaffirmed in its materiality: The blood of the Passion is continuously intermingled with the wine of the Mass, the tortured flesh of the "corpus Christi" with the consecrated bread. It is, also, in the strongly Marian tone: the Mother and the devil (who is feminine or, perhaps, androgynous) are omnipresent, the one with her silent pain, the other with his/her malicious satisfaction.

From Anne Catherine Emmerich, the stigmatized visionary, Gibson has taken extraordinary intuitions: Claudia Procula, Pilate's wife, who offers, weeping, to Mary the cloths to soak up the blood of the Son is among the scenes of greatest delicacy in a film that, more than violent, is brutal. Brutal as, in fact, the Passion was. The desperate Peter after the denial, falls at the feet of the Blessed Virgin to obtain pardon. I believe, however, that the theological importance attributed to the Madonna, as well as to the Eucharist -- an importance not spiritualized, not reduced to a "memorial" but seen in the most material, and therefore Catholic, way (the Transubstantiation) -- will create some uneasiness in American Protestant churches which, without having seen the film, have already organized themselves to support its distribution.

. . . It comes across very clearly in the film that what weighs Christ down and reduces him to that state is not this one's or that one's fault, but rather the sin of all men, no one excluded.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

"The Passion of the Christ"
Jody Dean, CBS news anchor

. . . The screening was on the first night of "Elevate!", a weekend-long seminar for young people at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano . . .

I want you to know that I started in broadcasting when I was 13-years-old. I've been in the business of writing, performing, production, and broadcasting for a long time. I've been a part of movies, radio, television, stage and other productions - so I know how things are done. I know about soundtracks and special effects and make-up and screenplays. I think I've seen just about every kind of movie or TV show ever made - from extremely inspirational to extremely gory. I read a lot, too - and have covered stories and scenes that still make me wince. I also have a vivid imagination, and have the ability to picture things as they must have happened - or to anticipate things as they will be portrayed . . .

But there is nothing in my existence - nothing I could have read, seen, heard, thought, or known - that could have prepared me for what I saw on screen last night. This is not a movie that anyone will "like". I don't think it's a movie anyone will "love". It certainly doesn't "entertain". There isn't even the sense that one has just watched a movie. What it is, is an experience - on a level of primary emotion that is scarcely comprehensible. Every shred of human preconception or predisposition is utterly stripped away. No one will eat popcorn during this film. Some may not eat for days after they've seen it. Quite honestly, I wanted to vomit. It hits that hard.

. . . There are no "winners". No one comes off looking "good" - except Jesus. Even His own mother hesitates. As depicted, the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day merely do what any of us would have done - and still do. They protected their perceived "place" - their sense of safety and security, and the satisfaction of their own "rightness". But everyone falters. Caiphus judges. Peter denies. Judas betrays. Simon the Cyrene balks. Mark runs away. Pilate equivocates. The crowd mocks. The soldiers laugh. Longinus still stabs with his pilus. The centurion still carries out his orders. And as Jesus fixes them all with a glance, they still turn away. The Jews, the Romans, Jesus' friends - they all fall. Everyone, except the Principal Figure. Heaven sheds a single, mighty tear - and as blood and water spew from His side, the complacency of all creation is eternally shattered.

The film grabs you in the first five seconds, and never lets go. The brutality, humiliation, and gore is almost inconceivable - and still probably doesn't go far enough. The scourging alone seems to never end, and you cringe at the sound and splatter of every blow - no matter how steely your nerves. Even those who have known combat or prison will have trouble, no matter their experience - because this Man was not conscripted. He went willingly, laying down His entirety for all. It is one thing for a soldier to die for his countrymen. It's something else entirely to think of even a common man dying for those who hate and wish to kill him. But this is no common man. This is the King of the Universe. The idea that anyone could or would have gone through such punishment is unthinkable - but this Man was completely innocent, completely holy - and paying the price for others. He screams as He is laid upon the cross, "Father, they don't know. They don't know..."

What Gibson has done is to use all of his considerable skill to portray the most dramatic moment of the most dramatic events since the dawn of time. There is no escape. It's a punch to the gut that puts you on the canvas, and you don't get up. You are simply confronted by the horror of what was done - what had to be done - and why. Throughout the entire film, I found myself apologizing.

What you've heard about how audiences have reacted is true. There was no sound after the film's conclusion. No noise at all. No one got up. No one moved. The only sound one could hear was sobbing. In all my years of public life, I have never heard anything like that.


. . . The truth is this: Is it just a "movie"? In a way, yes. But it goes far beyond that, in a fashion I've never felt - in any forum. We may think we "know". We know nothing. We've gone 2,000 years - used to the idea of a pleasant story, and a sanitized Christ. We expect the ending, because we've heard it so many times. God forgive us. This film tears that all away. It's is as close as any of us will ever get to knowing, until we fully know. Paul understood. "Be urgent, in and out of season." Luke wrote that Jesus reveals Himself in the breaking of the bread. Exactly. "The Passion Of The Christ" shows that Bread being broken.

Share Your Favorite Things

I thought this would be fun, to get to know each other better. Here is my "list" (feel free to add any other categories):

1. Heroes

Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, Pope John Paul II, Socrates, St. Thomas More, St. Athanasius, Mother Teresa, St. Paul, the prophets, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., all martyrs

2. Composers

Wagner, Beethoven, Mahler, Debussy, Bach

3. Season

Autumn

4. Favorite Book in the Bible

Isaiah

5. Games

Chess, Monopoly, poker, Trivial Pursuit, Nintendo racing

6. Pop Music

Beatles, U2, Van Morrison, Beach Boys, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Joni Mitchell, Motown and other old
R & B, rockabilly, Bob Dylan, Sarah McLachlan, Phil Keaggy (contemporary Christian guitarist), Sam Cooke

7. Actors and Actresses

Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep, Paul Newman, Laurence Olivier, Al Pacino, Jimmy Stewart.

8. Favorite Saints

St. Francis of Assisi, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Catherine of Siena

9. Biggest Fun Thrill

hang gliding (2nd place: white water rafting: New River: W. Va.)

10. Writers

C.S. Lewis, J.H. Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Peter Kreeft, Thomas Howard, St. Augustine

11. Hobbies

travel, sports, hiking, swimming, nature photography, lighthouses, playing with my kids, chatting with friends, Highland Games, museums and historical landmarks, tobogganing and ice skating, roller coasters and salt and pepper shakers

12. Movies

2001: A Space Odyssey, Sleuth, Fiddler on the Roof, Gone With the Wind, It's a Wonderful Life, Jesus of Nazareth, A Man For All Seasons, A Christmas Carol (1951), The Dirty Dozen, Cool Hand Luke, Glory, Gettysburg, Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Passion (I'm sure, once I see it)

The Biblical Evidence for Relics & its Protestant Detractors

From my upcoming book: 95 Bible Verses That Protestants Ignore:

2 Kings 13:20-21: “So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. 21 And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.”

As an introduction to the Catholic conception of matter as a conveyor of grace: the fundamental assumption behind things such as relics and sacramentals, I shall cite John Henry Newman, from his famous, profoundly influential work, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, written in 1845, while still an Anglican (but just before he converted to Catholicism):

"Christianity . . . taught that the Highest had taken a portion of that corrupt mass upon Himself, in order to the sanctification of the whole; that, as a first fruits of His purpose, He had purified from all sin that very portion of it which He took into His Eternal Person, . . . It taught that the Highest had in that flesh died on the Cross, and that His blood had an expiatory power; moreover, that He had risen again in that flesh, and had carried that flesh with Him into heaven, and that from that flesh, glorified and deified in Him, He never would be divided. As a first consequence of these awful doctrines comes that of the resurrection of the bodies of His Saints, and of their future glorification with Him; next, that of the sanctity of their relics . . ."

(Part II, Chapter X, Section 1, 401-402)

Thomas Howard, also an Anglican on the verge of conversion to Catholicism at the time he wrote the following, picked up the same theme of the unbiblical Protestant tendency to pit matter against spirit:

"By avoiding the dangers of magic and idolatry on the one hand, evangelicalism runs itself very near the shoals of Manichaeanism on the other – the view, that is, that pits the spiritual against the physical."

(Evangelical is Not Enough, 35)

Catholic apologist Bertrand Conway elaborates:

"The Catholic Church does not teach that there is any magical virtue or any curative efficacy in the relic itself. The Church merely says, following the Scriptures, that they are often the occasion of God’s miracles. In the Old Law we read of the veneration of the Jews for the bones of Joseph (Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32), and of the prophet Eliseus which raised a dead man to life (2 Kings 13:21) . . ."

(The Question Box, 373)

With this background, let’s examine some examples of how Protestants have interpreted 2 Kings 13:20-21. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary – somewhat typically, it seems – admits the validity of the principle involved but then immediately proceeds to irrationally mock the Catholic belief-system concerning relics which derives from it:

"This shows that the prophet did not perform his miracles by any powers of his own, but by the power of God; and he chose to honour his servant, by making even his bones the instrument of another miracle after his death. This is the first, and I believe the last, account of a true miracle performed by the bones of a dead man; and yet on it and such like the whole system of miraculous working relics has been founded by the popish Church."

With this sort of mentality, I guess the examples from the Bible, and explicit biblical precedents and proof texts for any Christian belief or practice are irrelevant. Clarke’s hidden hostile assumption seems to be that the only criterion we have for knowing that a belief is false and implausible (regardless of the biblical data) is whether the “popish Church” espouses it. If it does do so, it must be false.

Presbyterian Matthew Henry, in his very well-known Commentary, manages to recognize the implications of the verse without adding the gratuitous swipe against the “papists”:

"This great miracle . . . was also a plain indication of another life after this. When Elisha died, there was not an end of him, for then he could not have done this. From operation we may infer existence . . . Elijah was honoured in his departure. Elisha was honoured after his departure."

To conclude this discussion on relics, I would add that veneration is essentially different from worship or adoration (reserved for God alone); it is a high honor given to something or someone because of the grace revealed or demonstrated in them from God. The relic (and the saint from whom it is derived) reflects the greatness of God just as a masterpiece of art or music reflects the greatness of the artist or composer.

Therefore, in venerating it, God is being honored. The saint is being venerated only insofar as he or she is reflecting God’s grace and holiness. If such an item is worshiped, the person doing it is not following Catholic teaching, which fully agrees with Protestantism with regard to the evil of idolatry, or putting something besides God in the unique place of God.

In the passage above, matter clearly imparted the miraculous and grace from God. That is all that is needed for Catholics to reasonably and scripturally hold such items in the highest regard and honor (veneration). It wasn’t necessary for the whole doctrine to be present in the verse; only the fundamental assumption behind it (matter can convey grace), which is the basis for the Catholic belief and practice.

Many Protestants (including Martin Luther himself, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Churches of Christ) accept this principle with regard to the waters of baptism, which – so they hold – cause spiritual regeneration to occur, even in an infant.

As for the “graven image” of Exodus 20:4: what God was forbidding was idolatry: making a stone or block of wood God. The Jews were forbidden to have idols (like all their neighbors had), and God told them not to make an image of Him because He revealed Himself as a spirit. The KJV and RSV Bible versions use the term graven image at Exodus 20:4, but many of the more recent translations render the word as idol (e.g., NASB, NRSV, NIV, CEV).
Context makes it very clear that idolatry is being condemned. The next verse states: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (NIV, NRSV).

In other words, mere blocks of stone or wood ("them") are not to be worshiped, as that is gross idolatry, and the inanimate objects are not God. This does not absolutely preclude, however, the notion of an icon, where God is worshiped with the help of a visual aid.

Idolatry is a matter of disobedience in the heart towards the one true God. We don't always need an image to have an idol. Most idols today are non-visual: money, sex, lust for power, convenience, our own pride or intellects; there are all sorts of idols. Anything that replaces God as the most important thing in our life and the universe, is an idol.

Idolatry is also a “heart issue.” It's all about what is going on interiorly, just as lust is. One can lust without having a person of the opposite sex right in their vision. The heart is always key in Christianity. Catholics and Orthodox worship Jesus through images (including crosses, crucifixes, and statues of Jesus), and we venerate saints via images.

The frequent Protestant objection and opposition to veneration of images or of relics (as in this case) is as silly as saying that a person raising their hands towards God in worship and praise during church is worshiping the ceiling. That person may not have an image of God in their mind, but they use the symbolism of "upwards" as being directed towards God (yet God is everywhere, so they could just as correctly stretch their arms downward or sideways).

We are physical creatures; God became man, and so by the principle of the Incarnation and sacramentalism, the physical becomes involved in the spiritual. Icons and relics are both based on these presuppositions.

2 Kings 2:11-14: “And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 12 And Elisha saw it and he cried, ‘My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!’ And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces. 13 And he took up the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. 14 Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, ‘Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?’ And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Elisha went over.”

Acts 5:15-16: “. . . they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. 16 The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.”

Acts 19:11-12: “And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.” (cf. Mt 9:20-22)

Elisha’s bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself. These passages, on the other hand, offer examples of “second-class” relics: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person (Elijah’s mantle and even St. Peter’s shadow), and third-class relics: something that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul).

Surveying a few examples of Protestant commentary on these verses, we find again that no real substantive objection is raised, so that, therefore, the Catholic basis for relics, grounded in these passages, stands unrefuted.

Thus, Matthew Henry refers to Elisha taking up Elijah’s mantle “not as a sacred relic to be worshipped.” Catholics do not worship relics, but venerate them, because they represent a saint who in turn reflects the grace and holiness of God. Henry offers no essential disproof that this is indeed a relic, only a potshot against a straw man.

God ultimately performs all miracles by His power, but in this case and many others He uses physical objects to do so (e.g., Moses’ staff, a Temple made of stone and wood). Belief that God can use something in His creation for a miraculous purpose does not in any way, shape, or form imply that God is not responsible or the cause. Adam Clarke cynically comments on St. Peter’s shadow, offering seven “disproofs” of relics:

"A popish writer, assuming that the shadow of Peter actually cured all on which it was projected, argues from this precarious principle in favour of the wonderful efficacy of relics! . . . Now, before this conclusion can be valid, it must be proved: 1. That the shadow of Peter did actually cure the sick; 2. That this was a virtue common to all the apostles; 3. That all eminent saints possess the same virtue; 4. That the bones, &c., of the dead, possess the same virtue with the shadow of the living; 5. That those whom they term saints were actually such; 6. That miracles of healing have been wrought by their relics; 7. That touching these relics as necessarily produces the miraculous healing as they suppose the shadow of Peter to have done . . . no evidence can be drawn from this that any virtue is resident in the relics of reputed or real saints, by which miraculous influence may be conveyed."

I shall briefly reply to Clarke’s seven points of contention:

1) That St. Peter’s shadow was instrumental in healings is at least as reasonable and plausible an assumption from the text as its denial.

2) and 3) Whether all the apostles and saints possessed this characteristic is logically irrelevant to the fact that it occurred with Peter and thus sets a biblical precedent for Catholic belief in second-class relics.

4) This is a non sequitur. The evidence for bones also potentially having such power is proven from the example of Elisha.

5) Whether a person was a saint is a matter of rigorous historical inquiry in the Catholic Church (usually taking many years).

6) Whether miracles have occurred historically as a result of relics is also a matter of historical substantiation. They certainly have, but proof of that is beyond our purview here.

7) Catholics are not saying that healing necessarily follows from contact with a relic, only that it may, and that this is one legitimate means that God may in some instances use to heal and otherwise bestow grace upon sinful men.

Clarke’s case against relics based on this Scripture passage is nonexistent (and mostly merely declarative, to the exclusion of substantive rational argument): a combination of irrelevancies, straw men, wrongheaded analogies, conclusions that don’t follow, unwarranted demands, and outright skepticism of the occurrence of the supernatural (many Protestants – called cessationists -- believe that all miracles ceased with the apostles). Matthew Henry, in his commentary on Peter’s shadow, is not nearly so skeptical as Clarke:

"[I]f such miracles were wrought by Peter's shadow, we have reason to think they were so by the other apostles, as by the handkerchiefs from Paul's body (ch. xix. 12), no doubt both being with an actual intention in the minds of the apostles thus to heal; so that it is absurd to infer hence a healing virtue in the relics of saints that are dead and gone."

This is excellent and no different from the Catholic view, except for the last clause, which does not at all logically or biblically follow. Rather than recognize this instance as a clear proof of the principle of relics, Henry belittles relics as “absurd” with one portion of a sentence – itself containing an altogether unproven assumption: that in order for a healing to occur, it must be the intention of a person performing it (thus ruling out miracles as a result of relics, by definition).

But whence comes this “criterion”? To the contrary, Elisha was dead but his bones still raised a man from the dead. He certainly had no intention of healing that person (unles he did so from heaven). By Henry’s reasoning, then, that clear biblical example would be absurd. He himself grasps the implication when commenting on Elisha’s bones, but contradicts himself here and can’t bring himself to admit anything that might have a “Catholic odor” to it.

Catholics, however (like the overwhelming number of those in the early Church), are not limited by this bias against matter as a purveyor of grace and the notion of relics itself, and so can accept the Bible’s teaching, wherever it leads.

Likewise, John Calvin’s “argument” against relics in his commentary on Acts 19:11-12 contains plenty of mockery, straw men, and sophistry:

"[T]he Papists are more blockish, who wrest this place unto their relics; as if Paul sent his handkerchiefs that men might worship them and kiss them in honor of them; as in Papistry, they worship Francis’ shoes and mantle, Rose’s girdle, Saint Margaret’s comb, and such like trifles. Yea, rather, he did choose most simple things, lest any superstition should arise by reason of the price or pomp."

But Calvin’s exegesis does not overthrow the fundamental principle illustrated by these texts, which form a strong biblical basis for the Catholic conception of relics – which belief suffers no harm whatever from all the above Protestant commentary.

Monophysitism, Montanism, and Historic Roman and Papal Opposition to Heresy (vs. Eric Phillips)

Eric Phillips is a Lutheran. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

It would be more accurate to say that Rome stood on the sidelines, as a mostly disinterested Latin onlooker while the Greek churches hammered out the details of orthodox Christology. Rome might not have promoted any of the big early heresies, but it didn't defeat any of them either. It just didn't get involved much at all.

I cited a survey of various heresies and the Roman response to them, from a paper of mine.

"The East" is a darn big place compared to Rome. Why not compare East to West, or maybe Rome to one of the big Eastern sees?

Probably because the East as a whole had a tendency of setting itself against Rome, as seen in the later schism. But since your point was that Rome " didn't defeat any [heresies] either. It just didn't get involved much at all," I centred my answer on Rome. It was from another paper, anyway, where my point was to respond to the claims of certain anti-Catholic sorts of Orthodox, that Rome is not apostolic, or has lost grace and sacraments, etc. Therefore, I was writing about Rome's role in opposition to heresy.

Montanism was an apocalyptic sect which denied the divinely-
established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy's center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (199-217).

Who says Eleutherus "spearheaded" it? Bishops all over the place, East and West, opposed Montanism. It's only your Roman bias that makes you consider the popes to be "spearheads" as opposed to other important bishops.

I see. Well, then my "Roman bias" which is the "only" reason I stated this, according to you, pervades Protestant and secular reference sources, where I obtained this information in the first place (which is fine with me: I think more "Roman bias" would be a wonderful thing!). The Encyclopaedia Britannica, not particularly known as a "Catholic" or "Roman" publication (1985 ed., Micropaedia, vol. 4, "Eleutherius," p. 443), notes:

. . . pope from c. 175 to 189. During his pontificate the church was involved in a controversy over Montanism . . . Eleutherius had been devoting close attention to the Montanist controversy when in 177 Christians in the Lyon area wrote him expressing their opinion of the teachings of the prophet Montanus. Although the letter has been lost, it is believed to have asked Eleutherius to show mercy but not to compromise with followers of the movement. The churches of Lyon and Vienne, Fr., sent the letter by Bishop St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who was delegated to advise Eleutherius on the question. The opposition of Eleutherius to Montanism has been noted, but the nature of his mediation in the dispute is not known.

Protestant historian Philip Schaff, also, to my knowledge, a person who has never been accused of "Roman bias," writes:

The Gallic Christians . . . took a conciliatory posture . . . They sent their presbyter (afterwards bishop) Irenaeus to Eleutherius in Rome to intercede in their behalf. This mission seems to have induced him or his successor to issue letters of peace, but they were soon afterwards recalled. This sealed the fate of the party.

(History of the Christian Church, vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970 [orig. 1910], 419-420)

Lastly, another thoroughly Protestant work,The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1974, "Montanism," p. 674):

Opposition to the movement was initiated by Pope Eleutherius and taken up by writers such as Miltiades and Apollinarius.

I'm sure you will immediately resolve to send a letter of protest to Zondervan and J.D. Douglas, denouncing the obvious "Roman bias" which causes such outrageously subjective opinions to be expressed in such an important reference work! One can never be too careful in selecting scholarly works which manage to avoid the horrific "Roman bias" with which papers by the likes of Catholic apologists such as myself, are suffused. But if I can no longer consult Protestant works in my research, where can I go? To (obviously non-biased) Orthodox sources, perhaps?

Later christological heresies emanating from this school (such as Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, and Monophysitism) were influenced by Docetism.

Why are you distinguishing between Eutychianism and Monophysitism? The only kind of Monophysitism that is heretical is Eutychianism. Anti-Eutychian Monophysitism is just schismatic.

According to whom? Not the Council of Chalcedon, which condemned Monophysitism. For background on this heresy, I turn again to Schaff:

Its [Chalcedon's] opponents, it is true, rejected the Eutychian theory of an absorption of the human nature into the divine, but nevertheless held firmly to the doctrine of one nature in Christ . . . They conceded, indeed, a composite nature . . . but not two natures. They assumed a diversity of qualities without corresponding substances, and made the humanity of Christ a mere accident of the immutable divine substance.

Their main argument against Chalcedon was, that the doctrine of two natures necessarily led to that of two persons, or subjects, and thereby severed the one Christ into two Sons of God. They were entirely at one with the Nestorians in their use of the terms 'nature' and 'person,' and in rejecting the orthodox distinction between the two. They could not conceive of human nature without personality. From this the Nestorians reasoned that, because in Christ there are two natures, there must be also two independent hypostases; the monophysites, that because there is but one person in Christ, there can be only one nature . . .

Thus from the council of Chalcedon started those violent and complicated Monophysite controversies which convulsed the Oriental church, from patriarchs and emperors down to monks and peasants, for more than a hundred years, and which have left their mark even to our day. They brought theology little appreciable gain, and piety much harm; and they present a gloomy picture of the corruption of the church. The intense concern for practical religion, which animated Athanasius and the Nicene fathers, abated or went astray; theological speculation sank towards barren metaphysical refinements; and party watchwords and empty formulas were valued more than real truth . . .

Immediately after the council of Chalcedon bloody fights of the monks and the rabble broke out, and Monophysite factions went off in schismatic churches . . . After thirty years' confusion the Monophysites gained a temporary victory under the protection of the rude pretender to the empire, Basiliscus (475-477), who in an encyclical letter, enjoined on all bishops to condemn the council of Chalcedon (476). After his fall, Aeno (474-475 and 477-491), by advice of the patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, issued the famous formula of concord, the Henoticon, which proposed, by avoiding disputed expressions, and condemning both Eutychianism and Nestorianism alike, to reconcile the monophysite and dyophysite views, and tacitly set aside the Chalcedonian formula (482) . . . Felix II, bishop of Rome, immediately rejected the Henoticon, and renounced communion with the East (484-519). The strict Monophysites were as ill content with the Henoticon, as the adherents of the council of Chalcedon; and while the former revolted from their patriarchs . . . the latter attached themselves to Rome. It was not till the reign of the emperor Justin I (518-527), that the authority of the council of Chalcedon was established under stress of a popular tumult, and peace with Rome was restored. The Monophysite bishops were now deposed, and fled for the most part to Alexandria, where their party was too powerful to be attacked.

(History of the Christian Church, vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 [orig. 1910], 762-765)

Likewise, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1974, "Monophysitism," p. 672-673):

This reaction to orthodoxy which seems to suddenly emerge after Chalcedon in reality goes back to previous aspects of Christian history. Part of its roots can be traced to Christian monasticism as practiced in the Syro-Palestinian region and in Egypt. The monks were in constant battle against their human weakness and sinfulness . . . For Christ to have a similar human nature as their own would be unthinkable to the Eastern monk . . . Monophysitism was extremely popular among the laity of the Eastern churches. This mob popularity often found expression in many outbursts of violence such as in Alexandria, Antioch, and other church centers in the Middle East.

And The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, ed. F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1974, "Monophysitism," 931-932):

The doctrine that in the Person of the Incarnate Christ there was but a single, and that a Divine, Nature, as against the orthodox teaching of a double Nature, Divine and Human, after the Incarnation. Its adherents came into being as a distinct body immediately after the Council of Chalcedon (451), which formally defined the Dyophysite doctrine . . . An extreme form of it was condemned in the person of Eutyches (d. 454) at the Council of Chalcedon, to which the Monophysites always remained implacably opposed.

Now, Eric: either Chalcedon is orthodox or it is not. If you agree that it is, then you must agree that Monophysitism is heresy. This is the standard view of the subject. If you wish to say that only Eutychianism was opposed, then why is it that "the Monophysites always remained implacably opposed" to Chalcedon, if the latter was only renouncing an extreme of their position which they would themselves renounce?

You need to distinguish between verbal monophysites from the tradition of Severus of Antioch, and real Eutychians. The majority of those known to history as "Monophysites" did not teach one physis of Christ in which the divine swallowed up the human, or "the flesh of Christ came down from heaven," but rather one divino-human physis resulting from the Incarnation. The majority tradition of the Monophysites anathematized Eutyches. The Monophysite formula, "one hypostasis from two natures" is indeed inferior to the Chalcedonian formula "one hypostasis in two natures." It's not as clean and accurate a description, and is more liable to Eutychian distortion (though to be fair, it's less liable to
Nestorian distortion). But we need to distinguish between truly heterodox statements, and statements with orthodox intention but imperfect wording.

The Orthodox Church is also Chalcedonian, and it regards Monophysitism as heresy:

Heretical majorities -- Arian, Monophysite, iconoclastic -- sometimes succeeded in imposing themselves on "false councils" . . .

The Orthodox regard the period of the ecumenical councils as a normative period. It was then, by and large, that the dogmatic and canonical norms of the Orthodox faith were laid down, as we know them today . . . The Orthodox Church acknowledges seven ecumenical councils [up through 2nd Nicaea in 787]:

. . . 4. The Council of Chalcedon (451), which, while confirming the existence in Christ of a single Person, condemned the monophysites, because the latter refused to distinguish between the concepts of person ('hypostasis') and Nature ('physis') . . . The council affirmed that the son of God must be confessed in two natures . . . Many of the non-Greek elements in the Empire (Copts, Ethiopians, Syro-Jacobites, Armenians left the Orthodox Church at this time and formed schismatic Monophysite churches.

(John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 4th rev. ed., revised by Nicholas Lassky, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996, 24, 27-28)

As for the relationship of Eutychianism and Monophysitism, the (obviously severely-biased with that "Roman" outlook) Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 ("Eutychianism," vol. 5, 633, written by the great Catholic scholar and Church historian, John Chapman) states:

Eutychianism and Monophysitism are usually identified as a single heresy. But as some Monophysites condemned Eutyches, the name 'Eutychian' is given by some writers to only the more extreme of these sectaries, or even only to those in Armenia. It seems best to use the words indifferently, as no party of the sect looked to Eutyches as a founder or a leader, and Eutychian is but a nickname for all those who, like Eutyches, rejected the orthodox expression 'two natures' of Christ. The tenet 'one nature' was common to all Monophysites and Eutychians, and they affected to call Catholics Diphysites or Dyophysites.

The Chapman article in the Catholic Encyclopedia contradicts itself when it says, "Euychianism and Monophysitism are usually identified as a single heresy. But as some Monophysites condemned Eutyches, the name 'Eutychian' is given by some writers to only the more extreme of these sectaries, or even only to those in Armenia. It seems best to use the words indifferently, as no party of the sect looked to Eutyches as a founder or a leader, and Eutychian is but a nickname for all those who, like Eutyches, rejected the orthodox expression 'two natures' of
Christ." If some Monophysites (and these were significant ones, like Timothy Aeluros, as Chapman notes elsewhere) condemned Eutyches, then Eutychianism
IPSO FACTO is NOT "but a nickname for all those who . . . rejected the orthodox expression 'two natures.'" It's embarrassing how badly Chapman contradicts
himself here.

You claim (I think) that the only kind of Monophysitism that is heretical is Eutychianism. The above sources, however, teach us that Monophysitism, period, is heretical, and that Eutychianism is simply an extreme form of it, but not essentially different. You try to separate the two, but the Catholic Encyclopedia does not, and the two Protestant dictionaries: Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, both send readers to "Monophysitism" in their one-line entries for "Eutychianism."

The former calls Eutyches (in the article on him), "the real founder of Monophysitism" (p. 484), while the latter refers to him in its article on him as an "early Monophysite." And The Encycopedia Britannica (1985 ed., Micropaedia, vol. 4, "Eutyches" and "Eutychian," pp. 611-612) writes of:

Eutychianism, an extreme form of the Monophysite heresy [rather than, "the heretical form of Monophysitisim"] . . . he [Eutyches] concluded that Christ's humanity was distinct from that of other men, which some scholars propose was the real formulation of Monophysitism.

This treatment by Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic scholars alike hardly suggests the distinction you try to introduce.

So what if the Popes condemned it [Modalism, or Sabellianism]? Orthodox Bishops EVERYWHERE condemned it. And they did NOT wait for the popes to act.

You denied (quite astonishingly) that Rome did much of anything at all about heresy; I showed otherwise. Now you are crowing, "so WHAT if they condemned a heresy?" Curious . . .

. . . you don't tell us when any of the Eastern sees repudiated their own local problems, only when Rome did.

Yes, my friend. It is called a "response to an opponent's claims." You make a charge about Rome; I am trying to refute it. What does that have to do with every Eastern see in the world? I was pasting from earlier material. And THAT is called "convenience."

It's not surprising that the West did better in resisting Arianism, since it was primarily a philosophical error.

Oh? But I thought Rome "didn't defeat any" heresies and "just didn't get involved much at all"?????

And anyway, Pelagianism was exclusively a Western heresy. Of course the West would be foremost in dealing with it.

Oh? But I thought Rome "didn't defeat any" heresies and "just didn't get involved much at all"?????

Monophysitism was a heresy which held that Christ had one
Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two
Natures (Divine and human).

No, that's Eutychianism. The type of Monophysitism that prevailed in Egypt and Syria held that Christ had one nature that was both divine and human.

Then this type of Monophysitism is heretical, too, according to Chalcedon, as the number of natures was what was in dispute. It is heresy, not merely schism, as you claim. I got my definition from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. You may be right that their definition is a bit inaccurate, but in any event you are still incorrect in denying that Monophysitism per se is heresy, in both East and West.

Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology.

Bah. It was one strain of Alexandrian theology. And it was hardly advanced. It was just worried that Chalcedon's language, especially the language of Leo's Tome, conceded too much to the Nestorians.

Again, I got this notion straight from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. The fact remains that Monophysitism subsequent to Chalcedon was particularly strong in Alexandria, which is why the heretical bishops congregated there when they were deposed, as we learned above, from Philip Schaff.

Re: the historical questions, I did overstate my case when I said that Rome didn't defeat any of the major heresies. By "major heresies," I was referring to
those that required Ecumenical Councils, particularly Arianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. Rome was instrumental in the defeat of a number of Western
heresies, as one would expect, seeing as it was by a good margin the most prominent see in the West.

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 13 November 2002.

Postscript to Dialogue With Agnostic Ed Babinski on the Psalms, Etc.: Ed's Attempt to Enlist an Ancient Near East Scholar in Support Backfires

Dr. James Roger Black vs. Ed Babinski

Dr. Black earned a Ph.D. in "Ancient Religions of the Eastern Mediterranean" from the University of Wisconsin - Madison (2002). His dissertation (linked), concerned The Instruction of Amenemope: A Critical Edition and Commentary–Prolegomenon and Prologue. His M.A. was in "Religions and Cultures of the Ancient Near East" (1999, same school). His M.A. thesis was: "A First Time for Everything: Ancient Egypt Through an Eliadean Lens". Dr. Black's e-mail address is: jrblack@jvlnet.com. Dr. Black wrote in his dissertation (Introduction):

One of the premier products of Egyptian wisdom was the Instruction of Amenemope. In fact, of all the works of ancient Egyptian literature which have come to light in the past two centuries, Amenemope may be second only to the Book of the Dead in popularity and significance. Since its discovery in 1888 and its first publication in the early 1920s by E. A. Wallis Budge, Amenemope has become justly famous—not only for its intrinsic value as one of the great instructional texts of ancient Egypt, but also for its indisputable role in the formation of the biblical Book of Proverbs.

The relevance to our present topic of debate is clear: Ed and I differ with regard to interpretation of Hebrew poetry (Proverbs being a book of poetry, like the Psalms). Ed Babinski (having read some of Dr. Black's material online) apparently thought that Dr. Black would bolster his case against Christian incoherence in interpreting the Psalms (and my own supposed lack in the same area). The subsequent e-mail exchange -- which Ed was kind and fair-minded enough to forward to me -- makes for very interesting reading indeed. Note particularly how Dr. Black contended that Ed retains an insufficient, flawed methodology of biblical interpretation, left over from his own fundamentalist past. I made the same exact point some time ago. It was most heartening to see a biblical scholar confirm my strong impressions (especially since Ed himself sought this man out, thinking that he would confute my earlier argument).

Dr. Black's words will be in black (no pun intended!), Ed's in blue, and mine (minimal in this exchange) in green. I received Dr. Black's permission to post this (as can be seen at the end). I assume I have Ed's permission also, since he initially forwarded me the e-mails, and since this is how our dialogue has proceeded in the past. I just checked Ed's Dave Armstrong Correspondence Web Page, which has chronicled our dialogue. It does not contain the correspondence with Dr. Black (perhaps, however, Ed has a Dr. Black Correspondence Page too). I'm sure Ed will want to link to this present paper, so as to wrap up this long discussion once and for all. Ed's first letter to Dr. Black, sent sometime shortly before 29 December 2004, was entitled, "Dear Dr. Black, thank you for putting your dissertation and articles on the web!" Here it is, with Dr. Black's responses, and then Ed's counter-response:

---

Dave Armstrong went after an article of mine about the psalms and seems hell bent on defending everything said in every psalm as divinely inspired. I cited that C. S. Lewis did not think so. But Dave was not amused. As a Catholic apologist, Dave is someone who wishes to build up the Bible and defend it, every verse, in one way or another, while you seem agreeable with the idea of questioning particular verses. Or am I misreading either you or Dave's views?

I believe that the Bible is "true in all it intends to teach". The question then is, what exactly does it "intend" to teach, as opposed to mere incidentals. This is not always easy to discern, and people of good will can disagree.

As for your disagreements with Dave Armstrong, I have not read the entire exchange; but in what I did read, I think he made some good points, especially about the need (which the Catholic Church strongly emphasizes) to read biblical texts in their cultural context and according to the original author's intent.

I gather that you yourself emerged from a background which was not only Protestant but also "fundamentalist". In my own dealings with fundamentalists over the years, I have come to believe that the fundamentalist mindset remains the same regardless of what content is poured
into it. As a result, fundamentalist Protestants who convert to Catholicism tend to become fundamentalist Catholics; and fundamentalist Christians who become disillusioned with Christianity often end up as fundamentalist atheists.

Hence the trick for someone in your position is to make sure you have shucked off the old thought patterns from your fundamentalist past so that you do not carry them as unnecessary baggage into your future. In the case of your discussion with Dave Armstrong, I suspect that some of your difficulty in communicating with him may derive from the fact that you are continuing to think about the Bible in much the same way as you did before, except now from the other side of the fence; and as a result you are trying, without even realizing it, to conduct the discussion according to fundamentalist definitions and rules of procedure. But Dave is almost certainly not a fundamentalist, and putting him into that box is a sure way to guarantee that the two of you will not be able to communicate with each other.

Since Dave is a Roman Catholic, you might find it helpful to take a look at the Catholic Church's official statements on the proper approach to biblical studies, especially Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu and the Pontifical Biblical Commission's statement on the interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Both of these exhibit a good balance between the Church's legitimate spiritual concerns and the demands of objective biblical scholarship. My guess is that what Dave has been trying to say to you is largely in agreement with these two documents. Perhaps reading a more systematic exposition of the Church's position, and one which is outside the context of a one-on-one personal argument, will make it easier to understand where he is coming from, and hence make the whole discussion more fruitful for both of you.

Thank you for your insights Dr. Black,

Though I wish perhaps that you would send them to Dave as well,

I generally don't forward other people's email to third parties without permission. Now that I have your permission to do so, I will copy this reply
to him as well.

and that Dave would read your excellent online monograph on the Egyptian origin of several wise sayings that Jews and Christians later wrongly attributed to "King Solomon." smile

This isn't quite what the dissertation says. It is true that a number of Egyptian sayings ended up more or less intact in chapters 22-24 of the biblical Book of Proverbs. However, these were not "wrongly attributed to King Solomon"; in fact, the text quite clearly begins that section with the heading, "The sayings of the wise." [Proverbs 22:17] This is to distinguish them from the earlier collection of "the proverbs of Solomon" [10:1] and the later collection of "more proverbs of Solomon transcribed by the men of Hezekiah". [25:1] But even if they had all been ascribed to Solomon, that would not necessarily make the text "wrong". Since Solomon was obviously more than a little influenced by Egyptian culture (he did, after all, marry an Egyptian princess), he might well have incorporated some good foreign wisdom quotes into his own collection. This is, in fact, a common practice among "the wise" of almost every culture, who are always on the lookout for a choice turn of phrase and are generally quite eclectic and even cosmopolitan about their sources.

In point of fact, in my original article that Dave took exception to, I said not much more than C. S. Lewis once did, concerning the doubtful "holy" nature of the Psalms (and the lack of appropriateness of singing one psalm in particular at a friend's funeral).

In his Reflections on the Psalms Lewis wrote:

At one point I had to explain how I differed on a certain point from both Catholics and Fundamentalists: I hope I shall not for this forfeit the goodwill or the prayers of either. Nor do I much fear it.

Lewis characterized at least some of the psalmists as "ferocious, self-pitying, barbaric men." [Reflections on the Psalms, 24]

Well, yes. He also notes in the same paragraph that "we are all, of course, blood-brothers" to them. If being a sinful human disqualifies one from writing scripture, then no scripture could be written at all.

Adding, "But of course the fatal confusion between being in the right and being righteous soon falls upon them [the Psalmists].... There is also in many of the Psalms a still more fatal confusion--that between the desire for justice and the desire for revenge.... Even more devilish [than Psalm 109] in one verse is the, otherwise beautiful, [Psalm] 137.... This [Psalm 23:5] may not be so diabolical as the passages I have quoted above; but the pettiness and vulgarity of it... are hard to endure.... One way of dealing with these terrible or (dare we say?) contemptible Psalms is simply to leave them alone." [Reflections on the Psalms, 18-22]

Yes, Lewis says all these things. But he also adds a great deal of qualification and explanation to these statements--all of which you have omitted. This is precisely the sort of thing I had in mind when I said in my last note that I suspect you are attempting to "conduct the discussion according to fundamentalist definitions and rules of procedure". What you are doing here is not presenting a balanced view of what Lewis believed; you are "prooftexting", which means quoting snippets of text which appear to support your position without placing those snippets into their larger conceptual context. For example, Lewis points out that the psalmists' venomous reaction to injustice is rooted in something quite virtuous: a sense of indignation at evil. "If the Jews cursed more bitterly than the pagans," he says, it was "at least in part because they took right and wrong more seriously. ... The Jews sinned in this matter worse than the Pagans not because they were further from God but because they were nearer to Him." [pp. 30-31] To quote Lewis' distaste for the "diabolical" aspect of the psalms without also noting his evaluation of its cause is to misrepresent Lewis' position rather seriously. And once you understand what his position really was, it becomes clear that it was quite a bit more nuanced (and more affirming of conventional ideas of "inspiration") than the position you seem to be taking.

"Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness, are not removed [from the Bible]. [Reflections on the Psalms, 94]

I cannot find this quote on p. 94 of my copy.

You, Dave, and I all agree that the chief difficulty of any discussion of the Bible involves matters of perception and interpretation. Psalm 91 that I heard at Becca's funeral and that Dave has chided me for "questioning" is exactly one of the psalms that struck Lewis himself as less than "holy."

Where does he say this? The index in the back of the book has only one reference to Psalm 91 (i.e., p. 118) and there Lewis says nothing about that psalm being "less than holy"--in fact, he applies it to Jesus himself, and claims Jesus' own authority for doing so, which implies a very high view of it indeed.

Neither have any of Dave's attempts at "interpreting it" made it appear any more "inspired" either to my eyes, or to Lewis's,

Again, please give a page number for Lewis' alleged claim that Psalm 91 is not inspired.

though I admit Lewis's eyes are no longer around to gaze with wonder at all of Dave's denials of the all-too-human nature of the psalmists' ethno-centric, "ferocious, self-pitying and barbaric" (to cite Lewis) hyperbole.

Hyperbole: "an exaggeration or extravagant statement used as a figure of speech; for example, I could sleep for a year. This book weighs a ton." [American Heritage Dictionary]

Here you have stumbled onto the perfect solution for your dilemma: At least in its application to the average believer, Psalm 91 is hyperbole"--i.e., an exaggerated or extravagant statement, not intended to be taken literally in every case. There are times when it may indeed be literally true, as many people can attest. But there are other times when it just ain't so--as, again, many people can attest. Why do you think the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes are part of the canon along with Proverbs and Psalms? The former are a necessary corrective to the latter. Neither the Jews nor the early Christians were so silly as to think that every believer can "claim the promises" of Psalm 91 in every circumstance. It is only modern fundamentalists who insist on the literal application of every text of Scripture to every true believer. If they are fundamentalist Christians, they insist that the failure of the believer's experience to accord with the hyperbole of Psalm 91 is the fault of the believer, who must not have enough faith to make it come true; if they are fundamentalist anti-Christians, they insist that this failure is the fault of the Bible, which therefore must not be "inspired" after all. In either case the real problem is that the fundamentalist is attempting to use the text in a way in which it was never intended to be used.

Dave's response began with no sympathy or understanding of my plain humane commonsense perceptions, nor Lewis', but aimed first and foremost to picture me as daring to "question" "God." Then he completely ignored the words of psalm 91 in favor of an exposition about an afterlife (not mentioned anywhere in psalm 91), as well as vain attempts to try and reconcile far less fantastic "wisdom" sayings with the fantastic hyperbolic promises in psalm 91, which included overcoming armies of foes and diseases, right down to angels ensuring that one did not even stub one's toe. I found Dave's entire "response" to my original piece to be completely beside the point of psalm 91, none of whose verses Dave even touched upon in his original reply.

Perhaps that is because he was trying to move you out of the fundamentalist box you're still trapped in, and force you to deal with the larger issues.

If that is what Dave calls a "dialogue," and demonstrates Dave's mastery of Scripture and of the Holy Spirit guiding him into all truth,

Has Dave actually claimed that the Holy Spirit is guiding him personally into all truth in this discussion? If so, I'd like to see the quote. What Dave has said, on his web site, is this:

We apply the passages in John 14-16 about the Spirit's leading believers into all truth primarily to the Church as a whole. They can apply to individuals as well, but not as a norm for the faith.

This is a good example of what I meant when I said in my previous note that it would be unfruitful for you to try to put Dave into a fundamentalist box. If (as I suspect) he has never claimed that he is fronting for the Holy Spirit in all this, then for you to attribute that position to him is unfair
and unproductive.

then he can apologize to Satan for all the effect it is going to have on psalm-doubters such as C. S. Lewis and I.

And if you are mistaken about all this? Who will be doing the apologizing then?

Psalm 91 promised continued life and blessings, even promises of deliverance from an army of foes, from disease, even from stubbing one's toe, in one's earthly lifetime here and now.

That is one way of reading it--but it is a way of reading it which guarantees that it can't possibly be true. Most texts, inspired or otherwise, can be reduced to meaninglessness if approached with that kind of hermeneutic. Person A says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." Person B, who hates A's guts, then says, "That's ridiculous. No one can literally eat an entire horse. How much more proof do you need that A is deranged, or at least a pathological liar?" It's an easy way of scoring cheap points, and it may play well to the gallery, but it's not even close to an honest exploration of the author's intended meaning.

Whether or not this was meant as a corporate promise instead of an individual one is not nearly as important as the fact that the proposed promises referred to this life, not an afterlife. And Biblical historians recognize that psalmist's concerns as most likely arising out of an early strain of Hebrew thought that took for granted that all souls simply sunk down into Sheol after death.

"Biblical historians" have "recognized" all sorts of things in recent centuries, many of which have turned out on closer inspection not to be true at all. The old canard that ancient Israel knew nothing about life after death has been seriously questioned (I would say "disproven") by more recent scholarship.

Hence, blessings of a long Yahweh-protected life were of paramount importance to such a psalmist.

Realistically, blessings in this life are pretty much paramount to most human beings; it takes a real saint to utterly disdain what happens to us in this life and focus entirely on what may (or may not) happen to us in the next. One does not have to disdain or disbelieve in an afterlife to be primarily concerned with what is happening to ourselves (and others) in the here-and-now.

As for the two Catholic statements regarding the Bible that you cited below, Catholics have been making statements regarding how to understand the Bible for millennia, but have arrived at different theological teachings, different emphases and different opinions:

The Wisdom of the Popes: A Collection of Statements of the Popes Since Peter on a Variety of Religious and Social Issues by Thomas J. Craughwell

Rome Has Spoken: A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements, and How They Have Changed Through the Centuries by Maureen Fiedler, Linda Rabben

So what? If you want to know what the Church says on this subject today, then you need to read what it teaches today. And in fact there is a lot of good insight in those documents, if you will only take the trouble to read them.

I am of course happy that the Catholic church is capable of change. So am I, so is every human being on earth, Catholic or not. I have chosen to live with my own changes just as Catholics and their church have chosen to live with theirs. smile

As for myself, I have changed considerably in consequence of my growing knowledge of the diversity of religious figures (both major and minor) and their experiences and teachings throughout human history, figures in both Western and Eastern and New World traditions. With such increasing knowledge I have found the "stalwarts" of both Catholic and Protestant faiths--from the popes to Martin Luther and John Calvin--to be human beings whose teachings and actions appear to me today to have been less admirable than many of the lesser known figures, including in some cases, members of repressed or despised sects (Julian of Norwich, Meister Eckhardt, Castellio, Quakers, Unitarians, and Deists, to name just a few).

This may be a new discovery to you, but it has been common knowledge among Catholics for as long as there have been Catholics. Dante's Inferno has some juicy passages about dead popes burning in hell. In fact, it has long been a commonplace in Catholic teaching that some of the greatest saints are those who are the least known, while many of the princes of the Church are (at best) going to be "least" in the kingdom of heaven. The Church has never claimed that its popes or bishops were always moral paragons, nor has it claimed that they were incapable of errors in what is termed "prudential judgment". It has only claimed that the Church itself, with Popes and Councils as its occasional instrument, is divinely protected from certain kinds of errors in its teaching on faith and morals--and even then only under certain circumstances.

Which reminds me, you can google up oodles of "ex-Catholic" or "former Catholic" testimonies on the web including ex-priests and ex-nuns, some of whom left the Christian fold entirely (after growing older and wiser, like Karen Armstrong, ex-nun and best selling author of A History of God; or Joseph McCabe, another writer, who was a priest for 30 years before leaving the fold) while others have left Catholicism for Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, or even non-Christian religions. I have even read on the web about the occasional Catholic priest who has converted to Hinduism or even Islam. And all such ex-Catholics have their own criticisms of Catholicism.

Again, so what? Ex-Catholics are critical of the Catholic Church; ex-Protestants are critical of the Protestant churches; ex-Communists are critical of Communism; ex-Mormons are critical of Mormonism; ex-atheists are critical of atheism; and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. It's almost definitional that anyone who is "ex" anything is going to have some kind of beef with whatever it is they left; otherwise, they probably wouldn't have left in the first place. None of this proves that any of their complaints are even remotely justified, nor do any "justified" complaints always have anything to do with the truth or falsehood of what they left, or the rightness of their decision to leave.

Even many who did not leave Catholicism have yet had their horizons widened immensely by interacting with people of other religious faiths and cultures, people such as Dom Bede Griffiths (close life-long friend of C. S. Lewis and fellow convert at Oxford, but who became a Catholic and opened a Hindu-Christian ashram in India); Thomas Merton (who read much eastern wisdom and visited the east as well); and, William Johnson (who studied meditation with Buddhists in Japan), all of whom who have written wonderful books about the universality and overlapping aspects of their faith and practices with those of other religions.

Well, yes. That was partly the point of my own dissertation, after all. I happen to have a B.A., an M.A., and a Ph.D. in Religious Studies, and a major part of all three degrees was "comparative religions". I've studied not only Christianity and Judaism, but also Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism,

Islam, Greco-Roman paganism, the religions of Ancient Egypt, shamanism, neo-paganism, and some forms of indigenous American Indian religions.

I am well aware of the "universality and overlapping aspects of their faith and practices". But none of this makes me any less Catholic, or any less committed to the teaching authority of the magisterium of the Church. In fact, it was my thirty years of study in all these areas which led me into the Catholic Church.

And of course, the Catholic church has had to continue to employ coercion every year she has been in existence, to maintain the unity of the church and maintain her particular teachings

There is nothing new in this. Every religion has doctrinal and moral standards, and it must "employ coercion" against those who violate those standards or they will quickly cease to be standards at all, and the religion will dissolve into some sort of "cosmic tapioca" country club like the Unitarians.

(whichever teachings they were in each generation), making hypocrites out of a lot of priests and theologians who gave themselves to the church for years, but whose minds eventually broadened to a point where they wished to question or challenge some teachings, which, by the way, has proven to be an ongoing process throughout Catholicism's history. Instead of inviting and opening such discussions and process, the church tells such priests and theologians to keep quiet or leave.

Open discussion is possible on open questions; but on those matters which have already been discussed to death and on which the teaching authority of the Church has already made a definitive determination, further discussion is pointless. No one would expect Buddhists to tolerate within their ranks someone who believed (as some Hindus do) that the Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu sent to mislead the reprobate to destruction. No one would expect the Muslims to tolerate someone within their ranks who considered Mohammed to be a false prophet. No one would expect the International Society for Krishna Consciousness to tolerate within their ranks someone who considered the Bhagavad-Gita to be a silly fairy tale. So why is it that people expect Christians to tolerate within their ranks "Christians" who don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or real Catholics to tolerate within their ranks "Catholics" who don't accept the authority of the Pope?

In the end the church will change no doubt, but just not in those particular theologian's lifetimes. smile

On the other hand, other Catholics are more Catholic than the Pope, like the church to which Mel Gibson belongs, that broke away from the post-Vatican II papacy, and claims the present pope and church is illegitimate or at the very least, a sorry substitute for Mel's "true" Catholic faith and practice.

Notice, it's not even the major dogmas that Christians split with other Christians over! (I suppose that making absolutely sure one is going to heaven--and not the other place--can drive people mad with feeling they must make just the right fine distinctions between themselves and others.)

Neither do I imagine that "the church" is as "unanimous" nor as "triumphant" as converts like Dave Armstrong, or, Scott Hahn (the author of Rome Sweet Rome), imagine it to be. There are obviously liberals and moderates aplenty in modern day Catholic churches and seminaries, not just conservatives.

And if God truly cared about the Catholic church and kept a watchful eye, and answered prayers, then I doubt the Vatican would have simply lost its billions, (perhaps a trillion dollars, who knows? which God could have used to spread charity), lost it to Vatican Bank embezzlers a couple decades ago.

Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Seraphim Father Rose (Orthodox priest who isn't impressed with Catholicism)

[I wrote a paper about Fr. Rose, who is an anti-Catholic: "Dialogues on Orthodox Anti-Catholicism, Fr. Seraphim Rose, and Ecumenism"]

Cheers!
Ed

Dear Dr. Black,

Thank you for your very interesting and illuminating remarks in your two replies to Ed, and also for your gracious defense of me in cases where he has engaged in ad hominem fallacies or misrepresented what my position was.

My pleasure.

I thought Ed and I could engage in constructive discourse, as he is a friendly fellow