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.
Tolle, lege!
Is Catholicism Christian?: My Debate With James White (Part Two)
Friday, March 05, 2004
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):
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 