"Protestants have a special duty to condemn anti-Catholic bigotry" -- Says Chuck Colson

[source]

The prominent Protestant social activist Chuck Colson has spoken out against recent bigotry against Catholicism, in relation to the Supreme Court decision to ban partial-birth infanticide.

Imagine the reaction if a cartoonist had suggested this of other religious groups—if they had portrayed justices wearing yarmulkes or holding the Koran. . . . Our Catholic brethren should not have to wait to hear our voices forcefully raised against the bigotry now directed against them . . . We also call on groups that present themselves as the enemies of prejudice to join us as well . . . Are they selective opponents of prejudice? Do they regard anti-Catholicism as an acceptable form of bigotry? . . . All forms of bigotry are vile and must be exposed for what they are: attacks on the very character of a civil society. Apologies are called for.

See his article: "The New Anti-Catholic Bigotry", and the excellent links provided at the end of that piece; also a similar article by Colson: "The Last Acceptable Prejudice".

Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey: Little-Known Facts About Their Devout Methodism & Political Conservatism

Jackie Robinson ----- John Wesley (Robert Hunter, 1765) ----- Branch Rickey

As anyone in the least familiar with the history of baseball or race relations in America knows, this month marked the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's entrance into Major League Baseball, with the Brooklyn Dodgers, due to Branch Rickey, the team's President and General Manager. The story is very well known, so I won't retell it here. Rather, I'd like to highlight the usual downplaying or ignoring of the political and religious aspects of these two great men.

In the article, "With Guts Enough to Be Disarming" (First Things, April 23, 2007), Nicholas Frankovich describes Rickey's affiliations:

. . . Rickey read to Robinson some familiar words from the Sermon on the Mount: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy cheek, turn to him the other also.”

“I have two cheeks, Mr. Rickey,” Robinson answered. “Is that it?” That was it.

My source for this rendition of that first meeting between Rickey and Robinson is Branch Rickey: Baseball’s Ferocious Gentleman, a gracefully narrated, amply documented biography by baseball writer Lee Lowenfish. . . .

Most of us have not come to know the part about the Christianity, about the Sermon on the Mount being Robinson’s playbook for how to handle the racial animus he was sure to encounter, or about how Rickey’s feelings for racial justice flowed from his conservative brand of Protestantism. (Even in his short-lived career as a player, he wouldn’t step into a ballpark on Sundays.) In his politics, Rickey was a stalwart Republican, supporting every candidate his party nominated to oppose FDR, whose muscular foreign policy against the fascist threat abroad was the one point on which Rickey agreed with him. For Rickey, who was born in 1881, the GOP meant, besides free enterprise and anticommunism, Lincoln and the antislavery movement, and it fit nicely with his religiously informed views on contemporary racial issues.

But the only culture at the middle of the twentieth century was, as Lionel Trilling famously commented, liberal culture, and so the story that has come down to us is that the fight to end desegregation was essentially a liberal cause. Secular liberals did play their part in their ad hoc alliance with the churches, whose own contribution to the civil-rights era is not much recognized anymore. . . . American kids today grow up thinking that the fight for racial equality is something that the Democratic party won while the likes of Branch Rickey—conservative Republicans, devout Christians—were actually out there with Bull Connor hosing down the demonstrators.

Lowenfish in his biography scrapes away all that crust and shows us the historical reality for what it was. It’s not a conservative book and Lowenfish is not a conservative writer or, to my knowledge, a Christian, but he’s honest and fair in his treatment of the conservative and Christian that was Branch Rickey, whom he clearly admires.

It turns out that Jackie Robinson was no political liberal, either, according to biographer Arnold Rampersad and reviewer Donald Kagan:

Malcolm X, for one, attacked Robinson for attempting to defuse rather than to fan black rage. Sympathizing with blacks frustrated by the slowness of progress, Robinson nevertheless stood firm in his integrationist principles, and was prepared to defend "establishment" blacks like Ralph Bunche, then serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN. In the wake of charges by Malcolm X and Adam Clayton Powell that Bunche had "sold out," Robinson boldly retorted that "Malcolm is very militant on Harlem street comers where militancy is not dangerous," but that he lacked "one-twentieth of the integrity and leadership" of a man like Bunche. For this and other, similar statements Robinson would himself be accused of being an Uncle Tom. Undeterred, he went his way, castigating the separatism and violence of the "black power" movement, and castigating as well the anti-Semitism that was its frequent accompaniment.

Robinson's devotion to his country, a hopeful patriotism that marked the early civil-rights movement as a whole, was part of a broader vision in which the struggle for civil rights in America took its place within the worldwide struggle for freedom. He was, in short, a spirited and consistent anti-Communist. In 1949, the famous black singer Paul Robeson had declared, before a leftist audience in Paris, "It is unthinkable that American Negroes would go to war on behalf of those who have oppressed us for generations against a country [the Soviet Union] which in one generation has raised our people to the full dignity of mankind."

Robinson, asked to give his own views before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, retorted that, if war came, American blacks would "do their best to help their country win the war-against Russia or any other enemy that threatened us." Years later, in 1967, when such ideas were badly out of fashion, Robinson went so far as to criticize his friend and idol, Martin Luther King, Jr., for the latter's one-sided attacks on American policy in Vietnam. "Why is it, Martin," he asked, "that you seem to ignore the blood which is upon [Communist] hands and to speak only of the 'guilt' of the United States?

Another online biography describes Robinson's mother Mallie as "a deeply religious woman" and refers to one of his early influences:

Karl Downs, youthful minister of Robinson's Methodist church, paced the sidelines whenever his protégé was on the playing field and counseled him when his athletic, social, or academic life became burdensome.

Rickey is described as "a devout Christian". Robinson was not a knee-jerk Democrat:

Robinson's political alliances were unlike those of most African Americans who shied away from the Republican Party. He campaigned for Democrat Hubert Humphrey in the presidential primary, yet he chose Republican Richard M. Nixon over John F. Kennedy in the 1960 general election. When Robinson compared his observations of the two candidates for president long after the election, he regretted he had not chosen Kennedy. During the campaign, Nixon was friendly and charming in private meetings, and seemed interested in the civil rights of African Americans. Robinson saw no tangible evidence of Nixon's sympathy for the struggle in the South. On the other hand, when Robinson met Kennedy, he wondered whether the Democrat's failure to make eye contact as they talked was due to an unspoken prejudice. Robinson's fears disappeared with the news of Kennedy's public objections to the persecution of Martin Luther King. Robinson came to the belated conclusion that Kennedy was the better man.

New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican, named Robinson Special Assistant for Community Affairs in 1966, with the responsibility of improving the governor's popularity among residents of Harlem. In response to criticism, Robinson defended his membership in the Republican Party as a way to make heard the otherwise ignored voice of black opinion.

Jimmie L. Hollis, writing in the Courier-Post Online (22 April 2007) elaborates upon this theme:

Robinson paid a cost for being a black conservative Republican. He was the first casualty of the liberals' war to take control of the black masses. This war started during the 1960 presidential race. Until the last weeks of the campaign, no political leader, pundit or pollster could be certain which candidate -- John F. Kennedy or Richard Nixon -- black voters would support.

Of the major candidates for the Democratic nomination, Kennedy had been the least liberal. He had voted to weaken civil rights legislation while in Congress, so comparatively Nixon seemed far more sensitive to issues surrounding race. And it was not unusual, even in the 1960s, for black voters to look to the party of President Lincoln for leadership.

Martin Luther King Jr. had praised Nixon in the past and it was widely known that Martin Luther King Sr. was a staunch Republican as well. Robinson was keeping in touch with King and was hand-picked by the young minister to lead a church reconstruction effort in Terell County, Georgia.

But by working with Nixon and the GOP, Robinson felt he was building a permanent home at the top of the Republican Party so that intelligent decision-making could occur on both sides with respect to civil rights.

In the increasingly liberal-dominated black leadership of the 1960s, Robinson's support of the GOP cost him not only public prestige but peace of mind. Robinson marched shoulder to shoulder with King, out front in the demand for real change. And for that all he got in return was political death fashioned by liberal blacks.

George Mitrovich wrote in the Good News Magazine (an evangelical Methodist publication: May / June 2005) about the influence of the Methodist minister Karl Everitt Downs on Jackie Robinson's life and spirituality, and Rickey's own committed evangelical Methodism:

"Downs led Jack back to Christ," the author [biographer Arnold Rampersad] writes. "Under the minister's influence, Jack not only returned to church, but also saw its true significance for the first time; he started to teach Sunday school. After punishing football games on Saturday, Jack admitted, he yearned to sleep late: 'But no matter how terrible I felt, I had to get up. It was impossible to shirk duty when Karl Downs was involved. Karl Downs had the ability to communicate with you spiritually,' Jack declared, 'and at the same time he was fun to be with. He participated with us in our sports. Most importantly, he knew how to listen. Often when I was deeply concerned about personal crises, I went to him.'

"Downs became a conduit through which Mallie's message of religion and hope finally flowed into Jack's consciousness and was fully accepted there. Faith in God then began to register in him as both a mysterious force, beyond his comprehension, and as a pragmatic way to negotiate the world. A measure of emotional and spiritual poise such as he had never known at last entered his life."

Robinson himself would say, "I had a lot of faith in God. There's nothing like faith in God to help a fellow who gets booted around once in a while."

The influence of his mother, Mallie, and his pastor, Karl Downs, would forever affect the way Jackie Robinson lived his life, how he saw other people, and how he coped with discrimination. He had been taught that he was a child of God, and no one and no challenge, however brutal and dehumanizing, could take that away from him.

Why did Rickey find those experiences of the young Jackie so persuasive? Branch Rickey was also a Methodist. Not just a Methodist, but, according to Rampersad, "a dedicated, Bible-loving Christian who refused to attend games on Sunday." His full name was Wesley Branch Rickey. He was a graduate of Ohio Wesleyan University-and the influence of the Methodist Church was a great factor in his life.

. . . As one Methodist believer to another, Rickey offered Jack an English translation of [Catholic] Giovanni Papini's Life of Christ and pointed to a passage quoting the words of Jesus-what Papini called 'the most stupefying of His revolutionary teachings': 'Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right check, turn to him the other also. And if a man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.'"

END

Automated Download of E-Books / Audio Files of Radio Shows / New Paperbacks Comin'

I'm workin' on all kinds of new developments "behind the scenes" as it were. I have set up a brand new system of automatic download of the free e-book I offer: Bible Conversations. I call this new site (off this blog) the Dave Armstrong E-Book & Audio Files Page (on "eSnips"). It's simple as can be. You just click on the square icon for "Word" and it downloads into your computer. No need to e-mail me anymore, or for me to have to manually send each one.

On the same site I have posted previously unavailable (even in transcript) audio material: interviews on Catholic radio from 30 April 2002 (Parts One / Two / Three / Four) and 2 April 2004 (Parts One / Two): both with my good friend (and former pastor for a time) Al Kresta. He still hosts the same show (4-6 PM EST M-F), now carried by EWTN and available in live streaming on the Internet. I've always considered Al one of the best (if not the best) talk show hosts I've ever heard. He was made for this work. Give a listen to his show. You'll always come away learning something, that's for sure.

I have plans in the works to get other radio appearances on this site, too: my first time on Al's show in 1997 (my conversion testimony: now available in transcript), a local Catholic TV show Pillar of Truth (but I called in on the phone) in 1999 (also available in transcript: development of doctrine / Q&A), and even some stuff from when I was a Protestant: comments called in on a talk show after I was in an abortion rescue in 1988, and a program I did on the topic of Jehovah's Witnesses (11-3-89). All will be free for downloading.

My two appearances on Catholic Answers Live are already available on the Internet:

"Why We Need More than the Bible", 6:00-7:00 PM EST, 10 October 2003. (Real audio / mp3).

"Communion of Saints: A Cloud of Witnesses", 7:00-8:00 PM EST, 26 June 2006. (Real audio / mp3).

I may also eventually sell some older public domain works (that I think remain very helpful today), such as by Cardinal Newman or Hartmann Grisar: the Jesuit biographer of Luther. And I'll be publishing many more of my own books in due course.

In the next month or so I'll be putting out my nine remaining unpublished manuscripts (Lulu.com), republishing More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, and my book The One-Minute Apologist is supposed to appear (rumor has it). By the time the thing finally comes out I may have forgotten that I wrote it. :-)

So, lots going on. If you have received educational or spiritual benefit from my work, I hope you'll consider purchasing some of these titles, and be sure to get your free e-book, and listen to some of the radio interviews if you're bored and have run out of things to do. You'll quickly find that my approach is quite laid back, low-key, and easy-going: not at all like this allegedly manic, neurotic, hot-tempered, obsessive-compulsive jerk that I'm made out to be by my ultra-charitable anti-Catholic critics.

It's the whole thing about tone of voice, how one speaks and interacts, laughing, etc., that you don't see in writing, and can't get from Internet discussion boards, and I write vastly differently (far more formerly and with lots more big words) than the way I talk. But that is me. I think it is important to get to know a person a little better: especially if you only know them through writing. To hear them speak is at least one way that it is a more personal connection; closer to "real life."

Refuting the Ludicrous Anti-Protestant Sodomy Charge Against John Calvin

John Calvin's birthplace in Noyon, France (reconstructed); now a Calvin museum (Photo LRX).

A Catholic on my blog first brought this issue up in a combox thread. To his credit he later retracted the line of inquiry and accusation after I presented the material presented below ("let me say you did great job of getting to the truth of this matter. You’ve convinced me that there is nothing to this old and unfounded slander against Calvin. . . . congratulations on a job well done.").

But first he had cited a judgment: "both the character and morals of Calvin were infamous" -- from Catholic historian Johann Baptist Alzog (1808-1878), appearing in both his books, History of the Church (1912) and Manual of Universal Church History (1878).

Before I looked into the question a bit to see what I could find, I had asked: "Who is saying that Calvin had 'bad character and loose morals', and what evidence does he produce for this claim? I would take broad accusations like that with a huge grain of salt."

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


To answer my question, the article, "What are we to Think of John Calvin?" by a Rev. Fr. Philippe Marcille was produced (see some quotes from it), as well as The History of the Protestant Reformation, Vol. 1, by Archbishop Martin Spalding (1810-1872; see also volume 2 and some quotes).

* * *

I responded again:

!!!!! I don't know the first source. It could be some goofy "traditionalist". They love to "find" spectacular dirt on Protestants (and popes as well). Yes, sure enough: my suspicion was dramatically confirmed. This priest has written at least two articles for what appears to be an SSPX magazine (Lefebvrite schismatics): The Angelus.

That's quite sufficient in my mind to totally discredit the man as any sort of credible expert on anything to do with the Church, let alone writing about the Protestant founders. I found his name: "Abbot Philippe Marcille FSSPX". FFSPX stands for "Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X"; see this schismatic group's website.

Archbishop Spalding is an old source. Catholic writing on Protestants was quite biased for a long time. A lot of the more negative assertions have been discarded with more objective and ecumenical scholarship. Abp. Spalding was not a professional historian.

Unless this can be backed up by someone of impeccable historiographical credentials, I wouldn't accept it as factual at all, let alone spread it around. Now, of course, you have me curious (having never heard this before), and I will look to see what I can find, but it strikes me as the kind of sensationalistic charge that someone would drum up if they wanted to utterly discredit someone. I don't know who would have started it (if it is untrue), but it likely began during Calvin's lifetime.

* * *

I found some more material on this "Calvin and sodomy" business:

Jerome Bolsec, an ex-Carmelite friar who embraced the reformed faith in Paris, settled in Geneva and served as a physician. He publicly attacked Calvin's doctrine of predestination, was banished from Geneva, and eventually returned to catholicism. His "revenge was to publish in 1577 a scurrilous biography of Calvin, accusing him among other things of sodomy, which continued to be an arsenal for anti-Calvinist polemics for the next two centuries" (Lindberg, 266).

The article on Bolsec in Wikipedia confirms that his book was not exactly a neutral biographical source. Actually, it was taken right from The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), which states:

published biographies of the two Genevan reformers, Calvin and Beza (1519-1605). These works are violent in tone, and find little favour with protestant writers. Their historical statements cannot always be relied on. They are "Histoire de la view, des moeurs . . . de Jean Calvin

Williston Walker (who was an actual historian at Yale), in his book, John Calvin (New York: Schocken Books, 1906; rep. 1969) writes about Bolsec on pp. 116-119, 315-320. Some excerpts:

The more specific charge, to which reference is now made, was formulated thirteen years after Calvin's death, by Jerome Hermes Bolsec . . . that Calvin had been convicted of heinous moral turpitude . . . No evidence has ever been produced of the existence of such a document as Bolsec alleges. Jacques Desmay, the earnest Catholic writer who used his stay as Advent and Lenten preacher at Noyon in 1614 and 1615 to learn all he could of Calvin's life there by records and tradition, found nothing of it. An equally determined Roman historian of Noyon, Jacques Le Vasseur, in his Annales of 1633, expressly repudiated it; and careful modern Roman Catholic scholars, such as Kampschulte and Paulus, reject it as "unworthy of serious refutation.

. . . The whole calumny would be unworthy of discussion had the accusation not been repeatedly renewed by a certain class of controversialists during the last century -- in one instance as recently as 1898.

(pp. 116-119)

More from Protestant historian Philip Schaff (alternate URL):

5. Philibert Berthelier (or Bertelier, Bertellier), an unworthy son of the distinguished patriot who, in 1519, had been beheaded for his part in the war of independence, belonged to the most malignant enemies of Calvin. He had gone to Noyon, if we are to believe the assertion of Bolsec, to bring back scandalous reports concerning the early life of the Reformer, which the same Bolsec published thirteen years after Calvin’s death, but without any evidence.768 If the Libertines had been in possession of such information, they would have made use of it. Berthelier is characterized by Beza as "a man of the most consummate impudence" and "guilty of many iniquities." He was excommunicated by the Consistory in 1551 for abusing Calvin, for not going to church, and other offences, and for refusing to make any apology.

768 See above, p. 302 sq. That abominable slander about sodomy, which even Galiffe rejects, Audin and Spalding are not ashamed to repeat.

Notes to a Life of Calvin (I believe, by Theodore Beza), defend Calvin:

The life of Calvin was also charged with immoralities. But this was done principally by the famous Bolsec, of whom Beza gives some account.

After he had been banished from Geneva, through the influence of Calvin and Farel, for sedition and Pelagianism, he wrote a life of Calvin, with a view to destroy the reputation of that great and good man.

The great Dr. Moulin observes, that not one of Calvin’s innumerable enemies ever carped at the purity of his life, but this profligate physician, whom Calvin had procured to be banished from Geneva, for his wickedness and impieties. The reproach of such a man, says Middleton, was an honor to Calvin, and especially upon such an account, for as Milton truly says, “Of some to be dispraised, is no small praise.” The calumnies of Bolsec, however, were reiterated by other enemies, and are sometimes, even in this age, raked from the filth where truth has long since consigned them. “One of the greatest uses,” says Middleton, “which may be drawn from reading, is to learn the weaknesses of the heart of man, and the ill effects of prejudices in points of religion. No less a person than the great cardinal Richelieu, has produced all accusation against Calvin, on the credit of Bertelier, than which none was ever worse contrived, and worse proved; though it has been adopted, and conveyed from book to book. Bertelier pretended, that the republic of Geneva had sent him to Noyon, with orders to make an exact inquiry there into Calvin’s life and character; and that he found Calvin had been convicted of sodomy; but that, at the bishop’s request, the punishment of fire was commuted into that of being branded with the Flower-de-luce. He boasted to have an act, signed by a notary, which certified the truth of the process and condemnation. Bolsec affirms, that he had seen this act; and this is the ground of that horrid accusation. Neither Bertelier, nor Bolsec, are to be credited. If Bertelier’s act had not been suppositious, there would have been at Noyon, authentic and public testimonies of the trial and punishment in question; and they would have been published as soon as the Romish religion began to suffer by Calvin’s means. Bertelier had no party against him in Geneva more inexorable than Calvin, who held him in abhorrence, on account of his vices. Bertelier was accused of sedition and conspiracy against the state and church: but he ran away, and, not appearing to answer for himself, was condemned, as being attainted and convicted of those crimes, to lose his head, by a sentence pronounced against him, the sixth of August, 1555. No envoy or deputy was ever sent from Geneva on public business, who was not in a higher station than that of Bertelier; besides, there were some considerable persons at Noyon, who retired to Geneva, as well as Calvin: by whose means it was very easy to receive all the information which could have been desired, without going farther.

If what Bertelier said was true, he would have had his paper when he fled from Geneva: but it is plain he had not the commission he boasted of, after that time. But can any one believe, that, before the year 1555, when those who were called heretics durst not show themselves for fear of being burnt, a deputy from Geneva should go boldly to Noyon, to inform himself of Calvin’s life? Who will believeth that if Betrelier had an authentic act of Calvin’s infamy in 1554, he would have kept it so close, that the public should have no knowledge of it before 1557? Was it not a piece which the clergy of France would have bought for its weight in gold? ‘But why (says Bayle), do I lose time in confuting such a ridiculous romance? Nothing surprises me more than to see so great a person as cardinal de Richelieu, depend on this piece of Bertelier; and allege as his principal reason that the republic of Geneva did not undertake to show the falsehood of this piece.’ The truth is, this cardinal made all imaginable inquiry into the pretended proceedings against Calvin at Noyon, and that he discovered nothing; yet he maintained the affirmative on the credit of Jerom Bolsec, whose testimony is of no weight in things which are laid to Calvin’s charge. Bolsec would have been altogether buried in oblivion, if he had not been taken notice of by the monks and missionaries for writing some satirical books against the Reformation. He was convicted of sedition and Pelagianism at Geneva, in 1551, and banished the territory of the republic. He was also banished from Bern: after which he went to France, where he assisted in persecuting the Protestants, an even prostituted his wife to the canons of Autun. He was an infamous man, who forsook his order, had been banished thrice, and changed his religion four times; and who, after having aspersed the dead and the living, died in despair.

Varillas thought Bolsec a discredited author: Maimbourg rejected the infamy that was thrown upon Calvin: and Florimond de Remond owns, they have defamed him horribly. Papyrius Masso spoke very ill of Calvin, but would not venture to mention the story of the Flower-de-luce: and he called those, mean wretched scribblers, who reproached that minister with lewdness. It is not strange that cardinal de Richelieu, in one of the best books of controversy that has been published on the part of the church of Rome, should be less scrupulous and nice than Remond, Masso, and Romuald; and that he should give out, as a true matter of fact, the story of Bolsec, which began then to be laid aside by the missionaries? Richelieu intended to have reconciled both religions in France, but was prevented by death; and there was not one story which people did not believe, when it defamed him or cardinal Mazarin.

As one would expect, the Catholics who are spreading this baseless slander around are "traditionalists":

John Chance: Catholic Resistence

Robert Sungenis: Catholic Apologetics International | Question 45: Calvin's Sodomy?

This kind of undocumented sensationalistic slander only makes Catholics look as ridiculous as Jack Chick. That's why I was happy to refute it as soon as I heard about it. Everything I suspected about it turned out to be true:

1) Spread by Catholic "traditionalists."

2) No reputable historians back it up.

3) Initially promulgated by a personal enemy of Calvin, shortly after his death.

4) Used for controversialist purposes and insufficiently documented.

C'mon! Don't let your zeal for the Catholic Church overtake your common sense and fairness and (hopefully) desire to not misrepresent your theological opponents.

* * *

Protestant regular on my blog "Grubb" wrote: " Thanks for getting to the truth about Calvin's character regarding sodomy." And a Calvinist, Robert Fisher, was nice enough to comment on my blog: "I disagree with you about Calvinism, but I saw how you weren't drawn in to disparaging Calvin personally, and actually defended him - you are a class act."

Whatever the truth is, is my concern and goal. It is irrelevant in this regard whether I disagree with someone's theology or ethics or have some personal beef, etc. My responsibility as an apologist (and a published, somewhat known one, in the public eye) is to seek truth and present it to the best of my ability, in fairness and charity, in all my writings.

Refutation of David T. King: Is Catholic Espousal of the Material Sufficiency of Scripture Inconsistent With Belief in the Assumption of Mary?

Following up on my last reply to anti-Catholic Reformed Pastor David T. King (in which he pretended that various Church Fathers were good little Protestants insofar as they supposedly taught sola Scriptura), I would now like to challenge his claims that a belief in material sufficiency is inconsistent with a belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pastor King's lengthy exchange (mostly with a Catholic, David Waltz; this now being the "Three David Discussion") is posted at James Swan's blog. His words will be in blue.

You have never tried to defend the Roman dogma of the assumption of Mary, and you know very well that many of your communion's scholars would never attempt to do so from Holy Scripture.

I wouldn't be so sure about it. I am merely a lay Catholic apologist and no scholar and I took a crack at it. I'm sure far greater minds than mine have (at least in the way I will outline later on).

The Roman response here is typical, cut and paste anything that remotely appears to be a response to the issue at hand.

Just for the record, showing the usual sweeping King attack on large masses of people. We shall see how he responds to these criticisms of his arguments. If experience is any guide at all, I would strongly advise anyone waiting eagerly to see what King will do with my reply to not hold your breath (or if you insist on doing so, to be sure to have a very good life insurance policy).

The retreat to material sufficiency on the part of any Roman Catholic is but an exercise of private judgment, because your communion has nowhere officially spoken authoritatively on the relationship of Scripture to tradition.

It has spoken a lot on the relationship per se, but it has not required Catholics to believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture or to deny it. We have freedom to believe either. The majority position among scholars is the former.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


I know you know this because I've told you repeatedly in the past in personal conversations. You know very well that a dogma like the assumption bears no scriptural support, not even implicitly.

I don't know what Mr. Waltz knows "very well", according to you. But I know that I believe there is considerable implicit support, as I shall show in due course.

Your present pope, as a cardinal, is on record as having denied material sufficiency...

Cardinal, now Pope Joseph Ratzinger, while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.

He could very well mean that there is not explicit or clear support for every doctrine, which is obvious, and which I would readily agree with.

Though he argues for material sufficiency, Cardinal Yves Congar states concerning examples of Roman tradition: Certainly it would be impossible to prove in every case a truly apostolic origin; it is not even impossible that the contrary could be proved. Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., Tradition and Traditions: An Historical Essay and A Theological Essay, trans. Michael Naseby and Thomas Rainborough (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966), p. 62.

In the sense of strict historiography, this could be asserted, yes. This causes no difficulty for the Catholic position.

. . . a dogma like the assumption has neither material support in Holy Scripture, nor in tradition. . . . Why even bother to appeal to material sufficiency or tradition, when neither can support a dogma like the assumption? . . . But I know, and you know, that the assumption is nowhere taught in Holy Scripture, and your alleged support for the material sufficiency of Holy Scripture is but wishful thinking, and a ruse to distract from the fact that you've really embraced the principle of sola ecclesia. . . . you know that your own theologians have declared it has no support in Scripture, . . .

At this point (after Pastor King has presented his basic argument that he will now mostly repeat over and over like a mantra) it would be very useful to do a quick survey of just exactly what a Catholic means when they refer to material sufficiency of Scripture. I shall contend that Pastor King doesn't understand nuances in how a Catholic views this matter: qualifications that make a big difference regarding whether our belief in the dogma of the Assumption would contradict our conception of material sufficiency. If one uses Pastor King's incorrect definition, his conclusion would arguably follow. But once the correct definition is understood, it is seen that King's conclusion doesn't follow because his assumed premise (of definition) is false.

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin provides a very helpful overview:

As the Second Vatican Council stressed in its constitution Dei Verbum, "It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence" (DV 9).

One of the principal architects of Dei Verbum was the French theologian Yves Congar, who thought Catholics could acknowledge a substantial element of truth in sola scriptura.

He wrote that "we can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation" (Tradition and Traditions, 410).

He encapsulated this idea with the slogan Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione ("All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition"), which he attributes to Cardinal Newman. According to this theory, Scripture and Tradition would not be two sources containing different material but two modes of transmitting the same deposit of faith. We might call it the "two modes" view as opposed to the "two source" view.

The decrees of Trent and Vatican II allow Catholics to hold the two-mode idea, but they do not require it. A Catholic is still free to hold the two-source view.

. . . Congar spoke only in terms of the Bible containing "all truths necessary for salvation." He did not speak of it containing all theological truths. This is an important distinction that comes up in discussions of sola scriptura.

Protestants often define sola scriptura by appealing to the idea that Scripture contains all truths needed for salvation. In practice, though, they often apply the term much more expansively, as if the Bible should be expected to contain all truths of Christian theology.

. . . I certainly can't think of any truths directly connected with salvation that aren't at least alluded to in Scripture.

But if we apply it more broadly, problems emerge. There seem to be theological truths that are not mentioned in Scripture. For example, the Bible does not state that public revelation is closed. As far as I can tell, it is neither stated nor clearly implied. Nor does the Bible say that God will not inspire any more books of Scripture or that there will be no more apostles. One needed to be a witness of the ministry of Christ to be a member of the Twelve (Acts 1:21-22), but Christ appeared in a vision to name Paul an apostle, even though he was not an eyewitness. If he wanted, Jesus could have kept appearing to people throughout history and appointing them apostles. We know from Tradition that this didn't happen — that the apostles died out and handed the Church over to their successors, the bishops — but the Bible doesn't tell us this. . . .

Other truths of Tradition are not stated directly in Scripture but are implied clearly by the biblical author. For example, while the Bible doesn't come out and say that the Holy Spirit is a person rather than a force, it is implied in numerous passages, such as those in which the Spirit is depicted as speaking to people (e.g., Acts 13:2), and the biblical authors meant us to understand this.

Some truths of Tradition can be inferred from Scripture even though the biblical authors did not clearly imply them. For example, Christ having both a human will and a divine will can be inferred from his being "true God and true man" (CCC 464). Various biblical passages state or imply that he is true God and true man, but in none does the biblical author state or imply that he had two wills. We have to figure that out by inference.

A truth is sometimes alluded to or reflected in the text even though it can't be proved from the text alone. The Immaculate Conception may be reflected in what Gabriel says to Mary in Luke 1:28, and the Assumption may be reflected in the wings the woman is given in Revelation 12:14, but you couldn't prove these truths from the text alone.

Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote:

"While revering Scripture as containing the word of God in unalterable form, she [the Catholic Church] denies that Scripture is sufficient in the sense that the whole of revelation could be known without tradition. Most Catholic theologians today would hold that every revealed truth is in some way attested by Scripture, but that some revealed truths are not explicitly mentioned by any texts in Scripture".

Dr. Philip Blosser adds some interesting insights (my emphases):

Some Catholics opt for the principle of the "material sufficiency" of Scripture, holding that the Bible contains or implies all the basic data necessary for Christian doctrine, over against the traditional "two source" principle of "Scripture and Tradition," which states that Scripture is insufficient without the supplement of Tradition. But even proponents of "material sufficiency" recognize that Scripture only indirectly attests to certain Catholic doctrines (such as Purgatory or the Trinity). Not every Catholic doctrine is explictly mentioned in the Bible, nor can it be directly derived from the Bible. Hence, even Catholic theologians who profess the "material sufficiency" of Scripture do not go so far as to claim that it is "formally sufficient." That is, they don't assume that the material content of Scripture is so clear that we do not need Apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium to interpret it.

Ironically, Pastor King radically contradicts himself (apparently without even knowing it) in his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, by stating on page 129 (emphases added):

"Scripture alone is the only certain, infallible norm by which all theology, doctrine, creeds (beliefs), practice and morality of the Christian Church is to be regulated, in accordance with that which is 'either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture'..."

Now, think for a moment, the implications of this, and the vicious logical circle that will result. He demands of Catholics that they must find explicit support for the assumption of Mary in Scripture, lest they contradict their belief (i.e., for those who hold it, since it's not required) in material sufficiency of Scripture.

But yet when it comes to his pet doctrine of sola Scriptura, King freely admits that it may be simply deduced from Scripture (!!). Well, if it is the case for this "pillar of the Reformation" -- upon which all distinctively Protestant doctrines are built --, that King allows mere deduction, then we must point out that this is, of course, exactly how the Assumption can also be indicated in Scripture. Thus, it follows that King's position logically forces him to concede that the biblical evidence for the Assumption is not fundamentally lesser in kind than the biblical evidence for sola Scriptura. This is what we call a double standard, if he continues to press the supposed huge difference where it, in fact, does not exist.

King is not alone in implying that the Bible doesn't contain explicit proof for sola Scriptura. Protestant apologist Norman Geisler admits:

[T]he Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice.

(Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995, 184; emphases added)

He denies that there is either "formal" or "explicit" biblical proof for this foundation of Protestant theology and its very rule of faith. So if even sola Scriptura lacks this sort of biblical proof (and I would also deny that one can find even implicit or logical proof for it in Scripture), why is it required of Catholics to provide more for a doctrine like the Assumption? There are such things as "implicit" and deductive proofs from Scripture or at least indications.

So how does one find implicit or indirectly deduced support for the Assumption in Scripture? There are a number of ways to do this. For example, in my apologetic efforts I have maintained that the key component of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (sinlessness) is explicitly taught in Luke 1:28. By making a straightforward, deductive biblical argument, the Immaculate Conception (in its essence) can be strongly supported. There are many other arguments as well. My section: "Scriptural evidence: the Immaculate Conception of Mary" in my book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, ran 15 pages; filled with biblical arguments.

This has implications for the Assumption. If Mary indeed was preserved from original sin, then she would not undergo decay (i.e., she would be in a state or condition that held sway before the fall of man; see Gen 3:19; Ps 16:10). Therefore, when she departed this life, she would experience bodily resurrection immediately without her body undergoing decay. From one thing follows the other. If one is completely without sin, this arguably includes original sin, and without original sin, there is no decay; ergo, the Assumption follows as a matter of course.

Another deductive biblical argument for the Assumption of Mary is regarding her as the firstfruits of the general resurrection that St. Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 15. What better person to follow Jesus in resurrection than His own mother, who made the way of salvation possible at the Annunciation? Though this is no ironclad proof, on the other hand, it is a very plausible scenario, and contradicts nothing in the Bible.

Yet another indirect way is to contend that the notion of an Assumption itself is not at all a foreign concept in Scripture. It's not ruled out at all, based on the analogies of many other saints. I cite my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, p. 190:

Lest one think that a bodily ascent into Heaven (of a creature, as opposed to Jesus) is impossible and "biblically unthinkable," Holy Scripture contains the examples of Enoch (Heb. 11:5; cf. Gen. 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:1,11), St. Paul's being caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2-4), possibly bodily, and events during the Second Coming (1 Thess. 4:15-17), believed by many Evangelicals to constitute the "Rapture," an additional return of Christ for believers only. All these occur by virtue of the power of God, not the intrinsic ability of the persons.

Recently, I realized that another biblical passage (the "Two Witnesses") was an additional example of a sort of Assumption:

9: For three days and a half men from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb,
10: and those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to those who dwell on the earth.
11: But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.
12: Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up hither!" And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud.

(Revelation 11:9-12; cf. Matthew 17:27:52-53)

Another biblical argument used regarding Mary's assumption is the "woman clothed with the sun" passage in Revelation 12, which has obvious connections to Mary as well as to the Church (it has a double application).

Think of these what a person will, they are at least biblical arguments, and not too different in kind from those used to "prove" that the Bible teaches that it is the only final authority. And there is much in the Bible that flat-out contradicts sola Scriptura (indications of binding tradition, authoritative oral tradition, apostolic succession, strong Church authority, the papacy, Holy Spirit-led councils: the council of Jerusalem, etc.), whereas nothing in Scripture contradicts the possibility of Mary being assumed into heaven (and many parallels show it to be entirely possible and plausible).

All your pontifications about material sufficiency doesn't mean a thing to me while you avoid the particulars like "the assumption."

I saw Mr. Waltz give plenty of argumentation. If he didn't, however (if we grant Pastor King's claim), I certainly have. So let King scold others for (actually or supposedly) avoiding his arguments, while we observe what he does with the arguments I make in direct reply to his.

I am not going to let you get away with this tactic again. I am not being mean or uncharitable to hold your feet to your own professed belief by insisting that you make it good on a particular case. You see, as long as folks such as yourself can get away with speaking in generalizations, and never deal with the problems of the particular, it all sounds plausible. But the moment your theory is subjected to the particulars, it begins to unravel. . . . Mr. Waltz, it is charitable to hold you to your own principles. I am not going to let you off the hook by permitting you to speak in generalizations, all the while avoiding the particulars, because that is where your theory begins to unravel.

I'm delighted to extend the same sort of charity to Pastor King himself. Funny thing, though, his behavior in similar situations in the past hasn't particularly struck me as indicating that my critiques were acts of charity towards him! In fact, quite the contrary. His fleeing for the hills and sudden symptoms of "clamming up" would seem to imply to me that he was a bit uncomfortable with all my expressed charity. Impressions are sometimes somewhat misleading, though, I confess.

For a Roman Catholic to attempt to hold to or argue for the material sufficiency is, in my opinion, an exercise of sophistry. Why? Because your best exegetes . . . recognize that the Assumption is not a development from the text of Holy Scripture.

One must look at what sense they intended when they said this. I suspect that most of them had in mind what I have been expressing, rather than King's mistaken understanding of material sufficiency. After citing four writers: including two Protestants and a liberal Catholic, King concludes:

This is a glaring, unresolved consistency for any Roman Catholic professing to hold to the concept of material sufficiency. The dogma is absent in Scripture and tradition, but must be maintained by the “faithful” because Rome requires it. These men are neither stupid nor biased. They are being honest, and that’s why I regard it as an exercise of sophistry for a Roman Catholic to affirm a concept of “material sufficiency” on the one hand, while a dogma like the “assumption” defies it on the other.

I have found more indication for the Assumption in Scripture, I contend, than can be found for sola Scriptura. It's also true that the canon of Scriptura is, of course, nowhere found in Scripture itself, and it is necessary to know in order for sola Scriptura to be able to be practiced. So the belief that Scripture is the only infallible authority itself rests upon an unquestionable tradition determined ultimately by the Church. Students of logic will surely recognize this as a vicious circle; whereas the assumption entails no such logical contradiction. It is simply an instance of indirect deductions from Scripture.

So, no, I don’t know that “the Assumption is theological development from an implicit reference in Holy Scripture.” I know the claim, but I think it is pure sophistry, and it’s not uncharitable for me to state my conviction as such. What should be questioned is your assertion that it is an “an implicit reference in Holy Scripture,” while at the same time confessing you haven’t done much study on it.

Wonderful; now that Pastor King has seen some of the arguments Catholics produce on that score, surely he will be excited to interact with it, no?

You’re the one arguing for material sufficiency, and you have yet to demonstrate, and I know you can’t, where it is found in Scripture.

This is symptomatic of the incomprehension of the proper definition of material sufficiency, highlighted above . . .

The fact remains that you still haven’t shown that the dogma of the “assumption” is materially derived from Scripture.

Like I said, Pastor King eventually simply repeated himself over and over, like a dog who keeps barking and barking, and the sound never changes.

There is no development for the “dogma” of the assumption that finds material support in Holy Scripture. Your own communion have never defined the “relationship between Scripture and tradition” and many Roman Catholic theologians from the past denied material sufficiency. I’m sure you don’t know what material sufficiency means, because you think you can believe it and the dogma of the “assumption.” The two beliefs are incompatible.

Ditto.

Why pursue the question of material sufficiency with me, when you know very well your own communion has avoided that question like the plague ever since the days of Newman or Vatican II.

It has? Wow; I didn't know that . . .

We disagree again on both Ratzinger and Brown. I don’t care what they said in other contexts. I know what they said in the statements I gave.

This is a scream! "Don't confuse me with the facts! And above all, I must never take into consideration the context of a writer's overall thought, lest the entire thesis of my book collapse in a heap, because I started hunting down when all these fathers also talked about Tradition, the Church, the Pope, Councils, and apostolic succession. Circular reasoning and heads in the sand at the proper moments must rule the day!"

I wish I had a nickel for every time a Roman Catholic told me that I don’t understand this or that.

He would be a rich man indeed. I wish I had a penny for every time King and other anti-Catholics have fled from my critiques of their materials and refused to utter one word in defense of their critiqued materials. I'd be the richest man in the history of the world: more than Croesus and Bill Gates combined, times twenty.

But, again, for all of your comments, for all of your verbiage, we have yet to see a single passage of Scripture from you that demonstrates the dogma of the "assumption" has any material support from Scripture.

And I have started passing over some of King's innumerable droning repetitions of this same theme. I don't even want to ponder the repetition that must occur in this man's sermons. His congregations must know them word-for-word by now if he uses at all the same technique he does here.

I refuse to grant what has not been proven, namely, that a Romanist can consistently hold to the view that Scripture is materially sufficient. . . .

For if the dogma of the "assumption" may be proven from Scripture, then virtually anything may be proven by this kind of "name it/claim it" approach to Holy Scripture.

Okay, how about reincarnation, seances, Mormonism, Christian Science, and Jehovah's Witnesses? Are all those part of the "virtually anything" that is as harmonious with Scripture as the Assumption? I can easily show how all of them (and sola Scriptura as well) contradict Scripture repeatedly. But can King show us how the Assumption is contrary to Scripture, in terms of possibility and consistency with the biblical worldview?

Heinrich Bullinger's Belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary)

A Catholic, David Waltz, cited in a discussion thread a book that cited a quotation of (Protestant "reformer") Heinrich Bullinger, from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. Here it is:

Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to heaven, so that . . . we might know what immortality and recompense God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding and incomparable creatures…It is for this reason, we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up to heaven by the angels.

He was then given the fifth degree by an anti-Catholic for actually citing me, as if this were the most outrageous thing in the world! It was suggested that my information was inaccurate or highly skewed.

For those a bit more fair and objective, the source information given is provided in my book (1stBooks original edition, p. 152, footnote 57, and current Sophia Institute Press edition, p. 209, footnote 229).

The secondary source I got the Bullinger quote from was Max Thurian's book, Mary: Mother of All Christians, translated by Neville B. Cryer, New York: Herder and Herder, 1964, 197-198. This was, of course, listed in my book (both editions). Thurian was a Reformed Protestant at the time he wrote this book (I believe he later became a Catholic).

I also listed the primary work: De Origine Erroris (16), from 1568. I must have found that from some other source (likely Janssen), because it isn't in Thurian. Thurian, in turn, took the citation from W. Tappolet, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren, Katzmann-Verlag, Tubingen, 1962, p. 327. Tappolet is also a Protestant author.

I didn't list this further source in my book because I figured most readers of a popular (English) apologetics book cared little about a German-language reference source. But of course if someone was dying to find this out, they could have found it in Thurian's footnote. And with the name of the original primary work, they could run it down in some such source anyway.

I tracked down the original source further. There were several editions (apparently having to do with different languages), and I found one listed for 1568:

Bullinger, Heinrich, 1504-1575.

[De origine erroris. 1568]

De origine erroris libri duo / Heinrychi Bullingeri ... ; ab ipso authore nunc demum recogniti, & aliquot locis praeclarè aucti ... ;
accesserunt his insuper eiusdem authoris libris duo de concilijs, opus uarium, utile, & nostro seculo tantum non necessarium.
Tiguri : Excudebat Christophorus
Froschouerus, 1568.
[4], 183, [5] leaves.
Staedtke, J. Heinrich Bullinger Werke 1:14.
Zurich ZB
7 microfiches.
Order no. PBU-673

My anti-Catholic critics can exert themselves to prove that I lied about the citation, since I got the lie from a Reformed Protestant author, who in turn got it from another Protestant (probably Lutheran) author. I can't wait to see them prove that. Always major on the minors and obfuscation . . .

Do these critics really think I am so stupid I would leave myself open for that sort of a major error? After having written four published books, with two of the most reputable Catholic publishers, I think I know a little bit about footnotes and sources: at least as much as certain critics of mine do.

I'm not perfect, and I make innocent errors in documentation sometimes, like anyone else, but none of my critics have ever caught me in some huge whopper, much as they would love to do so. Seeing the huge volume of writing that I produce, I think that is a pretty good record indeed.

Revised Version (6 April 2008) of a paper originally posted in April 2007.

Refutation of David T. King Regarding St. John Chrysostom & St. Irenaeus as Alleged Sola Scriptura Advocates

This is the same old same old: historical revisionism and anachronism galore: a tired attempt to make the Church fathers into something they were not, simply so the distinctives of Protestantism can be shored up and given a sophistical semblance of historical continuity that they (quite glaringly and obviously) do not possess.

I've written about sola Scriptura about 5,834 times. One tires of it. But what the heck: one more time won't hurt, I reckon, in light of deluded confident assertions from a person who, time and again, refuses to defend his arguments. I highly doubt that this time will be any different, but you never know. There is always a first for everything.

My standard approach to this business of:

Church Father X believes in sola Scriptura, because, look, see!: he praises Scripture in this place and this, and the other over there, and says that Christians ought to read the Bible to learn theology! Obviously, then, he agrees with the formal Protestant principle of sola Scriptura! Who could possibly doubt it?

is the following (I cite my paper about St. Athanasius' view of authority, of my 5,834 on this topic):

We'll look to see if the person thinks Scripture is formally sufficient for authority without the necessary aid of Tradition and the Church, or if he does not, as indicated in other statements. A thinker's statements must be evaluated in context of all of his thought, rather than having pieces taken out and then claiming that they 'prove' something that they do not, in fact, prove at all.

In other words, even if you find a quote where a Father seems (at first glance) to be stating something akin to sola Scriptura (since he is writing about the Bible without immediate reference to Church or Tradition), one must examine what the same person believes about Tradition, Church, and apostolic succession, because the very question at hand (what is the rule of faith?) has to do with the relation of all those things. For that reason, all three (or four) have to be examined in his writing, to understand properly how he views their relationship vis-a-vis each other.

The Protestant always puts the Bible above Church and Tradition, and denies that the latter two can be infallible. Catholics and Orthodox believe in a three-legged stool, where, practically-speaking, Church and Tradition have equal authority with Scripture, because they are the necessary framework and interpretive grid through which Scripture can be properly interpreted in an orthodox sense.

Pastor King's words will be in blue; St. John Chrysostom's (c. 347-407) in green. St. Irenaeus' (c. 130-c. 200) words will be in purple.

"Tarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory’s sake and envy. Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If grief befall thee, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take thence comfort of thy trouble, be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations; or rather dive not into them merely, but take them wholly to thee; keep them in thy mind.

This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe? Well contented should we be if we can be safe with them, let alone without them."

Source: NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, Homily 9.

This source is available online. Fellow anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer suggested a similar passage, for the same purpose:

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rules for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things.

(Homilies on Second Corinthians, 13, c. 7, v. 1)

So the great Father loves Scripture. Amen! Of course, King assumes that anyone who loves Holy Scripture must believe that it is the only binding, infallible authority and must accept the formal principle of sola Scriptura. But this is clearly a logical fallacy. There are number of different positions one can take with regard to the relationship of Scripture, Church, Tradition, and apostolic succession.

St. John Chrysostom's own position is not sola Scriptura, and this can easily be shown. He also accepts an authoritative oral tradition that isn't (by definition) even written; therefore, the furthest thing from sola Scriptura and the Bible alone as ultimate authority. Furthermore, he grounds such authority in the testimony of Scripture itself (just as I, as a Catholic apologist and critic of sola Scriptura, have done, and would do). To show this is a rather easy matter. In fact, it can be demonstrated from St. John Chrysostom's homilies on other epistles of Paul (i.e., of the same sort as the present one -- or two, including Engwer's prooftext -- under consideration).

Let's assume for the sake of argument that King's and Engwer's citations above indicate (or prove?) St. John Chrysostom's belief in a key plank of sola Scriptura: the ability of the individual to interpret for himself without necessary aid from some semblance of binding corporate Christian authority. Now, assuming that, how does a person holding to his alleged beliefs on the subject explain the following "counter-evidence" from the same writer?:

Since then he had already admonished them concerning these things when present, and some perhaps listened to him and others disobeyed; therefore in his letter also again, he foments the place, like a physician, by his mode of addressing them, and so corrects the offence. For that he had heretofore admonished them in person is evident from what he begins with. Why else, having said nothing of this matter any where in the Epistle before, but passing on from other accusations, doth he straightway say, “Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you?”

. . . "That ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you." It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others' pride, who oppose themselves.

(Homily XXVI on 1 Corinthians; commenting on 1 Cor 11:2)

Thus, St. John Chrysostom is stating that some of these "traditions" St. Paul refers to and that which he delivered to his charges, were "not in writing." And the Bible says we are to "hold fast" to them. This is impossible in a sola Scriptura view because it would be considered "unbiblical" by definition and therefore not binding (not being in Scripture itself, according to that view); therefore one could not "hold it fast." Conclusion: he cannot possibly believe in sola Scriptura if this is his opinion. He comments in similar fashion on the related verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

"So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours."

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.

(On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

Likewise:

Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, “whether by word or our Epistle” (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.”

(Homily III on 2 Timothy - on 2 Tim 1:13-18)

He even appeals to an apostolic unwritten tradition of intercessory prayers for the dead (mentioning also the Sacrifice of the Mass:

Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; . . . Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.

. . . Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain resulteth to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith, . . .

[NPNF Editor's note: "The reference doubtless is to the so-called 'Apostolical Constitutions,' which direct the observance of the Eucharist in commemoration of the departed"]

(On Philippians, Homily 3)

This is no Protestant, who don't pray for the dead, and don't even have a Mass, let alone a Sacrifice of the Mass. Concerning the "sacred writers" he stated:

. . . it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition.

(On Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1)

Pastor King accepts none of these things. He would consider them outrageous. They are no different than what I and other orthodox Catholics believe. Yet King looks down as us as non-Christians and pretends that St. John Chrysostom (who agrees with Catholics on this and lots of other things) is a wonderful man of God and supposed quasi-Protestant. Look at the very sub-title of his book, after all: "The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura."

But if this is one example of many supposed "proofs", and it is radically taken out of context with the rest of the Church Father's thoughts, so that it amounts to little more than a gross misrepresentation and falsehood. St. John Chrysostom casually assumes an existing tradition, when he states, for example:

Ver. 8. “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth.”

Who are these? The magicians in the time of Moses. But how is it their names are nowhere else introduced? Either they were handed down by tradition, or it is probable that Paul knew them by inspiration.

(Homily VIII on 2 Timothy)

For, “remember,” he says, “the words of the Lord which he spake: It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (v. 35.) And where said He this? Perhaps the Apostles delivered it by unwritten tradition; or else it is plain from (recorded sayings, from) which one could infer it.

(Homily XLV on Acts 20:32)

But back to David King. After he gives his prooftext, he attempted to defend it as proving that Chrysostom held to sola Scriptura, as follows:

Anyone who understands the distinction between the material and formal sufficiency of Holy Scripture can readily see that Chrysostom's quote here assumes the basic perspicuity (formal sufficiency) of Holy Scripture, as he urges his readers not to wait "for another to teach thee."

This doesn't follow at all. What St. John Chrysostom asserts is material sufficiency (all that is necessary to be believed by the Christian is present in Scripture, either explicitly or indirectly, or deduced from clear scriptural teaching). Catholics readily agree with that. It is not a Protestant distinctive at all.

Formal sufficiency of Scripture, on the other hand, is the notion that Scripture is the only final infallible authority, and that no tradition, Church, council or teaching passed down by apostolic succession is sufficient to be infallible, as Scripture is. This is sola Scriptura, and Chrysostom clearly rejects that, since I have already shown how much non-biblical tradition (i.e., tradition not based solely in the biblical text) he accepts (he was also a very strong supporter of the papacy and strong central papal authority).

His quote also assumes the availability of the NT scriptures for his audience, and its sufficiency to meet the needs of those who read them. Chrysostom here does not, as you suggest, treat Scripture as one would "vitamin supplements," but as utterly essential for he says that the ignorance of Holy Scripture "is the cause of all evils."

So what? The Bible itself says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. So if ignorance of Scripture is so bad that we must adopt Scripture alone in order to avoid all evil; likewise, by analogy, if money is a similar cause of lots of evil, then if Scripture Alone is the solution to the one problem, Poverty Alone and no money at all must be the solution to the other. This is the absurdity of King's exclusivist reasoning. I just did a reductio ad absurdum on his view.

The logic is impeccable. I challenge anyone to show how it is not. The reasonable person would conclude that, just as it doesn't follow that Scripture is the only infallible authority, it also doesn't follow that the only solution to the temptations of riches is to have no money at all. Both are extreme, illogical solutions to the problem.

The failure to take vitamin supplements is not the cause of all bad health in the physical realm. His analogy is clear for anyone to see, i.e., unless someone is determined not to see it.

Scripture is wonderful for the soul and well-being. No one is denying that, so I don't see how it is relevant in a Catholic-Protestant discussion.

There is a specimen example of someone [Jonathan Prejean] who is determined not to see it. All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. Remember the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia. Since therefore, while he had no man to guide him, he was thus reading; for this reason he quickly received an instructor. God knew his willingness, He acknowledged his zeal, and forthwith sent him a teacher. But, you say, Philip is not present with us now. Still, the Spirit that moved Philip is present with us. Let us not, beloved, neglect our salvation!

This makes little sense. "Necessary things are all plain" in Scripture (perspicuity), but the eunuch "had no man to guide him." Why did he need a guide at all, then, if it was so plain? But King says that God knew he was willing to learn, and so He sent an instructor. But that's already another proposition. Here are the two different ideas:

1) Scripture is plain in its main teachings; plain enough for anyone to understand (Luther's famous "plowboy") and sufficient in order to obtain salvation.

2) God will send an instructor to anyone who is willing to be willing to follow Scriptural teaching wherever it leads. If no instructor is present, the Holy Spirit will suffice.

Only the first is truly perspicuity in the classic sense. Only the first is a situation in which nothing else is needed except Scripture. The second concedes that something else is necessary in order to properly understand Scripture in the first place. Now, either proposition can be defended or disputed, but they are different propositions from the outset. King has switched horses in midstream, hoping that the reader wouldn't notice the shift.

In any event, he doesn't defend either proposition above by simply presenting them both, jumbled together. Once he concedes that a reliable instructor is necessary, however, then he has already given up 75% of the argument, and opens the door for the possible authority of the Church, Tradition, apostolic succession, bishops, councils, and popes. It's a loophole a mile wide.

1) We do not quote the ECFs to prove sola Scriptura. We quote them to prove that they do not represent the modern day Roman position with respect to the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. In other words, we quote them to show that it is Rome that has departed from the ancient church's view of Holy Scripture, not Protestants.

If that is so, then Pastor King has failed in this instance. Jason Engwer failed to defend his claim that ten different Fathers believed the same sort of thing. I thoroughly refuted him on the CARM board (he left the much-anticipated and advertised debate after having replied on four of the ten Fathers I dealt with). See my paper chronicling this exchange (+ part two); also an additional dialogue with Engwer at the same time (+ part two). Separately I showed that this myth of "proto-Protestantism with regard to sola Scriptura" didn't apply to St. Athanasius or St. Gregory of Nyssa, either. It's always the same. This claim is pure fiction. King then cites St. Irenaeus:

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:1:1.

To claim him as supposedly an adherent of sola Scriptura is miles beyond absurd, since he was one of the Fathers who particularly espoused and developed the idea of apostolic succession: which itself runs counter to sola Scriptura. John Calvin expressly repudiated apostolic succession:

But by what arguments do they prove their possession of the true Church? They appeal to ancient records which formerly existed in Italy, France, and Spain, pretending to derive their origin from those holy men who, by sound doctrine, founded and raised up churches, confirmed the doctrine, and reared the edifice of the Church with their blood; they pretend that the Church thus consecrated by spiritual gifts and the blood of martyrs was preserved from destruction by a perpetual succession of bishops. They dwell on the importance which Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others, attached to this succession (see sec. 3). How frivolous and plainly ludicrous these allegations are, I will enable any, who will for a little consider the matter with me, to understand without any difficulty.

(Inst., IV, II, 2)

We (say they) are the pillars of the Church, the priests of religion, the vicegerents of Christ, the heads of the faithful, because the apostolic authority has come to us by succession. As if they were speaking to stocks, they perpetually plume themselves on these absurdities. Whenever they make such boasts, I, in my turn, will ask, What have they in common with the apostles? We are not now treating of some hereditary honour which can come to men while they are asleep, but of the office of preaching, which they so greatly shun. In like manner, when we maintain that their kingdom is the tyranny of Antichrist, they immediately object that their venerable hierarchy has often been extolled by great and holy men, as if the holy fathers, when they commended the ecclesiastical hierarchy or spiritual government handed down to them by the apostles, ever dreamed of that shapeless and dreary chaos where bishoprics are held for the most part by ignorant asses, who do not even know the first and ordinary rudiments of the faith, . . .

(Inst., IV, V, 13)

But St. Irenaeus expressly states and holds over and over what Calvin and subsequent Protestants repudiated (it is directly contradictory to the formal principle of sola Scriptura and formal sufficiency of Scripture). I dealt with his views at length in my 40% debate with Jason Engwer (before he decided to flee for the shelter of the hills), but here are a few highlights:

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.

(Against Heresies, 1, 10, 2)

. . . Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards.

. . . those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us . . .

(Against Heresies, 1, 27, 1-2)

The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles.

(Against Heresies, 2, 9, 1)

. . . the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, . . .

(Against Heresies, 3, Preface)

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

(Against Heresies, 3, 2, 2)

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

(Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1)

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

(Against Heresies, 3, 3, 2)

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

(Against Heresies, 3, 3, 3)

. . . the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

(Against Heresies, 3, 3, 4)

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

(Against Heresies, 3, 4, 1)

. . . carefully preserving the ancient tradition . . . by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

(Against Heresies, 3, 4, 2)

CHAP. XXVI. - THE TREASURE HID IN THE SCRIPTURES IS CHRIST; THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE.

2. Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismaries puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth . . .

(Against Heresies, 4, 26, 2)

And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.

(Against Heresies, 4, 32, 1)

8. True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; . . .

(Against Heresies, 4, 33, 8; chapter 33 is entitled, "WHOSOEVER CONFESSES THAT ONE GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF BOTH TESTAMENTS, AND DILIGENTLY READS THE SCRIPTURES IN COMPANY WITH THE PRESBYTERS OF THE CHURCH, IS A TRUE SPIRITUAL DISCIPLE; AND HE WILL RIGHTLY UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET ALL THAT THE PROPHETS HAVE DECLARED RESPECTING CHRIST AND THE LIBERTY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT")

Scholars sum up his view of authority:

For Irenaeus, on the other hand, tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing.

. . . Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, . . . transmitted faithfully from generation to generation.

(Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church, Van Gorcum, 1953, 139, 138)

Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the "rule of faith;" that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy.

Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, "sine charta et atramento," written in their hearts.

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter XII, section 139, "Catholic Tradition," pp. 525-526)

His most characteristic thought, however, is that the Church is the sole repository of the truth, and is such because it has a monopoly of the apostolic writings, the apostolic oral tradition and the apostolic faith. . . . the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back to the apostles themselves provides a guarantee that this faith is identical with the message which they originally proclaimed.

(J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 192)

For much more along these lines, see my debate with Jason Engwer (Part Two).

I am sorry that it irritates you for us to quote the fathers in demonstrating that Rome has departed from their view on Holy Scripture. But you need to take that up with your own communion.

As we see again and again, the exact opposite is true: the fathers utterly contradict anachronistic, revisionist views of Protestants, awkwardly forced upon them in a desperate attempt to give Protestantism some remote semblance of historical continuity. Pastor King's ignorance with regard to the Fathers' views on these matters is breathtaking.

Where did he [Cardinal Newman] make any attempt to show where tradition is on an equal par with Holy Scripture, or that it is infallible. [?]

St. Irenaeus alone, in the above citations, is sufficient to more than establish this. And he is only the tip of the iceberg.

1) Irenaeus' use of the word "tradition" is not to be taken as synonymously with extrabiblical revelation. It is clear that he often uses it as synonymous with Scripture, or with teaching derived from Scripture. It is the Roman uncritical use of such an assumption that betrays a lack of understanding of Irenaeus.

This is sheer nonsense. One counter-example will suffice. St. Irenaeus clearly teaches that apostolic succession is an authoritative, binding, infallible tradition: indeed, quite sufficient to definitively refute heretics (most explicitly in Against Heresies, 3, 3, 3). Now, King's choices in how to deal with this are limited to only a few:

1) Deny that St. Irenaeus teaches this (hardly possible).

2) Deny that it is a biblical doctrine -- in which case the Father is teaching as authoritative something not in the Bible at all, thus neatly, decisively putting the lie both to King's assertion above, and to the claim that Irenaeus believes in sola Scriptura.

3) Assert that it is a biblical doctrine. This, too, contradicts sola Scriptura, because that view holds that only the Bible is infallible, whereas apostolic succession is the view that this historical, institutional, episcopal succession is as infallible in preserving truth as the word of Scripture. And, of course, if King admits that it is a biblical doctrine, then he has to explain why he rejects it?

Any way he chooses, he loses. And that is because he is stating (whether he knows it or not) historical falsehood in the first place.

I don't have to agree with every doctrine Irenaeus espouses . . .

Granted, (from his perspective, but actually in the Catholic approach, too, since we don't hold Fathers to be infallible). However, he does have to show that Irenaeus believes in sola Scriptura, and that is impossible, based on what we have seen above. Also, if it can be shown that Irenaeus believes in doctrines that King thinks are not present in Scripture at all, then that sort of shows that Irenaeus doesn't believe in Bible Alone (by King's own criterion).

Your claim that Irenaeus represents the views of your modern day communion in apostolic succession is far more problematic than my understanding that he attempted to base all his theology on inscripturated revelation. Yet, you do so shamelessly. Does your communion believe in a future, literal thousand year reign of Christ on the earth as did Irenaeus? Does your communion believe that Jesus lived to be at least 50 years of age as did Irenaeus?

This is another astonishingly ignorant argument, betraying a dense incomprehension of the definition and nature of of apostolic succession. The latter doesn't mean:

Every father whom we revere is right in every jot and tittle, and his entire teaching is part of apostolic succession.

Rather, it means:

Whatever is true theology can be shown to have been passed down in unbroken succession, passed on from the apostles to their successors, to the Church through history up till today (whereas falsehood and heresy cannot so trace itself back).

You see, if you are going to accept uncritically everything Irenaeus supposively passed down as apostolic teaching, then that is more of a problem for you as you shamelessly claim him as exclusively your witness.

Since this is based on the same dead-wrong premise just exposed and examined, no further answer is necessary.

King then wrongheadedly (as usual) cites St. Augustine, but I don't have time to pursue the views of another Father, when I have already done so in my debate with Engwer (Augustine is covered in Part I, section VII).

He [St. Augustine] actually invited people to test what he or anyone else claims as dogma from the standard of Holy Scripture.

So what? I do that all the time, too: all the time. And I am a huge critic of sola Scriptura. See my paper: If the Church Fathers Can Be Remarkably Transformed Into "Sola Scriptura Protestants" by "Bible Prooftexts", Why Not Me, Too?!!

King then cites St. John Chrysostom's comment (Homily IX) on the famous sola Scriptura "prooftext" of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which is no better than the text itself for King's purposes: neither proves it in the slightest, but only material sufficiency: which Catholics already accept. Besides, in his Homily II on the same book (cited above), Chrysostom refers to an oral tradition given from Paul to Timothy, which the latter was to "hold fast." This is hardly compatible with sola Scriptura.

The polemic of Rome is self-serving and diminishes the authority of Holy Scripture by insisting that the Scriptures are too obscure to be understood by the ordinary man.

That is simplistic. It is more accurate that we say (very much like St. Irenaeus) that Scripture is rather easily able to be potentially distorted by the ordinary man, if that man is not connected with a Church with an authoritative Christian tradition to guide him against going astray. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that would preclude the possibility of a spiritually-seeking man, to find theological truth in Scripture alone. But that same Scripture points to an authoritative Tradition and Church and apostolic succession: so it always leads away from Protestantism, even by itself.

Our view toward Holy Scripture is the view of the ancient church.

That's hogwash. I've disproven this time and time again, and no reputable Church historian can be found to back this up. It's an utterly ludicrous claim.

So when we interpret 2 Timothy 3:14-17 as the Scriptures teaching that they are sufficient in and of themselves, that rules out the need for any other infallible authority. Other authorities, like Chrysostom, can be helps, but they are not infallible.

Okay, let's grant this momentarily for the sake of argument. If Chrysostom truly believed this (which I deny), then how is it that he believes in the following doctrines (since Pastor King would vehemently deny are taught in Scripture)? The reputable Protestant historian Philip Schaff writes:

Even Chrysostom did not rise above the spirit of the time. He too is an eloquent and enthusiastic advocate of the worship of the saints and their relics. At the close of his memorial discourse on Sts. Bernice and Prosdoce—two saints who have not even a place in the Roman calendar—he exhorts his hearers not only on their memorial days but also on other days to implore these saints to be our protectors: "For they have great boldness not merely during their life but also after death, yea, much greater after death. For they now bear the stigmata of Christ [the marks of martyrdom], and when they show these, they can persuade the King to anything." He relates that once, when the harvest was endangered by excessive rain, the whole population of Constantinople flocked to the church of the Apostles, and there elected the apostles Peter and Andrew, Paul and Timothy, patrons and intercessors before the throne of grace. Christ, says he on Heb. i. 14, redeems us as Lord and Master, the angels redeem us as ministers.

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Chapter 7, § 84. The Worship of Martyrs and Saints, 439-440)

Again, King has some tough choices. If the Father believed these things (as Schaff says he did), then he didn't do so on the basis of Scripture Alone (if King is right that one can find no biblical support for these things). But if that is true, then Chrysostom didn't believe in Scripture Alone as the final infallible authority, and King's claim that he did is false. If he did believe in sola Scriptura, furthermore, then his views should reasonably be expected to resemble Protestant views, and we know that very few Protestants hold these kinds of beliefs.

Our exegesis find a very good precedent in a man like Chrysostom. And again, we don't quote Chrysostom in order to prove sola Scriptura, but to show that such witness as he agree with us, and not with modern day Rome.

A patristic "Proto-Protestant" who believes in intercession of the saints, oral tradition, and praying for the dead? Nor does he even believe in what King claims he believes (sola Scriptura). It hasn't been proven. All that King has proven was that St. John Chrysostom held to the material sufficiency of Scripture, just as Cardinal Newman did, and as I do.

King cites Athanasius, Basil, and Augustine. I've dealt with each of their views on Scripture and Tradition in the other papers mentioned above.

I am not going to let you get away with this tactic again. I am not being mean or uncharitable to hold your feet to your own professed belief by insisting that you make it good on a particular case. You see, as long as folks such as yourself can get away with speaking in generalizations, and never deal with the problems of the particular, it all sounds plausible. But the moment your theory is subjected to the particulars, it begins to unravel. You're walking away from the burden of explaining a particular regarding the very subject at hand. . . . it is charitable to hold you to your own principles. I am not going to let you off the hook by permitting you to speak in generalizations, all the while avoiding the particulars, because that is where your theory begins to unravel.

Nice preaching. This was all in reply to someone else, not me. King has been running from me like I am a leper ever since I refuted his rather dogmatic, confident claim that Pope St. Pius X thought Cardinal Newman was a flaming liberal who believed in evolution of dogma; that was in March 2002, over five years ago. We shall see if Pastor King will hold good to his word in defending his own claims. Nothing I have seen of him leads me to believe that he will. Mark my words.

As for my comments about the use of sophistry previously, it is my studied belief that a Roman Catholic must indulge in such for the maintenance of their apologetic, whether he/she can or does recognize it to be so. I do not regard it as inflammatory to critique and assess a particular argument as sophistry. I think that those who take offense to that do so in frustration, because of their inability to sustain their claims.

This all very much applies to his own argument, too, of course, which I would describe in many ways as well: revisionism, special pleading, obscurantism, obfuscation, sophistry, selective citations and proof texts radically out of context, tunnel vision, historical anachronism, circular logic, just for starters . . .

Supreme Court Partial-Birth Infanticide Ban: Dissenting Opinion of Pro-Abortion Justice Ginsburg

Justice Ginsburg expressed outrage that in Justice Kennedy's opinion, "A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby'". What a perversion of language; we can't stand for that!

In my last post, I highlighted Justice Kennedy's opinion striking down the legality of partial-birth infanticide. Now I'd like to do the same with the dissenting opinion, written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. Again, my comments will be in blue.

* * * * *

Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

* * *

Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right "to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation." Id., at 856. Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to "their ability to control their reproductive lives." Ibid. Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.

Always act as if the rights of the preborn child are not only secondary, but absolutely irrelevant . . . that's been the peo-avortion strategy for 40 years.

* * *

The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


I pointed this out, in arguing that the entire structure of legal abortion is moral insanity, whereas Justice Ginsburg uses it to counter the present ruling and to continue the overall insanity untroubled by any sane regulation or restriction at all. So she's right, but for the wrong reasons and the wrong motivations.

. . . As another reason for upholding the ban, the Court emphasizes that the Act does not proscribe the nonintact D&E procedure. See ante, at 34. But why not, one might ask.

Probably because the current existence of insane and irrational abortion law wouldn't allow any other ruling to be made in the first place. In other words, to start chipping away at rulings which are themselves irrational and mad, one must, to some extent, adopt the same irrational rhetoric. So, e.g., one must deal with the medical-scientific ludicrosity of the "trimester" because that was enshrined in Roe v. Wade (apparently there was some chipping away at that in more recent cases).

Likewise, because the pro-abortion forces have shot down any restrictions at all, based on insufficient clarity, the Court has to speak in absurd terms such as delivery beyond the navel, so that the definition of partial-birth infanticide is specific enough to bear legal obfuscations by those who prefer the legality of children being murdered by parental fiat.

Nonintact D&E could equally be characterized as "brutal," ante, at 26, involving as it does "tear[ing] [a fetus] apart" and "ripp[ing] off" its limbs, ante, at 4, 6. "[T]he notion that either of these two equally gruesome procedures ... is more akin to infanticide than the other, or that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational." Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 946-947 (Stevens, J., concurring).

That's absolutely correct. But one does what one can do in a holocaust. The Court is forced to use irrational reasoning to undo a morally outrageous law (if only in part), itself utterly irrational.

Delivery of an intact, albeit nonviable, fetus warrants special condemnation, the Court maintains, because a fetus that is not dismembered resembles an infant. Ante, at 28. But so, too, does a fetus delivered intact after it is terminated by injection a day or two before the surgical evacuation, ante, at 5, 34-35, or a fetus delivered through medical induction or cesarean, ante, at 9.

Indeed.

Yet, the availability of those procedures--along with D&E by dismemberment--the Court says, saves the ban on intact D&E from a declaration of unconstitutionality. Ante, at 34-35.

Such is the atrocious state of our law.

Never mind that the procedures deemed acceptable might put a woman's health at greater risk. See supra, at 13, and n. 6; cf. ante, at 5, 31-32.

The same people who now want to talk ad infinitum about the risk to the woman (since they can't morally justify childkilling and thus don't even try) have, for years, done all they can to keep women ignorant about the manifold risks during and after abortion. If they're so super-concerned about the woman's health, why is that?

Ultimately, the Court admits that "moral concerns" are at work,

Egads!! Imagine that! One wonders how could we have regressed and descended so far in our jurisprudence that "moral concerns" actually have some relevance to law?

concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion.

That's highly unlikely anytime soon. But perhaps when the baby boom generation that brought us the twin blessings of the sexual revolution and abortion (my illustrious generation) dies off (like the generation in the wilderness with Moses) then it will be thinkable to ban this senseless slaughter and once again regain some semblance of civilization and the most fundamental concern for the rights of the most defenseless among us.

I've always said, however, that it would take a full-scale spiritual revival for this to happen. Abortion comes from the pit of hell and it can only be overcome by people's hearts being transformed by the Holy Spirit, since obviously, reasoning has had little effect on the course of the holocaust. It's a supernatural battle. People who can both perform and defend such ghastly, barbaric procedures of murder have ceased participating in the realm of rational ethical and moral discourse long ago.

See ante, at 28 ("Congress could ... conclude that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act requires specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition."). Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any ground genuinely serving the Government's interest in preserving life. By allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent.

If one reads between the lines, the difference is that the partial-birth infanticide is more undeniably (i.e., for those unaccustomed to pondering these delicate matters, and not nearly as smart as the intellectuals who defend them) murder of a human being, since one sees most of the small person as he or she is, before this person is turned by profiteering butchers into hamburger, decapitated, subjected to scissor incisions and having his or her brains sucked out, etc.

* * *

Revealing in this regard, the Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence: Women who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from "[s]evere depression and loss of esteem." Ante, at 29.

Of course, such things must always be ignored and opposed by the pro-abortion crowd. It's bad for business and propaganda.

Because of women's fragile emotional state and because of the "bond of love the mother has for her child," the Court worries, doctors may withhold information about the nature of the intact D&E procedure. Ante, at 28-29.

Of course, they do exactly that, as the "doctors" themselves testified in some cited case that Justice Kennedy mentioned.

In cases on a "woman's liberty to determine whether to [continue] her pregnancy," this Court has identified viability as a critical consideration. See Casey, 505 U. S., at 869-870 (plurality opinion). "[T]here is no line [more workable] than viability," the Court explained in Casey, for viability is "the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman. ... In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child." Id., at 870.

Today, the Court blurs that line, maintaining that "[t]he Act [legitimately] appl[ies] both previability and postviability because ... a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb." Ante, at 17. Instead of drawing the line at viability, the Court refers to Congress' purpose to differentiate "abortion and infanticide" based not on whether a fetus can survive outside the womb, but on where a fetus is anatomically located when a particular medical procedure is performed. See ante, at 28 (quoting Congressional Findings (14)(G), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769).

Again, because of legal necessity. It's the first restriction that has been allowed in 34 years.

The Court's hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed.

Praise God.

Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctor." Ante, at 14, 24, 25, 31, 33.

And that is too complimentary of a term itself. No one who deliberately murders a helpless infant should be called a "doctor" at all. It is an insult to all the selfless persons who have honored the profession.

A fetus is described as an "unborn child," and as a "baby,"

Really???!!!!! Imagine that! What every mother in history calls her offspring ("I'm gonna have a baby!", etc.) is actually followed by the Supreme Court of the United States??? What's the world coming to, to butcher the English language in such an inexcusable fashion?

But seriously, if the simple term "child" followed by the literal description "unborn" is so unutterably offensive and objectionable, why is it that other cases that Justice Ginsburg loves, such as Casey, themselves use it? In fact, she cited Casey in her own opinion, just two paragraphs before this protest: "the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child." She had cited the same case earlier; it's language (itself scientifically absurd): "the life of the fetus that may become a child."

And again, when it had to do with the blessed "pro-choice", Ginsburg is quite content to utilize the same language of "child": "In reaffirming Roe, the Casey Court described the centrality of "the decision whether to bear . . . a child,". So why the double standard and game-playing with words? Of course, we all know why that is, and how it has always been in the mindset of the pro-abortion lobby.

In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court--and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives.

Please God, may it be so.

Five Catholic Supreme Court Justices Set America Back on the Path to Rudimentary Civilization by Outlawing Partial-Birth Infanticide

President Bush signing the bill banning partial-birth infanticide on 5 November 2003, surrounded by retrograde, woman-hating congressmen

Yesterday, the United States took a step towards becoming a civilized nation again (if it ever was), attaining (only to a degree) to the moral level of the ancient Greek physician and father of medicine Hippocrates, and moving a notch above Nazi morality, when its Supreme Court outlawed the practice of partial birth infanticide (see visual depictions of the actual procedure, and the desired result -- not for the faint of heart; be forewarned).

Over four thousand preborn babies are still murdered every day (more than the death toll of 9-11), with full consent of the law. We mustn't ever forget that, and never cease working to end the holocaust, yet this is the most significant legal pro-life victory, by far, since 1973. And it is wonderful to see that, after years and years of toil and hopes of pro-life activists.

Significantly, the five Justices who voted to ban this gruesome and brutal outrage were all Catholics (Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito). This is the first time the Court has had a majority of Catholic Justices. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Jewish. David Souter is Episcopalian, and John Paul Stevens a Protestant of undisclosed affiliation.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


Catholic writer James Hitchcock has described Justice Stevens as "apparently without formal religious affiliation. Stevens sees opposition to abortion as essentially religious, so that there can be no legal restrictions on the practice. He has also questioned whether private religious education is good for the nation." Stevens has quite an atrocious record with regard to religious freedom:

Stevens was the bete noire of religious conservatives. He provided regular support for a constitutional “right to die” and for abortion rights, and made the startling claim in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statutory preamble stating that human life begins at conception violated the Establishment Clause because it served “no identifiable secular purpose.” He was a rare adherent to views of both the establishment clause and free exercise clause that were unhelpful to religious groups; indeed, Stevens was the only Justice to consistently vote both to single out religious organizations for exclusion from generally available benefits and not to single them out for protection from the burdens of generally applicable laws. And he alone argued that accommodations of religion are, by their nature, violations of the Establishment Clause. Stevens also was the author of the rhetoric most mistrustful of religion during his time on the Court.

If ever there was a demonstration that religion has a huge influence on one's moral outlook (as well as jurisprudence), this is it. Millions of pro-life anti-Catholics are rejoicing today at the decision of five unregenerate, pagan, idolatrous Catholics. Somehow they got it right, while entire Protestant denominations have caved on the abortion issue.

Let's now look at some of the reasoning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave in his certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (11-8-06) [see the complete transcripts of the case]. My comments are in blue:

* * *

In the usual second-trimester procedure, "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraska's, is a variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as "intact D&E." The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull.

* * *

The Act responded to Stenberg in two ways. First, Congress found that unlike this Court in Stenberg, it was not required to accept the District Court's factual findings, and that that there was a moral, medical, and ethical consensus that partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

Self-evident . . .

The Casey Court reaffirmed what it termed Roe's three-part "essential holding": . . . third, the State has legitimate interests from the pregnancy's outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.

Scientifically and philosophically absurd language: the "fetus" is a "child" from the moment it is conceived, because nothing but time and nutrition (and change of location) are required for it to develop in a continuous way into an adult person. Everything is present from conception for this to happen (most notably, the DNA that controls all development). Not only is this not a "may become" proposition: the fetus already is a child, or a human being or person from the first moment of its existence.

Casey struck a balance that was central to its holding, and the Court applies Casey's standard here. A central premise of Casey's joint opinion--that the government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life--would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments below.

Justice Kennedy has likewise argued in the past that Casey was a reasonable attempt to consider both the life of the child and that of the mother, rather than give all the rights to the mother and none at all to the child. He viewed this decision as an application, therefore, of the principles laid down in Casey.

3. The Act, measured by its text in this facial attack, does not impose a "substantial obstacle" to late-term, but previability, abortions, as prohibited by the Casey plurality, 505 U. S., at 878. Pp. 26-37.

(a) The contention that the Act's congressional purpose was to create such an obstacle is rejected. The Act's stated purposes are protecting innocent human life from a brutal and inhumane procedure and protecting the medical community's ethics and reputation. The government undoubtedly "has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 731. Moreover, Casey reaffirmed that the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman. See, e.g., 505 U. S., at 873. The Act's ban on abortions involving partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the Government's objectives. Congress determined that such abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant. This Court has confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned. Glucksberg, supra, at 732-735, and n. 23. The Act also recognizes that respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in a mother's love for her child. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision, Casey, 505 U. S., at 852-853, which some women come to regret. In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence, some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the abortion procedure to be used. It is, however, precisely this lack of information that is of legitimate concern to the State. Id., at 873. The State's interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion. The objection that the Act accomplishes little because the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than intact D&E, is unpersuasive. It was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion, more than standard D&E, undermines the public's perception of the doctor's appropriate role during delivery, and perverts the birth process. Pp. 26-30.

* * *

The evidence presented in the trial courts and before Congress demonstrates both sides have medical support for their positions. The Court's precedents instruct that the Act can survive facial attack when this medical uncertainty persists. See, e.g., Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, 360, n. 3. This traditional rule is consistent with Casey, which confirms both that the State has an interest in promoting respect for human life at all stages in the pregnancy, and that abortion doctors should be treated the same as other doctors. Medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts.

* * *

Other considerations also support the Court's conclusion, including the fact that safe alternatives to the prohibited procedure, such as D&E, are available.

A reminder of the chilling legality of D & E ("dilation and evacuation"; more accurately described as "dismemberment and evacuation"). This serves to remind pro-lifers that the present victory is only minimal at best, with this sort of brutal, schizoid mentality still fully intact in US law. But every thousand-mile journey begins with the first step.

* * * * *

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

Excerpts of Justice Kennedy's opinion:

Compared to the state statute at issue in Stenberg, the Act is more specific concerning the instances to which it applies and in this respect more precise in its coverage. We conclude the Act should be sustained against the objections lodged by the broad, facial attack brought against it.

* * *

Of the remaining abortions that take place each year [estimated at 10-15% based on his previous paragraph], most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as "dilation and evacuation" or "D&E" is the usual abortion method in this trimester. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 960-961. Although individual techniques for performing D&E differ, the general steps are the same.

. . . The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman's cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed. See, e.g., Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 465; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962.

* * *

Intact D&E [medical term for partial-birth abortion] gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. Dilation and Extraction 110-111. In the usual intact D&E the fetus' head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass. See, e.g., ibid.; App. in No. 05-380, at 577; App. in No. 05-1382, at 74, 282. Haskell explained the next step as
follows:

" 'At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).

" 'While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

" '[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

" 'The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.' " H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).

This is an abortion doctor's clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

" 'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... .

" 'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

" 'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .

" 'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.' " Ibid.

Dr. Haskell's approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and "the process has evolved" since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." App. in No. 05-380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866-867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

God help us all . . .

. . . For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has "some viability to it, some movement of limbs," according to this doctor, "[is] always a difficult situation."

Yes, very "difficult." It's good to see that there is a shred of human decency and compassion in these barbaric demon-inspired monsters who call themselves "doctors".

* * *

After Dr. Haskell's procedure received public attention, with ensuing and increasing public concern, bans on " 'partial birth abortion' " proliferated. By the time of the Stenberg decision, about 30 States had enacted bans designed to prohibit the procedure. 530 U. S., at 995-996, and nn. 12-13 (Thomas, J., dissenting); see also H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, at 4-5. In 1996, Congress also acted to ban partial-birth abortion. President Clinton vetoed the congressional legislation, and the Senate failed to override the veto. Congress approved another bill banning the procedure in 1997, but President Clinton again vetoed it. In 2003, after this Court's decision in Stenberg, Congress passed the Act at issue here. H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, at 12-14. On November 5, 2003, President Bush signed the Act into law. It was to take effect the following day. 18 U. S. C. §1531(a) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).

Good ole Democrats; always advocates of the "little guy" and the downtrodden and the oppressed being led away to slaughter . . . the "civil rights" party . . .

Congress found, among other things, that "[a] moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion ... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."

* * *

Whatever one's views concerning the Casey joint opinion, it is evident a premise central to its conclusion--that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life--would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments of the Courts of Appeals.

. . . we must determine whether the Act furthers the legitimate interest of the Government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child.

The same dumb anti-scientific language of "may become a child." This is even more silly and arbitrary than the non-scientific distinctions of "trimesters." But hey, the Court has figured out that there may be a child here: even if it is only a "maybe child" or in potentiality only. A bird's egg "may become" a bird one day. How profound. It takes some folks longer than others to learn their elementary biology and proper definitions of things.

To implement its holding, Casey rejected both Roe's rigid trimester framework and the interpretation of Roe that considered all previability regulations of abortion unwarranted.

Real progress!"Trimesters" and absolute unconcern for preborn human beings are (legally) on a downward trend . . .

Casey, in short, struck a balance. The balance was central to its holding. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar.

In other words, it took baby steps to rudimentary logic, common sense, and the most basic humanitarian compassion for fellow human beings. And now this massive increase in moral and logical comprehension is finally being brought to bear in new Supreme Court decisions.

First, the person performing the abortion must "vaginally delive[r] a living fetus." §1531(b)(1)(A). The Act does not restrict an abortion procedure involving the delivery of an expired fetus. The Act, furthermore, is inapplicable to abortions that do not involve vaginal delivery (for instance, hysterotomy or hysterectomy). The Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.

In other words, "doctors" need merely kill the child inside the womb, and that will still be perfectly legal. That's because all involved can pretend in those instances that the "fetus" is not viable, being safely hidden behind abdominal walls. Out of sight, out of mind . . . As long as the child is murdered in the dark, in secret, then all is well with the world and it is a major moral difference. Pro-lifers obviously still have much work to do, but it's a start.

Second, the Act's definition of partial-birth abortion requires the fetus to be delivered "until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother." §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). The Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that if an abortion procedure does not involve the delivery of a living fetus to one of these "anatomical 'landmarks' "--where, depending on the presentation, either the fetal head or the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother--the prohibitions of the Act do not apply. Brief for Petitioner in No. 05-380, p. 46. . . . To begin with, the physician must have "deliberately and intentionally" delivered the fetus to one of the Act's anatomical landmarks. §1531(b)(1)(A). If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point by accident or inadvertence, the Act is inapplicable.

So if the entire head is not pulled out, or the body in a breech delivery not past the navel (what profound, non-arbitrary distinctions), the child can still be legally killed. It's a loophole that would seem to allow almost all such infanticides to continue to take place. It looks, then, that this ruling is only significant in terms of changing the course of the direction of previous abortion law, and opening the door for actual sensible, consistent pro-life restrictions. For the baby who is killed with its navel inside the birth canal rather than outside, there is little difference. The child still gets to experience having his or her skull crushed, and/or brains sucked out after an incision with scissors.

How far our wonderful nation has progressed morally! Who could fail to be impressed?! In 1965 (a short 100 years after slavery was outlawed) a majority figured out that a black person ought to be able to sit at a lunch counter and eat and ride in the front of a bus, or attend a school that everyone else attends. Now, we know so much that we can figure out that if you don't pull a viable preborn child out of his or her mother past the navel, then the child has no rights and isn't human, and no person, and can be murdered (oops, "terminated").

But another half-inch and everything changes and the child is now a person and has human rights. Surely, the pagans Hammurabi and Aristotle and Cicero must be green with envy at how much we have learned about morality and righteousness in these thousands of years. How much profound moral wisdom and insight the Nazi "doctors" who experimented in the death camps could have gained! If only they were alive to witness this remarkable development . . .

Now granted, the lawyers and Justices involved (who had any pro-life sensibilities at all) no doubt had to argue in such inane, nonsensical, philosophically-bankrupt ways because present abortion law is itself so ridiculous and morally abominable. You have to overcome one ludicrous thing by becoming ludicrous in legal argument in order to overcome it (reductio ad absurdum).

Though I'm no expert on legal matters, I'm quite sure this is a key factor and consideration. Hence, Justice Kennedy's language: "Unlike the statutory language in Stenberg that prohibited the delivery of a " 'substantial portion' " of the fetus--where a doctor might question how much of the fetus is a substantial portion--the Act defines the line between potentially criminal conduct on the one hand and lawful abortion on the other" But that is small solace, where live human beings are being talked about as if they were more worthless than, and as disposable as, cockroaches underneath a rock.

The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed in pieces, not intact. If the doctor intends to remove the fetus in parts from the outset, the doctor will not have the requisite intent to incur criminal liability.

Just tear the poor child to shreds: that remains perfectly legal. I'm sure the child-killers will be most accommodating and ingenious and inventive in adjusting to the new restriction.

The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman. A central premise of the opinion was that the Court's precedents after Roe had "undervalue[d] the State's interest in potential life." . . . The three premises of Casey must coexist. See id., at 846 (opinion of the Court). The third premise, that the State, from the inception of the pregnancy, maintains its own regulatory interest in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child, cannot be set at naught by interpreting Casey's requirement of a health exception so it becomes tantamount to allowing a doctor to choose the abortion method he or she might prefer. Where it has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.

Progress . . . very slight and filled with continuing moral absurdities and monstrosities, but real nonetheless . . .

No one would dispute that, for many, D&E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life. Congress could nonetheless conclude that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act requires specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.

Very good. The first sentence refreshingly states the obvious.

Congress determined that the abortion methods it proscribed had a "disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant," Congressional Findings (14)(L), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769, and thus it was concerned with "draw[ing] a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide." Congressional Findings (14)(G), ibid. The Court has in the past confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent certain practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned. Glucksberg found reasonable the State's "fear that permitting assisted suicide will start it down the path to voluntary and perhaps even involuntary euthanasia." 521 U. S., at 732-735, and n. 23.

Good.

Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. Casey, supra, at 852-853 (opinion of the Court). While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp. 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. Ibid.

This is rather remarkable language, in relation to the chilling, unconcerned language of past related legal rulings, with regard to the preborn child. The nod to post-abortive trauma is also very encouraging. US law on abortion will now begin to have some slight shred of moral sanity and elementary rationality. That in itself is a virtual miracle.

See, e.g., Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 466, n. 22 ("Most of [the plaintiffs'] experts acknowledged that they do not describe to their patients what [the D&E and intact D&E] procedures entail in clear and precise terms"); see also id., at 479.

Of course, pro-life activists have argued for years that the pro-abortion crowd loves to keep their "patients" in gross ignorance -- knowing that the more the woman actually knows, the less profits they will make.

It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. Casey, supra, at 873 (plurality opinion) ("States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound and lasting meaning"). The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.

Excellent, even with its obvious flaws (the last clause).

It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions. The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand. The State's interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion.

This sort of language and reasoning is a significant shift in the direction of abortion law. In that sense, we can take great heart in it. It's light years ahead of the anti-scientific, Nazi-like "reasoning" of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, of 1973.

It is objected that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E, so that the legislation accomplishes little.

He got that right. My reaction exactly.

There would be a flaw in this Court's logic, and an irony in its jurisprudence, . . .

Really???!! That would be a first, huh?

. . . were we first to conclude a ban on both D&E and intact D&E was overbroad and then to say it is irrational to ban only intact D&E because that does not proscribe both procedures. In sum, we reject the contention that the congressional purpose of the Act was "to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion." 505 U. S., at 878 (plurality opinion).

Hopefully, what Justice Kennedy is expressing in "legal-speak" is that "this is the best we can accomplish right now, realistically, in legal terms, and it is better than nothing. Maybe later we can rectify the glaring double standards still left in place."

This traditional rule is consistent with Casey, which confirms the State's interest in promoting respect for human life at all stages in the pregnancy. Physicians are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures. The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other physicians in the medical community. In Casey the controlling opinion held an informed-consent requirement in the abortion context was "no different from a requirement that a doctor give certain specific information about any medical procedure." 505 U. S., at 884 (joint opinion). The opinion stated "the doctor-patient relation here is entitled to the same solicitude it receives in other contexts." Ibid.; see also Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U. S. 490, 518-519 (1989) (plurality opinion) (criticizing Roe's trimester framework because, inter alia, it "left this Court to serve as the country's ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U. S. 968, 973 (1997) (per curiam) (upholding a restriction on the performance of abortions to licensed physicians despite the respondents' contention "all health evidence contradicts the claim that there is any health basis for the law" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Important legal considerations that need to be further refined in the future.

Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. For these reasons the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed.

Praise God. Now let's keep pressing for more sweeping change. It's only the beginning . . .

Great News For Women Suffering Hot Flashes: Natural Remedies

For the millions of women who endure the ordeal of the "hot flash" during their pre-menopausal years, no further description is necessary. As for those men (many millions also, I fear) who are married to these women and who make fun of this symptom or show little compassion for the discomfort, irritation, and sometimes embarrassment involved: it's no fun at all, guys. Please get with it and show some more understanding. It can only make life better for you as well as your wife. No one (much less, a wife) likes to have their difficulties minimized or misunderstood.

Presently, I hope to bring some aid to whatever women are willing to try something different to deal with hot flashes, by reporting the wonderful success story of my lovely wife, Judy (48).
This came about by entirely natural, drug-free means. Any woman can try the same thing. You may save a lot of money as well as a lot of agony and discomfort. What do you have to lose?

As some of my readers may know, I (along with my wife Judy) am an enthusiastic advocate of holistic health: natural, whole foods, supplements, herbalist remedies, chiropractic, and avoidance of unhealthy foods (white sugar, white flour, saturated fat, high cholesterol, semi-vegetarian diet, etc.). Previously I have written about natural remedies for depression, and about the relationship of homeopathy (and the rational use of same) and science, as well as the multiple benefits of hydrotherapeutic spa.

Judy had been suffering through hot flashes "for years at night; probably three years at least"; two times a night, waking up soaked with sweat. Each attack would last for about 15 minutes. In the last six months, things got even more intense: the night episodes increased to three or four, and with more intensity. Also, daytime attacks started: an average of about six a day, "real intense" for about 10-15 minutes. So we're talking up to ten attacks of hot flashes in a single day. Needless to say, this was most unpleasant and irritating for her. Also it's thought that thinner women (Judy is a very petite 5'2") have relatively more hot flashes and a more difficult menopause.

Like many people, we tend to go along with certain things, thinking that not much could be done (like noisy kids, death and taxes, unprincipled politicians, and dumb drivers on the road). And that was true in our case even though we should have known better, with our longtime successful experience with a natural and health food philosophy. I guess it just got bad enough that we determined to try anything we could to make it better. It's a shame we didn't do this earlier, but oh well: "better late than never," and "all's well that ends well." We can't look back and dwell upon what we didn't do; we have to look forward and see what we can do now. Life's too short to be filled with regrets and "what if's?".

So on 10 April 2007 (just a week ago, today), I set out to our local Vitamin Shoppe, determined to find some supplements to help Judy (after several hours of Internet research on hot flashes and natural remedies for them). I determined that the best supplements (based on indicated effectiveness and financial considerations) were the following (all capsules; one a day):

1) Licorice root 450 mg

2) Dong Quai root 500 mg

3) Chasteberry (Vitex) Extract 200 mg (std. to 0.5% Agnusides 1 mg) + Chasteberry 300 mg

4) Potassium Citrate 99 mg

Judy started taking all of these that night. Additionally, she added another 400 IU Vitamin E to the 400 IU she was already taking (per various recommendations for hot flashes). The results were rather dramatic. Within the very first day, her symptoms were less intense. By the fifth day (two days ago), the hot flashes had totally ceased, with no symptoms at all (and remember, this was after about three years, and six months of more intense symptoms). She has had none, either day or night, for the last two days and today.

I know it is still early, and I'll update this as time goes on, to report whether this success continues, but it was such a remarkable change that I wanted to report it now. Generally, with natural supplements, it takes at least two weeks, and often as many as six, for the effects to really "kick in" (the exact opposite of quick-acting drugs, but without the side effects, too).

In such cases, it is important to know exactly what other supplements a person is taking, because the supplements work together, and are more powerful in tandem. It may be just one of the new supplements that is actually causing the change (everyone has a unique bodily system, and it is an exceedingly difficult and complex matter to isolate direct causal relationships). The trick with herbs and vitamins and minerals is to take the ones most likely, statistically, to have an effect. Then if it works, one can experiment by withdrawing one or more, in order to better isolate causation and effective remedy (and to save money too).

Judy had been taking the well-known (widely-used in Europe) menopausal supplement Black Cohosh root (540 mg) for at least two years, I think, if not more. And she had been taking Dong Quai before, as it was included with an iron supplement she took before we switched to Vitamin Shoppe supplements (and Dong Quai is itself high in iron). That may possibly have some relationship to her hot flashes worsening in the last six months.

Her routine supplements that she has been taking for some time (and that I also take, minus the depression supplements listed further below), are the following:

Vitamin A (25,000 IU; was 10,000 until a few months ago)

Vitamin B-5o supplement (all eleven B vitamins) three times a day (thus, in effect, B-150) [B5 and B6 are especially important for hot flashes; B vitamins are important for blood sugar and to counter depression]

Vitamin C (500 mg a day)

Vitamin E (400 IU; now 800 IU a day for hot flashes)

Calcium / Magnesium + Zinc (1000 mg / 500 mg / 30 mg; also good for psychological well-being [natural tranquilizer] as well as for bones)

Chromium (200 mcg) [crucial for blood sugar metabolism, especially for hypoglycemics]

Iron (28 mg)

Bee pollen (1000 mg) [energy]

Additional Depression supplements (these have, for six years, successfully replaced Zoloft [seven years' use] for mild depression):

L-Taurine (500 mg; amino acid; three times a day)

L-Tyrosine (500 mg; amino acid; three times a day)

GABA (750 mg; twice a day)

While I'm at it with the supplements; if anyone has stomach problems (I have trouble with spices and acid and maltitol), try Super Digestaway. I take one every day at dinner.

And to knock out a developing cold, starting in the throat, take Hyland's Sore Throat homoeopathic medicine (with belladonna). It worked for me over the weekend, to prevent a likely serious cold developing. Usually, it's like clockwork: I'll get the scratchy throat, then the sore throat, then runny nose, then phlegm further down, sometimes losing my voice for a few days, etc. But this supplement and tons of vitamin C appear to have zapped it before it got serious.

The Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity and Romans 3:10-11 ("None is Righteous . . . No One Seeks For God"): Reply to James White

Calvinist Charles Spurgeon: many of his (and his fellow Calvinist's)
beliefs contradict Scripture big-time

See James White's article, C. Gordon Olson and the Many "Mistranslated" Texts on Calvinism.

Before I begin, I would like to make it very clear that I am not advocating or defending Pelagianism (the doctrine that man can do anything whatsoever to save himself, or "works-salvation." I am not denying sola gratia ("Grace alone") in the slightest, nor original sin, nor the universality of actual sin and thus universal need for salvation. I will be accused in some circles (mark my words) of denying one or more of these things, so I want to stress that it is not true. If anyone thinks that I am upholding any of these falsehoods and heresies in the following argument, they will have understood neither my meaning nor my intent.

What I am opposing is the Calvinist understanding that of total depravity, as defined by Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology:

The fifth form of doctrine to which the Protestant faith stands opposed, is that which admits a moral deterioration of our nature, which deserves the displeasure of God, and which is therefore truly sin, and yet denies that the evil is so great as to amount to spiritual death, and to involve the entire inability of the natural man to what is spiritually good.

. . . The whole human race, by their apostasy from God, are totally depraved. By total depravity, is not meant that all men are equally wicked; nor that any man is as thoroughly corrupt as it is possible for a man to be; nor that men are destitute of all moral virtues. The Scriptures recognize the fact, which experience abundantly confirms, that men, to a greater or less degree, are honest in dealings, kind in their feelings, and beneficent in their conduct. Even the heathen, the Apostle teaches us, do by nature the things of the law. They are more or less under the dominion of conscience, which approves or disapproves their moral conduct. All this is perfectly consistent with the Scriptural doctrine of total depravity, which includes the entire absence of holiness; the want of due apprehensions of the divine perfections, and of our relation to God as our Creator, Preserver, Benefactor, Governor, and Redeemer. There is common to all men a total alienation of the soul from God so that no unrenewed man either understands or seeks after God; no such man ever makes God his portion, or God’s glory the end of his being. The apostasy from God is total or complete. All men worship and serve the creature rather than, and more than the Creator. They are all therefore declared in Scripture to be spiritually dead. They are destitute of any principle of spiritual life.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


I wholeheartedly agree that the unregenerate man is utterly unable to save himself or do the slightest thing to turn to God and be justified or regenerated, but (and always but) for God's grace. The Council of Trent (surprise! for many who have been told otherwise by anti-Catholics!!!!) teaches all of this:

Decree on Justification

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER V.

On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

CHAPTER VIII.

In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

What I deny, on the other hand, is the Calvinist notion of Total Depravity such that (as Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge put it, fallen, unregenerate man has "lost all ability to perform what is spiritually good" (Systematic Theology, abridged version, edited by Edward N. Gross, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988, 308). And I shall back up my contention with plenty of Scripture, as I always seek to do in such discussions.

White (words in blue throughout) begins his counter-reply to one C. Gordon Olson with the usual caricatured blast at the soteriology of non-Calvinist Protestants:

. . . one who wishes to defend a man-centered gospel rather than the gospel of the free and powerful grace of God. . . all such writings, whether those of Olson or Hunt or Geisler or Bryson or whoever . . .

People like Protestant apologist and theologian Norman Geisler (not just we lowly pagan, Pelagian, ignorant, unregenerate, idolatrous Catholics; indeed, any non-Calvinist whatsoever) , therefore, supposedly deny sola gratia and assert a "man-centered" Pelagianism. White would not be White without misrepresenting and deriding his opponents. Further on in the article he describes Olson's views as a "'rehabilitated Pelagian' viewpoint".

I don't know the works or exhaustive soteriology of all these men, and some may have perhaps fallen into one or more of these serious errors (Dave Hunt is a fool and abysmally ignorant in many areas), but I know that Norman Geisler has not, and I highly suspect that Olson and Bryson have not, either. If White disagrees, I'd like to see him prove it with some hard evidence; not just polemics. If he does so, I'd be the first to agree with him. But I know Catholic teaching and my own (I adhere to all the teachings of the Catholic Church) and we do not deny sola gratia at all (nor assert the converse: Pelagianism).

White refers to "Paul's apologetic for the universal sinfulness of man". I don't deny this, so it is not at issue. Again, I deny that unregenerate man can do no "spiritually good" thing whatsoever (in a context apart from salvation or justification). My argument will be from the nature of biblical poetic language and Hebrew idiom. I will not be making the same argument that Olson makes (in fact, I disagree with it). Mine is a different approach altogether. First, let's look at the passage in question (specifically Romans 3:10-11), in its overall context (I use RSV):

9: What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,
10: as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
11: no one understands, no one seeks for God.
12: All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one."
13: "Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips."
14: "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15: "Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16: in their paths are ruin and misery,
17: and the way of peace they do not know."
18: "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
19: Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
20: For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21: But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it,
22: the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;
23: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24: they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,

(Romans 3:9-24)

White comments as follows:

Consider: Is Paul saying "there is none really righteous (but some who are sorta-righteous)" in verse 10? Is he saying there is none who understand really well, but some who sorta understand, just enough," in verse 11? And since he latches on to the present participle, how about verse 12? "There is none who regularly does good (but there are some who do good once in a while in and of themselves)"? Have all turned aside, or just most? Have they become useless, or just mainly useless? You truly have to wonder if Paul's point is going to be sacrificed on the altar of the defense of human autonomy. How much plainer can Paul put it? The conclusion of his series of citations is not "Mankind is really sinful...though...not so bad as to be unable to do some good, have some fear, do a little seeking, etc."

White argues that Olson's argument from the word ekzeteo ("seeks") neglects context (he uses the word "context" twice). What I will be doing is examining the context of the original citation that St. Paul makes, and also related cross-referenced materials, in order to better understand his intended meaning, within the framework of Hebrew idiom and frequent hyperbole. Bishop White notes in passing:

Paul has already said, that men know God exist, and yet, in their ungodliness, suppress that knowledge of Him, refusing to acknowledge Him as the Creator.

He is referring to Romans 1:18-21,25,28. Yet Paul doesn't teach, in context, that absolutely all unregenerated men know that God exist but deny Him anyway, for in the very next chapter (and the chapter right before our text under consideration): Romans 2, he talks about "righteous" people who can do "good" and who are capable of "well-doing" even without the Law, let alone the gospel of Jesus Christ:

6: For he will render to every man according to his works:
7: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

10 . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

13: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15: They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
16: on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

26: So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27: Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.

How fascinating. All of this is about Gentiles who don't even have the law. They haven't heard the gospel at all. The New Testament has not yet been out together. They (obviously) don't yet have the benefit of Romans itself. Paul never says that they have heard the gospel. James White would probably say they are unregenerate, since he seems to think (from what I can tell) that one must hear the gospel and accept it in order to be regenerated and justified. These people have not that advantage at all. Therefore, according to White, they could not possibly be capable of any spiritually good thing. Yet look at all the words Paul uses to describe them:

. . . by patience in well-doing . . . [receive] eternal life; . . . every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. . . . do by nature what the law requires, . . . what the law requires is written on their hearts, . . . a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, . . . those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law . . ."

Needless to say, this doesn't fit very well at all with White's theology. He already has far more explaining to do than Mr. Olson, who is merely guilty of an arguably weak linguistic argument. Here is tons of data from Paul that runs contrary to White's theology. If white claims it does not (I'm always open to clarification or correction), then surely he can explain to us how it all fits in perfectly well with his outlook. I'd love to see it. From what I know of the doctrine of Total Depravity, it does not. I do agree with the following statement that Olson made, cited by White:

Although Paul expands the application of David's words somewhat, he is giving a generalized statement about the human race as a whole, extending to both Jews and Gentiles, but not intended to be all-inclusive.

Olson tried to apply this primarily to the atheist. I don't think that is plausible (I agree with White's negative appraisal of that opinion). I contend that the exegetical key here lies, rather, in the way the Hebrews used hyperbole and words like "all"; how they understood them, and how exaggeration and contrast were very common motifs in Hebrew poetic expression. White exclaims:

Paul expands the application, not just "somewhat," but, in this text, universally. How can anyone read the catena of passages in 3:10-18 and yet come to the conclusion this is not intended to be "all-inclusive" when the conclusion says just the opposite? Does not Paul conclude that his words function "so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God"? How do you get "not intended to be all-inclusive" from "every mouth/all the world"?

White also maintains:

"But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul" (Deu. 4:29). Since the Bible commands us to seek, then, obviously, we can do so! Just like how the Bible commands us to love God perfectly, and our neighbor as ourselves! We can do it! And to walk blamelessly, and...oh, wait. . . . such commands would be used of God to 1) direct and guide the regenerate soul, . . .

Note, then, that White has concluded that any instance of "seeking" of God must occur in the regenerate soul. This is crucial to understand as we pursue this line of thought shortly, in an in-depth examination of related passages. White has to explain, for example, how all these Gentiles Paul refers to in Romans 2 were blessed with regeneration without hearing the gospel message.

They obviously had to be regenerated, according to him, in order to do all the good things Paul described them as doing, and indeed, to even achieve salvation, as Paul says that they do. They're justified, they are moral and "righteous"; they are internally transformed ("written on their hearts" / "conscience" etc.), and saved ("eternal life"). That definitely involves "spiritual good." They do good works, and God uses these (so the text says, not the Catholic Church or Dave Armstrong) as a prime consideration in granting them salvation.

White would have to assume (because of his predispositions) that they, therefore, must have both heard the gospel and have received regeneration. But nothing in the text itself suggests to the slightest degree that the former is the case, and the latter can only be deduced (I think it could rightly be, since they are referred to as being "justified" and saved, but White is no fan of deduction; he favors direct statements).

Perhaps this is an instance of the difficulties of White's own "over-arching tradition" (the notion he ascribes to Olson)? White's view of the state of those who haven't heard the gospel (such as these folks in Romans 2) is seen by his approving citation of Charles Spurgeon, in his post "What I Believe About Regeneration" (3-18-06):

The instrumentality through which this singular change has been wrought in us is clearly stated, “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.” Men are not usually saved without the immediate agency of the gospel. Some have said that the Spirit of God always works through the truth, and that the truth is sure to work conviction. The truth, however, is preached, and faithfully preached, to tens of thousands, to whom it conveys not a blessing at all, but is the savor of death unto death. Others have said that the Spirit of God regenerates men apart from the Word of God but this is not told us in Scripture, and is not therefore to be received. But evermore the Word and the Spirit are put together. Scripture does not talk of the Word of God as a dead letter; it says, “The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.” On the other hand, Scripture does not speak of the Holy Spirit as though the Word would work apart from him, but the two are put together, and “ what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” My dear brethren and sisters, you who have been begotten again unto a lively hope, was it not through the hearing of the Word, or the reading of it, or the remembrance of some hallowed text which you had almost forgotten? You know it was. Good McCheyne used to say, “Depend on it, it is God’s Word that saves souls, and not our comment upon God’s Word;” and so I believe it is. It is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.

So now both Bishop White and also the well-known Calvinist preacher Spurgeon are in direct contradiction to St. Paul and Holy Scripture. For where does it say in Romans 2 that these people, who are referred to as saved, heard the gospel? It doesn't. But some there are clearly saved without the benefit of the gospel, despite Spurgeon's false claim that "this is not told us in Scripture, and is not therefore to be received." And to make sure that everyone knows he agrees with Spurgeon to the letter, White adds:

Let it be known I believe and profess the confessional statement quoted above; let it be known I object to not a word in Spurgeon's exposition. If you encounter someone confused by others about my views, correct them. If you encounter one who claims to know my heart better than I do and who refuses to accept this confession of faith, dismiss him as the addled ranter he is.

Now let's get to the heart of the discussion, and my own argument, having noted some of White's (and Spurgeon's) unbiblical and false premises. First let us briefly look at how the word "all" was regarded by the ancient Hebrews. In a related paper on the exegesis of Romans 3:23, I wrote:

. . . the word "all" (pas in Greek) can indeed have different meanings (as it does in English), . . . It matters not if it means literally "every single one" in some places, if it can mean something less than "absolutely every" elsewhere in Scripture. . . .

We find examples of a non-literal intent elsewhere in Romans. . . . Paul writes that "all Israel will be saved," (11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as "....filled with all knowledge...." (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong's Concordance.. . .

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged Ed.) states:

Pas can have different meanings according to its different uses . . . in many verses, pas is used in the NT simply to denote a great number, e.g., "all Jerusalem" in Mt 2:3 and "all the sick" in 4:24. {pp.796-7}

See also Mt 3:5, 21:10, 27:25, Mk 2:13, 9:15, etc., etc., esp. in KJV.

Likewise, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives "of every kind" as a possible meaning in some contexts (p. 491, word #3956). And Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words tells us it can mean "every kind or variety." (v.1, p. 46, under "All").

. . . One might also note 1 Corinthians 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" {NIV}. As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not "all" people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5, Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, "all" will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell.

So much for an overly-literal (or rationalistic) interpretation of "all" as necessarily meaning "without exception."

St. Paul appears to be citing Psalm 14:1-3:

1: The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.
2: The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God.
3: They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.

Now, does the context in the earlier passage suggest that what is meant is "absolutely every person, without exception"? No. We've already seen the latitude of the notion "all" in the Hebrew understanding. Context supports a less literal interpretation.

In the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims "I have trusted in thy steadfast love" (13:5), which certainly is "seeking" after God. Indeed, the very next Psalm is entirely devoted to "good people":

1: O LORD, who shall sojourn in thy tent? Who shall dwell on thy holy hill?
2: He who walks blamelessly, and does what is right, and speaks truth from his heart;
3: who does not slander with his tongue, and does no evil to his friend, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor;
4: in whose eyes a reprobate is despised, but who honors those who fear the LORD; who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
5: who does not put out his money at interest, and does not take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved.

(complete)

Even two verses after our cited passage in Psalms David writes that "God is with the generation of the righteous" (14:5). In the very next verse (14:4) David refers to "the evildoers who eat up my people". Now, if he is contrasting the evildoers with His people, then obviously, he is not meaning to imply that everyone is evil, and there are no righteous. So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance. Such remarks are common to Jewish poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5 refers to a good man (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly (11:23, 12:2, 13:22, 14:14,19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Ps 14:2-3.

And references to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9, 22:19, Ps 5:12, 32:11, 34:15, 37:16,32, Mt 9:13, 13:17, 25:37,46, Rom 5:19, Heb 11:4, Jas 5;16, 1 Pet 3:12, 4:18, etc., etc.).

We see Jewish idiom and hyperbole in other similar passages. For example, Jesus says:

No one is good but God alone.

(Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17)

Yet He also said:

The good person brings good things out of a good treasure....

(Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45, 7:17-20, 22:10)

Furthermore, in each instance in Matthew and Luke above of the English "good" the Greek word used is agatho.

Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God's, but He doesn't deny that we can be "good" in a lesser sense.

Psalm 53:1-3 is very similar (perhaps the very same writing originally, or close parallel):

1: The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none that does good.
2: God looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any that are wise, that seek after God.
3: They have all fallen away; they are all alike depraved; there is none that does good, no, not one.

All the same elements are present: it starts with a reference to atheists or agnostics, then moves on to ostensibly "universal" language, which is seen to admit of exceptions once context is considered. Like Psalm 14, there is the following contrast in the next verse:

Have those who work evil no understanding, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon God?

And Like Psalm 14, we see other proximate Psalms refer to the "righteous" or "godly" (e.g., 52:1,6,9; 55:22; 58:10-11). David himself eagerly seeks God in Psalms 51, 52:8-9, 54, 55, 56, , 57, 61, 62, 63, etc. Obviously, then, it is not the case that "no one" whatsoever seeks God. It is Hebrew hyperbole and exaggeration to make a point. And this is, remember, poetic language in the first place. Therefore, it is fairly clear that there -- far from "none" -- plenty of righteous people to go around.

How about those who "seek God"? Can "none" of those be found, either, according to White's and Calvinism's literalistic interpretations? How about King Jehoshaphat? Here is a very interesting case study indeed. He was subjected to the wrath of God, yet it is stated that he had some "good" and sought God:

2: But Jehu the son of Hana'ni the seer went out to meet him, and said to King Jehosh'aphat, "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the LORD.
3: Nevertheless some good is found in you, for you destroyed the Ashe'rahs out of the land, and have set your heart to seek God."

(2 Chronicles 19:2-3)

Not only the king, but many people in Judah also sought the Lord:

3: Then Jehosh'aphat feared, and set himself to seek the LORD, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.
4: And Judah assembled to seek help from the LORD; from all the cities of Judah they came to seek the LORD.

(2 Chronicles 20:3-4)

How can this be? Was he (and all these multitudes who "came to seek the Lord"), therefore, regenerate? The text doesn't say. He hadn't heard the gospel, though; that's for sure. Nor had the people of Judah. According to White (and Calvinism as a whole?) no one can do any "spiritual good" (as opposed to a merely natural good or natural moral virtue) whatsoever unless they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Were all these people "good men and women"? Did they seek God or not? And how can this be if the passages in Psalms 14 and 53 says that no one does so; "no, not one"?

Was Jehoshaphat himself a "good" man? Various passages state that he was (2 Chronicles 19:4-7,9; 20:3,6-7,12,18-21). His reign is described as a good, righteous reign, by and large, but not totally:

32: He walked in the way of Asa his father and did not turn aside from it; he did what was right in the sight of the LORD.
33: The high places, however, were not taken away; the people had not yet set their hearts upon the God of their fathers.
34: Now the rest of the acts of Jehosh'aphat, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Jehu the son of Hana'ni, which are recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel.
35: After this Jehosh'aphat king of Judah joined with Ahazi'ah king of Israel, who did wickedly.
36: He joined him in building ships to go to Tarshish, and they built the ships in E'zion-ge'ber.
37: Then Elie'zer the son of Do-dav'ahu of Mare'shah prophesied against Jehosh'aphat, saying, "Because you have joined with Ahazi'ah, the LORD will destroy what you have made." And the ships were wrecked and were not able to go to Tarshish.

(2 Chronicles 20:32-37)

So was King Jehoshaphat regenerated and saved in the end? well, we don't know. If he wasn't, then how could he do any spiritual good at all, according to White's and strict Calvinist theology? The Bible clearly teaches that he did much good; indeed, that he "did what was right in the sight of the LORD." Yet he didn't destroy the high places, which were idols. And the last thing said about him was that he was prophesied against for joining with wicked King Ahaziah of Israel.

If he was damned in the end, then how does White account for the spiritual good that couldn't be done but for being regenerated (which state, in turn, cannot be lost, in Calvinist theology)? On the other hand, if he was saved, it is only speculation, and he was so without benefit of hearing the gospel, the thing that White and Spurgeon say is necessary.

How about King Uzziah? The Bible says he sought God too:

3: Uzzi'ah was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Jecoli'ah of Jerusalem.
4: And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, according to all that his father Amazi'ah had done.
5: He set himself to seek God in the days of Zechari'ah, who instructed him in the fear of God; and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him prosper.

(2 Chronicles 26:3-5)

But Uzziah met an even more tragic end than Jehoshaphat:

16: But when he was strong he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was false to the LORD his God, and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense.
17: But Azari'ah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the LORD who were men of valor;
18: and they withstood King Uzzi'ah, and said to him, "It is not for you, Uzzi'ah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary; for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the LORD God."
19: Then Uzzi'ah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests leprosy broke out on his forehead, in the presence of the priests in the house of the LORD, by the altar of incense.
20: And Azari'ah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they thrust him out quickly, and he himself hastened to go out, because the LORD had smitten him.
21: And King Uzzi'ah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper dwelt in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of the LORD. And Jotham his son was over the king's household, governing the people of the land.

(2 Chronicles 26:16-21)

Now White and his fellow Calvinists are in one Hades of a bind. First, if supposedly no one whatsoever seeks God, how does one explain that the Bible says that King Uzziah did? Secondly, if it is maintained that only a regenerate person can seek God, so that, therefore Uzziah must have been regenerated, then how is his spiritual demise explained? For Calvinists also hold that one can never lose regeneration or salvation, precisely because God gives it unconditionally (the "U" in TULIP) and His grace is irresistible (the "I" in TULIP) and that the elect always persevere and cannot fall away (the "P" in TULIP). No one can do ant spiritual good unless regenerated because of the "T": Total Depravity. If Uzziah was saved in the end, again there is no text whatsoever that would indicate such a thing.

2 Chronicles 30:19 also refers to those who can potentially "seek God." The Apostle Paul casually assumed that it is possible for people to "seek God" in his sermon on Mars Hill to the pagan Greeks (Acts 17:27; cf. James in Acts 15:17). King David in another Psalm refers to "you who seek God (69:32). The Bible also refers in many places to those who "seek the LORD":

But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.

(Deuteronomy 4:29)

Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice! Seek the LORD and his strength, seek his presence continually!

(1 Chronicles 16:10-11)

Now set your mind and heart to seek the LORD your God.

(1 Chronicles 22:19)

And those who had set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came after them from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the LORD, the God of their fathers.

(2 Chronicles 11:16)

The young lions suffer want and hunger; but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.

(Ps 34:10)

Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice! Seek the LORD and his strength, seek his presence continually!

(Ps 105:3-4)

Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely.

(Proverbs 28:5)

"Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the LORD; . . .

(Isaiah 51:1)

"Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near;

(Isaiah 55:6)

Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, . . .

(Hosea 3:5)

Seek the LORD and live, lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and it devour, with none to quench it for Bethel,

(Amos 5:6)

Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the wrath of the LORD.

(Zephaniah 2:3)

[another ultra-vicious Calvinist circle: how can one "seek righteousness", when it is only possible after regeneration, which is a free gift of God, by His decision alone? But in the Catholic view, enough good remains in man even before he is regenerated and justified, to seek to do good (even "spiritual good"), even though no one can begin or seek justification, regeneration, or salvation, because of the doctrine of sola gratia. It's the Calvinist Total Depravity that is the false doctrine]

the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, `Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the LORD, and to seek the LORD of hosts; I am going.' Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to entreat the favor of the LORD.

(Zechariah 8:21-22; cf. Jer 50:4)

In fact, many of the people of Judah in the reign of King Asa, determined that anyone who didn't seek God would be put to death! So what did they do: commit mass suicide, like the Jonestown cult, because no one is righteous, and no one did or could seek God?:

12: And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul;
13: and that whoever would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

(2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

The case of King Asa himself presents yet another difficulty for Calvinists and their sometimes unbiblical doctrines. We see his initial zeal for God in the above passage. We are informed that "all Judah" (huh? all? everybody?) "had sought him [God] with their whole desire, and he was found by them, and the LORD gave them rest round about" (2 Chron 15:15). He destroyed idols (15:16) but not the ones in the high places (15:17a), "nevertheless the heart of Asa was blameless all his days" (15:17b). "Blameless"? "All" his days? Huh? How can this be? The Bible says here he was blameless "all his days" yet in the next chapter it proceeds to deny this very thing:

7: At that time Hana'ni the seer came to Asa king of Judah, and said to him, "Because you relied on the king of Syria, and did not rely on the LORD your God, the army of the king of Syria has escaped you.
8: Were not the Ethiopians and the Libyans a huge army with exceedingly many chariots and horsemen? Yet because you relied on the LORD, he gave them into your hand.
9: For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show his might in behalf of those whose heart is blameless toward him. You have done foolishly in this; for from now on you will have wars."
10: Then Asa was angry with the seer, and put him in the stocks, in prison, for he was in a rage with him because of this. And Asa inflicted cruelties upon some of the people at the same time.
11: The acts of Asa, from first to last, are written in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.
12: In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe; yet even in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but sought help from physicians.

(2 Chronicles 16:7-12)

Does it sound like this guy was regenerated and saved? Not much . . . so how could he be "blameless all his days"? Even when it is said that "he did not seek the LORD," it seems apparent that the writer is assuming that it is possible to do so (or else why would it be necessary to point out that one man didn't, when no one could do so?). No one says that someone didn't do something that was impossible from the outset. We don't say, for example, that "Sam didn't swim from San Francisco to Hawaii."

How does one harmoniously interpret all this? It's really rather simple. I've already provided the only sensible answer: always interpret Scripture in context, and understand Hebrew idiom; especially hyperbole, used constantly in Hebrew poetry. Paul was citing Psalms; that is poetry. It cannot always be taken literally. But when we look at narratives like the two books of Chronicles, then we see that there are exceptions to the rule. And we see that Paul doesn't even follow his own supposedly all-inclusive, universal statements.

In fact, there is no contradiction here at all. The contradiction lies in the erroneous interpretation of Calvinism, and the superimposing onto Scripture doctrines that are foreign to it. Calvinism, in its errors, is nothing if not that sadly mistaken process of eisegeting Scripture, and forcing the mere traditions and false doctrines of men onto it. We have seen abundant testimony of that. John Calvin himself was an absolute master of sophistical eisegesis (as well as historical revisionism of the beliefs of Church Fathers and the early Church, and anachronistic interpretation of same).

His followers have proven themselves to be his disciples indeed, in these ways, and many others (such as anti-Catholicism, anti-sacramentalism, etc.). Not all Calvinists are anti-Catholic and anti-sacramental, but many are, and this is because Calvin himself was. But all Calvinists, by definition, believe in TULIP, and we have seen above some of the many biblical difficulties (by no means exhaustive) of that set of related doctrines.

ADDENDUM: Additional Relevant Bible Passages

Again, if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.

(Ezekiel 3:20)

21: "But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
22: None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live.
23: Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?
24: But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.
25: "Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?
26: When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die.

(Ezekiel 18:21-26)

12: And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses; and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness; and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins.
13: Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die.

18: When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it.

(Ezekiel 33:12-13,18)

At two things my heart is grieved, and because of a third anger comes over me: a warrior in want through poverty, and intelligent men who are treated contemptuously; a man who turns back from righteousness to sin -- the Lord will prepare him for the sword!

(Sirach [Ecclesiasticus] 27:28)

5: For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,
6: and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness,
7: and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.
8: For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9: For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

(2 Peter 1:5-9)

20: For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
21: For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
22: It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.

(2 Peter 2:20-22)

The word "righteous" appears in the book of Proverbs 68 times, and "righteousness" 19 times, but "there is none that does good, no, not one" (Ps 14:3; cf. 53:3)?

Likewise, in Psalms, "righteous" appears 65 times, and "righteousness" 47 times.

Isaiah has one or other of these words 55 times, Ezekiel: 32, Jeremiah: 13, Job:16, Ecclesiastes: 10, Daniel: 7, Amos: 5, Habakkuk: 3, Hosea: 2, Lamentations: 1, Malachi: 2, Zechariah: 1, etc.

That's a total of 346 times in the prophets and the "writings", not even counting the narratives and the Pentateuch, or the deuterocanonical books (where there are quite a few also: see my search for the whole Bible).

But the Calvinist will find a few verses of hyperbole and typical Hebrew hyper-exaggerated contrast and conclude that the overwhelming consensus of the other instances must all be interpreted in light of the few: wrongly regarded as literal. They don't even abide by one of their own supposedly important hermeneutical principles: interpret less clear biblical passages in light of more clear related cross-references.

See closely-related materials in the following papers:

Assurance of Salvation

Catholic Exegesis of Biblical Passages Allegedly Suggesting Absolute Assurance of Salvation

"Certainty" of Eternal Life? (1 John 5:13 and John 5:24)

Reflections on the Origin and Nature of "Instant" Salvation

Those deal more directly with the "P" in TULIP: perseverance of the saints, or as it is known in some circles" "eternal security" or "assurance of salvation" (whereas this present paper was devoted to the "T"). But all five points of Calvinism are closely related to each other. They are self-consistent, but the premises are wrong, so it is falsehood.

Don Imus (Under Fire For Racist Remarks) is Also an Anti-Catholic and Anti-Protestant

Has Don Imus been fired yet? I just found out by accident that there was a controversy surrounding him. He called female basketball players from Rutgers University, "nappy headed hos." But meanwhile, anti-evangelical Protestant and anti-Catholic prejudice remains perfectly acceptable fare.

I saw some anti-Catholic material when I found this Imus stuff that is so unbelievably vulgar that I wouldn't even make a link to it, let alone cite it. It's not fit for any audience at all, let alone a Christian one. Compared to what I saw there, the Imus comments are tame, but nevertheless still symptomatic of a serious problem of anti-Christian bigotry. According to a recent article by the Illinois Family Institute, here is some of his on-air banter:

However, as I watch this controversy unfold, I wonder where the outrage is when Imus frequently mocks Catholics, Christians and just about everyone who might be in the news that day.

One of Imus' bits features a fictional Catholic priest who rails against American culture. The fictional Catholic clergyman speaks with a heavy Irish brogue as he hurls insults towards public figures. After each outlandish statement, Imus' in-studio flunkies chime in with a Catholic-mocking chorus of, "Lord hear our prayer." Calling the routine an affront to the Catholic faith would be a gross understatement. Yet the routine is a weekly feature on the program.

The show also targets Evangelical Christians by having an individual imitate Jerry Falwell who launches into a diatribe of social commentary meant to portray fundamentalist Christians as hate-mongers and culturally-insensitive boobs. These and similar routines are a regular feature of "Imus in the Morning" where surrogate fictional characters are allowed to say things real guests could not get away with. But when it comes to the maligning of Christians, it's easy to see the mainstream media lends a deaf ear.

Reply to Greg Bahnsen's Defense of Presuppositional Method and Critique of Evidentialism: "Evangelism and Apologetics"

Mars Hill, or the Areopagus, in Athens, Greece, just underneath the Acropolis and the Parthenon. Here St. Paul gave a recorded sermon that shows us how proper, effective apologetics is done. Near here Socrates was killed over 400 years earlier.

The late Calvinist Greg L. Bahnsen (1948-1995) was an articulate (arguably the foremost and most respectable) exponent of presuppositional apologetics (and also -- just for the record -- an anti-Catholic). Rather than summarize that point of view, I'll let readers unfamiliar with this approach learn of it from one of its ablest proponents in recent times.

For related materials, see my critique of presuppositionalism, reply to James White's unjustified attack on William Lane Craig and evidentialism, and a paper devoted in part to Bahnsen's scathing criticism of Sproul and Gerstner's critique of presuppositionalism. I am very interested at this point in going right to the heart of the matter and looking at what Scripture teaches, and how practical evangelism and apologetics (my abiding interest and vocation) can benefit from these insights.

I am delighted to be able to interact with someone who also incorporates much biblical exegesis into his analysis. Hopefully, a living presuppositionalist will be willing to respond to this critique (since James White has been unwilling, as always).

The article cited below (in its entirety) is "Evangelism and Apologetics," published in Synapse III (Fall 1974). Dr. Bahnsen's words will be in blue.

* * * * *

The very reason why Christians are put in the position of giving a reasoned account of the hope that is in them is that not all men have faith. Because there is a world to be evangelized (men who are unconverted), there is the need for the believer to defend his faith: Evangelism naturally brings one into apologetics. This indicates that apologetics is no mere matter of "intellectual jousting"; it is a serious matter of life and death - eternal life and death. The apologist who fails to take account of the evangelistic nature of his argumentation is both cruel and proud. Cruel because he overlooks the deepest need of his opponent and proud because he is more concerned to demonstrate that he is no academic fool tha[n] to show how all glory belongs to the gracious God of all truth. Evangelism reminds us of who we are (sinners saved by grace) and what our opponents need (conversion of heart, not simply modified propositions).

Agreed.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


I believe, therefore, that the evangelistic nature of apologetics shows us the need to follow a presuppositional defense of the faith.

He merely assumes what he is seeking to prove (with the "therefore" and the "need") that presuppositionalism is the only way to go about this. I will attempt to show why I think his conclusion is incorrect, in replying to his apologia.

In contrast to this approach stand the many systems of neutral autonomous argumentation.

This is a caricature of evidential apologetics, as I will also demonstrate.

Sometimes the demand to assume a neutral stance, a noncommittal attitude toward the truthfulness of Scripture,

This is the presuppositional (and I am using that word in the more generic, philosophical sense in this instance) baggage that Bahnsen assumes from the outset. But it is a false premise. Neither I nor any orthodox Christian evidentialist apologist I know of thinks like this. It's a straw man. We do not take a "noncommittal attitude toward the truthfulness of Scripture"; there is no reason to believe that non-Calvinist, non-presuppositionalist or evidentialist apologists take, on the whole, a lower view of Scripture than Bahnsen does. I certainly don't. It is ridiculous, then, to make out that this is the case.

Bahnsen, sadly, falls prey to the tendency in theological argumentation, to paint the opponent as a liberal dissenter from received orthodoxy, and/or one who lacks rudimentary Christian faith. This is not only erroneous and inaccurate; it is downright slanderous and the bearing of false witness against Christian brothers. I don't have to imply that Bahnsen is a liberal in disagreeing with him. It is simply an honest disagreement on apologetic method. How sad that he seems unable to return the favor to those he disagreed with.

But that is, of course, the strong tendency in the anti-Catholic Calvinist approach (which -- I hasten to add -- is not that of all Calvinists, by any stretch). It's not only Catholics who are read out of the faith, but oftentimes, Arminian Protestants also; or they are portrayed as "sub-biblical" (the term James White recently applied to William Lane Craig) or greatly compromised and barely Christian, if they are at all.

is heard in the area of Christian scholarship (whether it be the field of history, science, literature, philosophy, or whatever). Teachers, researchers, and writers are often led to think that honesty demands for them to put aside all distinctly Christian commitments when they study in an area which is not directly related to matters of Sunday worship.

This is true, and indeed an ever-present danger, but I think it is far more true of Christian academics than of apologists.

They reason that since truth is truth wherever it may be found, one should be able to search for truth under the guidance of the acclaimed thinkers in the field, even if they are secular in their outlook. "Is it really necessary to hold to the teachings of the Bible if you are to understand properly the War of 1812, the chemical composition of water, the plays of Shakespeare, or the rules of logic?" Such is their rhetorical question.

The Bible (quite obviously) doesn't discuss many, many things. One must distinguish between:

1) when it is proper to involve the Bible in a particular discussion,

and

2) one's own belief in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible.

One can hold #2 with full vigor, yet not think it is necessary to bring biblical discussion to every particular discussion (the factor of #1). But Bahnsen seems to think that one must always do so, under pain of being accused of an alleged "neutralist" stance concerning the Bible or Christian faith itself.

Hereby the demand for neutrality arises in the realm of apologetics (defense of the faith). We are told by some apologists that they would lose all hearing with the unbelieving world if they were to approach the question of Scripture's truthfulness with a preconceived answer to the question.

Well, this is a false dilemma. We can (assuming the appropriate education in apologetics and other competing systems) obviously approach the unbeliever (I do this all the time) with the following four propositions, which don't contradict each other:

1) I believe in Christianity [in my case, Catholic Christianity] and the Bible.

2) I have many reasons why I believe in Christianity [and Catholic Christianity -- but that should come later in the discussion] and the Bible, which I would be more than happy to present to you, as the occasion and need may arise to do so.

3) I can submit to you many reasons why you, too, should believe in the Bible and Christianity, according to your own presuppositions (especially the ones that you and I already hold in common).

4) At the same time, I can demonstrate to you how and why your own presuppositions lead to an ultimately absurd and false end result or conclusion, and that, therefore, Christianity is the ultimate truth and spiritual reality.

Now, how does such an approach violate the Christian belief-system or one's own firmly-held principles or "integrity"? How is this a "neutral" stance? #1 clearly lays out "this is what I believe." It is the furthest thing from a denial of that belief. But giving reasons for a belief is different from the belief itself, and can be undertaken in many different ways. The "what" and "why" of faith are two different things. This is obvious. And when arguing with someone of a very different belief-system (say, atheism) one has to discuss issues in terms that the person can understand, lest the endeavor of persuasion be completely futile and a waste of time.

If apologetics is collapsed into simply proclamation and preaching, then why bother to give reasons at all? That would be the death of apologetics. The "why" would be irrelevant and only the "what" of doctrinal content would matter. But reasoning presupposes that there are ways and methods to effectively persuade others (as St. Paul noted -- see below). Rhetoric and method and "granting for the sake of argument" are not the same as chameleon-like changing of one's views.

We must be willing, according to this outlook, to approach the debate with unbelievers with a common attitude of neutrality - a "nobody knows as yet" attitude. We must assume as little as possible at the outset, we are told; and this means that we cannot assume any Christian premises or teachings of the Bible. Thus the Christian is called upon to surrender his distinctive religious beliefs, to temporarily "put them on the shelf," to take a neutral attitude in his thinking.

No one is "surrendering" anything! This is ludicrous. It gets to the heart of the matter, and illustrates the fundamental misconception that Bahnsen has of evidentialism (and this is common: I have encountered this fallacy many times). The crucial, supremely important distinction that must be highlighted here is between the two following propositions:

1) Apologist x believes a set of propositions y, concerning Christianity and the Bible (where y is defined as "Christian orthodoxy", however determined: which is another huge discussion in and of itself).

2) Apologist x, if he is to do apologetics successfully and wisely, must find a reasonable, plausible method and way to present both y and especially the reasons for y (that we shall call a [apologetics]), without in the least intending to disbelieve any portion of y.

In other words, presentation and personal belief are two completely different things. To argue effectively, one must understand his opponent's point of view (ideally, even better than the opponent does himself). To then effectively counter and refute it, one must utilize methods that the opponent can relate to. St. Paul expressed the same notion in the following terms:

19: For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more.
20: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law.
21: To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law.

(1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

Note the terms that I have highlighted with bolding. This is, very much, apologetic / evangelistic methodology. Paul expressly states that he "became as" and "I have made myself" thus and so, according to opinion and state of the hearer he is seeking to reach. But he didn't become "neutral". It was a methodological approach, not somehow a temporary change of position, as if Christian doctrine were a chameleon or a wax nose that changes according to whim and situation. Paul makes it clear that his views did not change in so dong ("though not being myself" / "not being without law").

This is what Bahnsen fails to understand. Methodology is not identical to personal belief, nor is epistemology the equivalent of ontology. One can believe a certain thing, but defend it in many different ways, without surrendering or compromising the belief itself. No one is pretending to be "neutral" simply because they argue something a particular way with a particular target audience. Why this is so difficult, apparently, for Bahnsen and presuppositionalists to grasp, is, I confess, a deep mystery to me. I should think it were self-evident. And it is entirely Pauline and biblical to think in this manner.

Satan would love this to happen. More than anything else, this would prevent the conquest of the world to belief in Jesus Christ as Lord. More than anything else, this would make professing Christians impotent in their witness, ineffective in their evangelism, and powerless in their apologetic.

Yes, if Bahnsen were correct and every time a non-Calvinist, non-presuppositionalist apologist opened his mouth to defend Christianity, it entailed an absurd modus operandi of denying various tenets of Christian faith in order to convince one of it (as if that were sensible or even possible) then he would be right. But it is a straw man from the outset.

The apologetical neutralist should reflect upon the nature of evangelism; such reflection demonstrates that (at least) in the following seven ways evangelism requires a presuppositional apologetic.

Okay; let's look and see what case he can made. I look forward to it. I love to see people defend their positions from the Bible and reason. But remember that he has started out with a demonstrably false first premise, and keep that in mind as we proceed. It will keep coming up, because false premises have a way of intruding themselves into the later false conclusions that derive from them. Also remember that I vigorously deny that I am a "neutralist" simply because I am not a presuppositionalist. I'm not neutral at all; I am fully committed to Christianity (and more particularly to Catholic Christianity, should the discussion get that far). It's what I defend after all. How can I defend something that I don't believe, myself? What sense does that make?

Now, how is that "neutral"? In fact, it is so un-neutral and "partisan" that Bahnsen himself would strenuously object to my position of "Romanism" as not even Christian. But when I am defending things he and I would hold in common (as I almost always do in discussions with atheists or cultists like Jehovah's Witnesses), it is irrelevant whether I am a Catholic or not. In other words, when I am standing side-by-side with Bahnsen and James White and others who say I am no Christian, and defending the deity of Christ or the Trinity or the bodily resurrection of Jesus , what I argue is true (even in their eyes), so it matters not whether I am a Catholic (which they think is sub-Christian). In any event, I am not "neutral."

In attempting to bear glad tidings to the unbelieving world, the neutralist is robbed of his treasure

Contrary to neutrality's demand, God's word demands unreserved allegiance to God and his truth in all our thought and scholarly endeavors. It does so for a good reason.

But as I have shown, this is not at issue. See how Bahnsen is now building upon the first premise. It's like the old notion of building a castle of sand, or a house of cards. Even Jesus talked about building a house without a solid foundation. That's how logic works, too.

Paul infallibly declares in Colossians 2:3-8 that "All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ." Note he says all wisdom and knowledge is deposited in the person of Christ - whether it be about the War of 1812, water's chemical composition, the literature of Shakespeare, or the laws of logic!

From the fact that God knows all things (omniscience) and has made all knowledge possible, it doesn't follow that we must mention God or the Bible in every conceivable discussion on any imaginable subject. And this is self-evident. So why even bother mentioning it? It simply reduces to my first clause: "God knows all things (omniscience) and has made all knowledge possible". Great. Wonderful. All Christians know and believe this. No one is denying it.

Bahnsen's fallacy lies in thinking that it is being denied simply because God isn't mentioned in every sentence the Christian utters (or, as the case may be, an entire essay on any given non-theological subject). If an entire book of the Bible didn't even mention God (Esther) why must Christians do so at every turn, pray tell? It's like telling one's wife that one loves her, at the beginning of every sentence:

"I love you dearly, sweetheart; um, could you get me a new roll of toilet paper?"

"I love you; you're the greatest. Do you know what time the game is on tonight?"

"I love you more than anything in the world and you are the dearest thing imaginable to me; the greatest woman and wife and mother in world history. I'd gladly die for you. I would drink your dirty bathwater. Oh, by the way, have you seen my light blue dress shirt?"

No one talks like this. In any normally happy marriage, the wife knows she is loved without being told 742 times a day (in fact, arguably that would cheapen and trivialize love and romance because it would become rote and automatic). And for Christians to be required to do something similar with God and the Bible simply makes us look like idiots. We don't deny anything we believe in not mentioning the basics of what we believe over and over. And the unbeliever (if he knows us at all) already knows what we believe, at least in general outline, without us beating it into the ground and boring him to death. it is no help to effective evangelism to be regarded as obsessed, weird, odd, socially-maladjusted people who have to repeat things ad infinitum, lest we supposedly deny what we believe.

Every academic pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ, for Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). To avoid Christ in your thought at any point, then, is to be misled, untruthful, and spiritually dead.

What does it mean to "avoid Christ"? That's the question. If I come right out and deny that Jesus is Lord of all of life and all of creation, or say something stupid like "God has no bearing on what I do in the bedroom" (as many millions of Protestants -- and Catholics -- do when they use contraception or divorce for ultimately sexual and selfish reasons) then that is completely unacceptable; I agree. But if I happen not to mention Jesus in some particular argument (as I have done throughout this response, and as Bahnsen himself has done, too), it doesn't follow that I have denied same.

To put aside your Christian commitments when it comes to defending the faith is willfully to steer away from the only path to wisdom and truth found in Christ. It is not the end or outcome of knowledge to fear the Lord; it is the beginning of knowledge to reverence Him (Prov. 1:7; 9:10). Paul draws to our attention the impossibility of neutrality "in order that no one delude you with crafty speech." Instead we must, as Paul exhorts, be steadfast, confirmed, rooted, and established in the faith as we were taught (v. 7).

Absolutely. But I have never denied this; nor has any published, credentialed, reputable evidentialist apologist (Protestant or Catholic) that I am aware of, so it is a red herring.

One must be presuppositionally committed to Christ in the world of thought (rather than neutral) and firmly tied down to the faith which he has been taught, or else the persuasive argumentation of secular thought will delude him. Hence the Christian is obligated to presuppose the word of Christ in every area of knowledge; the alternative is delusion. In verse 8 of Colossians 2, Paul says, "Beware lest any man rob you by means of philosophy and vain deceit." By attempting to be neutral in your thought you are a prime target for being robbed - robbed by "vain philosophy" of "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" which are deposited in Christ alone (v. 3). The unbeliever's darkened mind is an expression of his need to be evangelized.

This is a very poor commentary of the passage in question because it leaves crucial portions out, thus giving a misleading impression of what Paul is stating. St. Paul (actually considered in context) was not opposed to all philosophy whatsoever, or philosophy per se. He tries to pit philosophy against the wisdom and knowledge of Christ. But Bahnsen didn't even cite the entire verse:

See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

(Colossians 2:8; RSV)

We see that Paul is not condemning philosophy at all (just as he doesn't condemn all tradition, as many Protestants falsely suppose) but only the philosophy of mere "human tradition" or that which is "not according to Christ." In other words, there can be a true Christian philosophy (and tradition) that is divine in origin and according to Christ.

If Paul were so opposed to philosophy itself, or even to non-Christian philosophy alone, then why did he cite pagan Greek poets, philosophers, and dramatists (and the Greeks started philosophy and excelled in it): Acts 17:28 (Aratus: c. 315-240 B.C., Epimenides: 6th c. B.C.), 1 Corinthians 15:33 (Menander: c.342-291 B.C.: "bad company ruins good morals"), and Titus 1:12 (Epimenides, described by Paul as a "prophet")?

In fact, the line that Paul cited on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17:28), from Aratus, was actually, in context, talking about Zeus:

Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.

For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.

Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.

Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.

For we are indeed his offspring... (Phaenomena 1-5).

So Paul used a pagan poet, talking about a false god (Zeus) and "Christianized" the thought, applying it to the true God. That's Pauline apologetic method, and I seek to imitate him (as he commanded) in this way as in others. The Church has done this, historically, by "co-opting" pagan holidays and "baptizing" them, thus eventually wiping out the old pagan holidays. This is certainly not presuppositionalistic apologetic method (Bahnsen, if consistent, would have to rule this out as an instance of supposedly being "neutral" as to Christian belief in order to effectively persuade the non-Christian pagan Greek). But it's very biblical and Pauline, isn't it?

The citation from Epimenides (the poem Cretica) involves the same thing; it was originally written about Zeus; Paul (Acts 17:28 again) takes it and applies it to Yahweh, the true God:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one—

The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!

But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,

For in thee we live and move and have our being.

St. Paul expressly cites these pagan Greek poets and philosophers precisely because that is what his sophisticated Athens audience (including "Epicurean and Stoic philosophers" -- 17:18) could understand and relate too. He was using wise apologetic method and strategy. This is Paul giving a concrete example of the evangelistic application of his dictum of 1 Corinthians 9:21: "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law."

Paul tells us in Ephesians 4 that to follow the methods dictated by the intellectual outlook of those who are outside of a saving relationship to God is to have a vain mind and darkened understanding (vv. 17-18).

That would be fascinating, wouldn't it? So the Paul of the Mars Hill sermon-speech contradicted the Paul of Ephesians 4, since he "followed the methods" and utilized the "intellectual outlook" of Greek philosophy, in citing poems devoted to Zeus and mentioning idols he had seen? Nuh-uh. Rather, it is Bahnsen who is self-contradictory, not Paul, who was perfectly consistent (and no presuppositionalist).

Ephesians 4:17-18 is a different context. Paul was saying that a Christian must live and think differently from a pagan. Being a Christian made a difference; a regenerated mind is a massive change. The passage (especially seen in its context to the end of the chapter: verse 4:32) is much more about morals than about false philosophy ("the life of God", "hardness of heart", "licentiousness", "uncleanness", "deceitful lusts", etc. But obviously Paul was not teaching that the Gentiles had no truth whatsoever, or else he wouldn't have cited their own thinkers. So Bahnsen is the one who has trouble synthesizing the two aspects, not St. Paul, because he is of an insufficiently biblical and Pauline mindset.

Neutralist thinking, then, is characterized by intellectual futility and ignorance.

There is plenty of this ignorance and fallacy to go around, as I think I am showing. I should come up with a new name for presuppositionalists, too, since Bahnsen insists on using the false title of "neutralist" for evidentialist or "classical" apologists. But in my case, the description would be true. How about "circularist" -- to stand for the viciously circular reasoning that not only characterizes presuppositionalism, but self-consciously and proudly so, on their part? But that would not be nice, even though true.

In God's light, we are able to see light (cf. Ps. 36:9). To turn away from intellectual dependence upon the light of God, the truth about and from God, is to turn away from knowledge to the darkness of ignorance. Thus, if a Christian wishes to begin his scholarly endeavors from a position of neutrality he would, in actuality, be willing to begin his thinking in the dark.

If anyone actually did this, I'd like to see an example. I deny that it is true of any decent apologist.

He would not allow God's word to be a light unto his path (cf. Ps. 119:105). To walk on in neutrality, he would be stumbling along in darkness. God is certainly not honored by such thought as he should be, and consequently God makes such reasoning vain (Rom. 1:21b). Neutrality amounts to vanity in God's sight.

Insofar as this "neutrality" is lack of belief in the Christian tenets that ought to be believed, I agree. I disagree that it is a relevant description of mainstream evidentialist apologists or apologetics.

That "philosophy" which does not find its starting point and direction in Christ is further described by Paul in Colossians 2:8. Paul is not against the "love of wisdom" (i.e., "philosophy" from the Greek) per se. Philosophy is fine as long as one properly finds genuine wisdom - which means, for Paul, finding it in Christ (Col. 2:3).

Good. This was not made clear earlier, but I am delighted to see that Bahnsen states this now.

However, there is a kind of "philosophy" which does not begin with the truth of God, the teaching of Christ. Instead this philosophy takes its direction and finds its origin in the accepted principles of the world's intellectuals - in the traditions of men. Such philosophy as this is the subject of Paul's disapprobation in Colossians 2:8. It is instructive for us, especially if we are prone to accept the demands of neutrality in our thinking, to investigate his characterizations of that kind of philosophy.

I already explored some of that in my survey of his use of pagan Greek thought in Athens and in two other passages in his writings.

Paul says that it is "vain deception." What kind of thinking is it that can be characterized as "vain"? A ready answer is found by comparison and contrast in scriptural passages that speak of vanity (e.g., Deut. 32:47; Phil. 2:16; Acts 4:25; 1 Cor. 3:20; 1 Tim. 1:6; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:15-18; Titus 1:9-10). Vain thinking is that which is not in accord with God's word.

Indeed.

A similar study will demonstrate that "deceptive" thinking is thought which is in opposition to God's word (cf. Heb. 3:12-15; Eph. 4:22; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; 2 Pet. 2:13). The "vain deception" against which Paul warns, then, is philosophy which operates apart from, and against, the truth of Christ.

Amen.

Note the injunction of Ephesians 5:6, "Let no man deceive you with vain words." In Colossians 2:8 we are told to take care lest we be robbed through "vain deceit." Paul further characterizes this kind of philosophy as "according to the tradition of men, after the fundamental principles of the world."

Good. This should have been pointed out in the earlier passage (which, as it reads, presents a half-truth and could potentially mislead or confuse the reader), but better late than never.

That is, this philosophy sets aside God's word and makes it void (cf. Mark 7:8-13), and it does so by beginning with the elements of learning dictated by the world (i.e., the precepts of men; cf. Col. 2:20, 22). The philosophy which Paul spurns is that reasoning which follows the presuppositions (the elementary assumptions) of the world, and thereby is "not according to Christ."

But Paul arguably did that himself by arguing from belief in Zeus to the fuller reality and truth of Yahweh. Without denying his own belief in the slightest, Paul argued from Greek presuppositions (also in referring to the Athenian "unknown god" -- 17:23, and how "religious" the Greeks were -- 17:22). Zeus is not according to Christ at all. The belief was a mere fiction, and statues of Zeus that were worshiped were abominable idols. Yet Paul uses these elements to build a bridge to the pagan Greeks.

Would Greg Bahnsen have done that, given his approach (or, try to imagine James White -- whose apologetical hero is Bahnsen -- arguing in such a fashion; it's comical to even picture)? Highly unlikely, because he seems to condemn all points of contact, when it involves use of non-Christian constructs and premises to argue upwards to Christian ones. One can hardly conceive of a presuppositionalist using Paul's methods at the Areopagus. It directly contradicts their apologetic approach.

The neutralist overlooks that antithesis between the Christian and non-Christian which explains why the believer is in a position to aid the unbeliever

Not at all, as we shall see. The circularist (sorry!) fails to prove this charge . . .

In Ephesians 4:17-18, Paul commands the followers of Christ that they "no longer walk as the Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance in them, because of the hardening of their heart." Christian believers must not walk, must not behave or live, in a way which imitates the behavior of those who are unredeemed; specifically, Paul forbids the Christian from imitating the unbeliever's vanity of mind.

False philosophy (as well as sin) is to be avoided; absolutely. It doesn't follow that there is no good whatsoever in pagan and Gentile thinking. Jesus "marveled" at the Roman centurion, after all, and said of him: "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith" (Matthew 8:10). Note that this is not simply philosophy and thinking, but "faith." Paul echoes this understanding in Romans 2:12-16. Not all pagan thought is wicked and evil. There is also a lot of truth (and in their morals, as well, as Paul states in Romans 2, and according to how he argued on Mars Hill).

Bahnsen, like many Calvinists, is guilty of painting with too broad of a brush. Whatever truly opposes Christ and Christianity is, of course, wicked and evil and from the pit of hell. I wholeheartedly agree. But not all that is non-Christian is unalterably opposed to Christianity. There is common ground. That's the point. It even applies to unregenerate souls. We see that Jesus and Paul were quite compassionate and understanding of nonbelievers and didn't seem to regard them to the man as utterly wicked.

On the other hand, the worst condemnations of Paul and Jesus were directed towards Jewish and Christian religious hypocrites who didn't rightly act upon what they believed. Hence Paul emphasized what folks did with the knowledge they possessed, whether Christian (Rom 2:6:9-10,13; 1 Cor 3:8-9; Phil 2:12-13; Titus 3:8; cf. 1 Pet 1:17) or non-Christian (Rom 2:6,9-10,14-15), even tying this directly to justification itself. St. Peter speaks the same language in dealing with Cornelius the Gentile (Acts 10:35), saying that a nonbeliever can be "acceptable" to God. Our Lord Jesus emphasized the same thing again and again (Mt 5:20; 7:16-27; 16:27; 25:31-46; Lk 14:13-14; 18:18-25; Jn 3:36; Rev 22:12).

Christians must refuse to think or reason according to a worldly mind-set or outlook. The culpable agnosticism of the world's intellectuals must not be reproduced in Christians as alleged neutrality; this outlook, this approach to truth, this intellectual method evidences a darkened understanding and hardened heart. It refuses to bow to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life, including scholarship and the world of thought. Every man, whether an antagonist or an apologist for the Gospel, will distinguish himself and his thinking either by contrast to the world or by contrast to God's word.

Truth is truth. If a pagan, atheist, or devil-worshiper says "2+2=4" or "water freezes and turns into ice below 0 degrees Celsius" or "the Beatles are unarguably the greatest rock group ever" (just being a little lighthearted!) it is just as true as when a Christian says it. We are not to think false thoughts, and there is plenty of falsehood in Christian circles, and in Bahnsen's own analysis. The devil is the father of lies.

Unbelievers have no lock on that shortcoming. In fact, Protestants are often lax about falsehood, because they will try to justify, for example, denominationalism and latitudinarianism, where they are quite happy (very unlike the first Protestants and particularly Luther and Calvin) to allow for divergences of opinion about important things. Baptism is the classic example.

Greg Bahnsen is James White's hero, but White is a Baptist who believes in adult, believer's baptism, whereas Bahnsen the Presbyterian would have accepted infant baptism. They can't resolve what "perspicuous" biblical teaching is on this matter. And of course, Luther also believed that baptism regenerated, contrary to both White and Bahnsen.

Now, whenever there is a direct doctrinal contradiction among Protestants of this sort (they may not know where it is located, but it is undoubtedly present somewhere because of the laws of logic and contradiction), falsehood is necessarily present. And falsehood is bad and wicked and does no one any good. But it is routinely winked at and sanctioned in Protestantism when contradictions are allowed -- even encouraged -- to be maintained. Catholicism, on the other hand, will have none of this (except for latitude on the most complex things, like Thomism and Molinism), but not on any doctrinal or dogmatic issue. So why is Bahnsen so concerned with nonbelieving error (which we fully expect) while seemingly unconcerned with massive falsehood in Protestant ranks?

There can be falsehood among Christians and truth among non-Christians. Thus, it is far better to speak of truth wherever it is found, than to vainly pretend that all Christians have all truth and non-Christians are wicked through and through and have none, or very little truth. It just isn't so. And thank God that it isn't: he gives plenty of grace to go around.

The contrast, the antithesis, the choice is clear: either be set apart by God's truthful word or be alienated from the life of God. Either have "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16) or the "vain mind of the Gentiles" (Eph. 4:17). Either bring "every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5) or continue as "enemies in your mind" (Col. 1:21).

No problem there; only in the exaggerated, absurd, fallacious way in which this premise works its way into the method of presuppositionalism.

Those who follow the intellectual principle of neutrality and the epistemological method of unbelieving scholarship do not honor the sovereign Lordship of God as they should; as a result, their reasoning is made vain (Rom. 1:21). In Ephesians 4, as we have seen, Paul prohibits the Christian from following this vain mind-set. Paul goes on to teach that the believer's thinking is diametrically contrary to the ignorant and darkened thinking of the Gentiles. "But you did not learn Christ after this manner!" (v. 20). While the Gentiles are ignorant, "the truth is in Jesus" (v. 21). Unlike the Gentiles who are alienated from the life of God, the Christian has put away the old man and has been "renewed in the spirit of your mind" (vv. 22-23).

Here we go with the broad brush again. This is not Paul's entire teaching, or else he couldn't have written that Gentiles who didn't even have the law (which was prior to even the Christian gospel and regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) still had a conscience that could enable them to know what was right and wrong (Rom 2:14-16) and possibly be saved (2:15-16). That's why Jesus could say that many Gentiles would be saved, while many of the Jews would be damned (Matthew 8:11-12; 21:21: "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.").

This "new man" is distinctive in virtue of the "holiness of truth" (v. 24). The Christian is completely different from the world when if comes to intellect and scholarship; he does not follow the neutral methods of unbelief, but by God's grace he has new commitments, new presuppositions, in his thinking.

His mind is renewed and regenerated; no doubt; this doesn't prove that no good or true thought comes from a non-Christian context. It's the same false premise over and over again. Repetition doesn't make it any more true or any less false.

Attempting to be neutral in one's intellectual endeavors (whether research, argumentation, reasoning, or teaching) is tantamount to striving to erase the antithesis between the Christian and the unbeliever. Christ declared that the former was set apart from the latter by the truth of God's word (John 17:17). Those who wish to gain dignity in the eyes of the world's intellectuals by wearing the badge of "neutrality" only do so at the expense of refusing to be set apart, by God's truth. In the intellectual realm they are absorbed into the world so that no one could tell the difference between their thinking and assumptions and apostate thinking and assumptions. The line between believer and unbeliever is obscured.

For liberals, that is true, but it's not true of those who have a traditional Christian belief. The manifold compromises (invariably sexual and gender-related in terms of morals) of Protestantism with the world again come into mind. Contraception is clearly a compromise with the sexual revolution; so is divorce and radical feminism and cohabitation and abortion and lack of desire to have children (under zero population growth) and female ordination (that flows from the false feminist premise that difference in gender roles is tantamount to inherent inequality and "patriarchy").

Catholicism doesn't allow for any of these things: never has and never will, but Protestantism does (more and more) all over the place. I submit that Bahnsen should have been at least equally alarmed at that massive infiltration of falsehood and immorality into conservative Protestant ranks. No Christians believed in the moral permissiveness of contraception until the Anglicans allowed "hard cases" in 1930. What was formerly evil was then called good.

Now the vast majority of Protestants accept this pagan sexual morality and see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. I did it myself (from 1984-1990: the first six years of my marriage), until some Catholics talked some sense into me and informed me of the historic Christian moral teaching. Who was ignorant there? I was! I was in darkness, as a regenerated, Spirit-filled, wholly-committed Christian (a missionary, an apologist); calling evil good and not having the slightest awareness that I was doing so.

But Bahnsen and his followers today among Calvinists (he seems to be some sort of icon or champion among them, spoken of in awestruck, hushed terms) want to go on and on about how Christians have all truth and the nonbelievers are purely wicked and deluded? Why is it, then, that Muslims, by and large, still believe in having large families and do far better on the whole in that regard than Christians, who should know better (and who used to do the same until the Sexual Revolution)? Why is it that these same Muslims (for the most part) don't practice fornication or cohabitation or divorce or abortion? They know better than Christians without even the correct doctrine of God and the Holy Spirit and regeneration? How can that be if Bahnsen is correct? There are many pro-life atheists (such as, notably, Nat Hentoff) and many Christian pro-abortionists.

No such compromise is even possible. "No man is able to serve two lords" (Matt. 6:24). "Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself, an enemy of God" (James 4:4).

My point exactly. Jesus told us to get our own house in order first.

The nature of conversion is not continued neutrality and autonomy, but faith and submission to the Lordship of Christ

When one becomes a Christian, his faith has not been generated by the thought patterns of worldly wisdom. The world in its wisdom knows not God (1 Cor. 1:21) but considers the word of the cross to be foolish (1 Cor. 1:18, 21b).

This is correct. Faith and regeneration come as a result of the supernatural work of God, and God alone, through justification, the Holy Spirit, and the sacramental power of baptism, for the remission of sins (Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5;1 Pet 3:21).

If one keeps the perspective of the world, then, he shall never see the wisdom of God for what it really is; thereby he will never be "in Christ Jesus" who is made unto believers "wisdom from God" (1 Cor. 1:30). Hence faith, rather than self-sufficient sight, makes you a Christian, and this trust is directed toward Christ, not your own intellect. This is to say that the way you receive Christ is to turn away from the wisdom of men (the perspective of secular thought with its presuppositions) and gain, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:12-16). When one becomes a Christian, his faith stands not in the wisdom of men but in the powerful demonstration of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:4-5).

Yes; properly applied, as we have been seeing . . .

Moreover, what the Holy Spirit causes all believers to say is "Jesus is Lord" (1 Cor. 12:3). Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and ascended in order that he might be confessed as Lord (cf. Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:11). Thus Paul can summarize that message which must be confessed if we are to be saved as "Jesus is Lord" (Rom. 10:9). To become a Christian one submits to the Lordship of Christ; he renounces autonomy and comes under the authority of God's Son. The One whom Paul says we receive, according to Colossians 2:6, is Christ Jesus the Lord. As Lord over the believer, Christ requires that the Christian love him with every faculty he possesses (including his mind, Matt. 22:37); every thought must be brought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

Of course. How many Christians actually do this, though, is the immediate consideration.

Therefore, the evangelistic apologist must come and reason as a new man if he is to direct the unbeliever; his argumentation must be consistent with the end toward which he aims

Sure; what Christian would argue otherwise?

We note that the unqualified precondition of genuine Christian scholarship is that the believer (along with all his thinking) be "rooted in Christ" (Col. 2:7). Paul commands us to be rooted in Christ and to shun the presuppositions of secularism.

That's tough to do when so many Christians (by the multiple millions) are neck deep in pagan. non-Christian sexual morality. They not only accept pagan thinking, but )as a special bonus) live it out too. And Protestant church leaders (and compromised Catholic priests who don't even follow their own Church's teaching) wink at all this and do nothing about it. The Episcopalians (the denomination of C.S. Lewis) even ordain practicing homosexuals as bishops.

In verse 6 of Colossians 2, he explains very simply how we should go about having our lives (including our scholarly endeavors) grounded in Christ and thereby insuring that our reasoning is guided by Christian presuppositions. He says, "As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord so walk in Him"; that is, walk in Christ In the same way that you received him. If you do this, you will be "established in your faith even as you were taught." How then did you become a Christian? After the same fashion you should grow and mature in your Christian walk. Above, we saw that our walk does not honor the thought patterns of worldly wisdom but submits to the epistemic Lordship of Christ (i.e., his authority in the area of thought and knowledge). In this manner a person comes to faith, and in this manner the believer must continue to live and carry out his calling - even when he is concerned with scholarship, apologetics, or schooling.

This is simply reiterating the arguments from before. Again, it is the proper, sensible application of this true biblical teaching that is the problem. I've shown why that is, above. This stuff doesn't teach anyone how to actually do apologetics. I have done that, however, in my analysis of how the Apostle Paul went about it, and how he applied his own teaching to his own evangelistic efforts. Paul is my model for evangelism and apologetics, not some man-made tradition of a minority within a minority of a late arrival in Christian history: presuppositionalism.

Therefore, the new man, the believer with a renewed mind that has been taught by Christ, is no more to walk in the intellectual vanity and darkness which characterizes the unbelieving world (read Eph. 4:17-21). The Christian has new commitments, new presuppositions, a new Lord, a new direction, and goal - he is a new man; and that newness is expressed in his thinking and scholarship, for (as in all other areas) Christ must have the preeminence in the realm of apologetics and evangelism (Col. 1:18b).

Yes; now how does the Christian do it? Maybe Bahnsen deals with that in another article. I shall look for it.

If the evangelist is to be compelling in his witness he must stand on a firm foundation of knowledge

Or, "the 16th way I have devised of saying the exact same thing over and over." It's true that repetition is the heart of learning, but the problem comes when what is repeated is eityher fallacious or unsupported by reason.

God tells us to apply our hearts unto His knowledge if we are to know the certainty of the words of truth (Prov. 22:17-21). It is characteristic of philosophers today that they either deny that there is absolute truth or they deny that one can be certain of knowing the truth: it is either not there, or it is unreachable. However, what God has written to us (i.e., Scripture) can "make you know the certainty of the words of truth" (vv. 20-21). The truth is accessible! However, in order to firmly grasp it one must heed the injunction of verse 17b: "apply your mind to my knowledge." God's knowledge is primary, and whatever man is to know can only be based upon a reception of what God has originally and ultimately known. Man must think God's thoughts after Him, for "in thy light shall we see light" (Ps. 36:9).

Yep. Christian (Protestant) philosophers today like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas, are doing a great job of that. See, e.g., what Craig says about truth (three long citations near the end of my paper defending him against the unjust attacks of James White).

David's testimony was that "The Lord my God illumines my darkness" (Ps. 18:28). Into the darkness of man's ignorance, the ignorance which results from attempted self-sufficiency, come the words of God, bringing light and understanding (Ps. 119:130). Thus Augustine correctly said, "I believe in order to understand." Understanding and knowledge of the truth are the promised results when man makes God's word (reflecting God's primary knowledge) his presuppositional starting point for all thinking. "Attend unto my wisdom; incline your ear to my understanding in order that you may preserve discretion and in order that your lips may keep knowledge" (Prov. 5:1-2).

This only goes to demonstrate my long-held opinion that presuppositionalism basically boils down in the end (like many gallons of sap turning into a small amount of maple syrup) to simply preaching (and preaching to the choir at that). The "how" and "why" of belief is hardly differentiated from the "what". The reader is going along in an article about "evangelism and apologetics" and gets less and less of either as he goes along. The very methodology which is supposedly the topic is hardly dealt with at all, or when so, in broad, fallacious terms that are easily shot down (even from Scripture alone). This is the constant frustration when dealing with the presuppositionalist mindset.

The neutralist forgets the gracious nature of his salvation

Really? I can't wait to see why this (supposedly) is. I already mentioned that above, so obviously I am one so-called "neutralist" that hasn't done so.

To make God's word your presupposition, your standard, your instructor and guide, however, calls for renouncing intellectual self-sufficiency - the attitude that you are autonomous, able to attain unto genuine knowledge independent of God's direction and standards.

Paul said that this is exactly what men can potentially do (even possibly attain salvation in God's grace), without even the law, let alone all of God's revelation (Rom 2). Likewise, Peter and Jesus (passages cited above) seem to think that not only knowledge but faith itself was possible without this knowledge. So if the choice is Bahnsen and James White over here and Jesus, Paul, and Peter over there, folks know where I will go.

The man who claims (or pursues) neutrality in his thought does not recognize his complete dependence upon the God of all knowledge for whatever he has come to understand about the world.

Of course: "In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28): and Paul was citing a pagan Greek, referring to Zeus. How did the ignorant, unregenerate pagan come up with the same knowledge that Bahnsen is now stating?

Such men give the impression (often) that they are Christians only because they, as superior intellects, have figured out or verified (to a large or significant degree) the teachings of Scripture. Instead of beginning with God's sure word as foundational to their studies, they would have us to think that they begin with intellectual self-sufficiency and (using this as their starting-point) work up to a "rational" acceptance of Scripture.

I wish Bahnsen would, just once, name names, as to who supposedly does this (again, maybe he does in other articles; I can't wait to find out). Certainly many liberals do. But I'm not writing about them. I'm writing about apologists who are defending historic Christianity.

While Christians may fall into an autonomous spirit while following their scholarly endeavors, still this attitude is not consistent with Christian profession and character. "The beginning of knowledge is the fear of Jehovah" (Prov. 1:7). All knowledge begins with God, and thus we who wish to have knowledge must presuppose God's word and renounce intellectual autonomy. "Talk no more proudly: let not arrogance come from your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge" (1 Sam. 2:3).

More preaching . . . this would be a great sermon. As apologetics and an attempted, sustained piece of reasoning, it isn't quite as profound, sad to say. And Bahnsen was a highly educated man and highly revered by Calvinists today.

Jehovah is the one who teaches man knowledge (Ps. 94:10). So whatever we have, even the knowledge which we have about the world, has been given to us from God. "What do you have that you have not received?" (1 Cor. 4:7). Why then would men pride themselves in intellectual self-sufficiency? "According as it stands written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (1 Cor. 1:31). Humble submission to God's word must precede man's every intellectual pursuit.

Amen! Preach it, brother!

Apologetics is evangelistic in nature. The apologist deals with people who have darkened minds, running from the light of God, refusing to submit to the Lord.

Yes! Okay, now tell us how to do this! Please! It's like waiting at a restaurant for a scrumptious meal that never arrives; only the breadsticks and potato chips do; and skim milk. The main course never comes. All the other is good as far as it goes, it has value, but it ain't the meat; it's not the main course that everyone is waiting for. It's all preliminaries only; wetting the (Christian intellectual) whistle without satisfying it with some sort of specific instruction as to how to go and evangelize the lost; by what method beyond the fact that a Christian is a Christian and believes Christian stuff (like we didn't know that?) . . . but I have provided that for the reader, using the biblical models of the Apostle Paul and our Lord Jesus.

The apologist must not demonstrate the same mind-set by striving for a neutrality which in effect puts him in the same quagmire. He must aim for the conversion of the unbelieving antagonist, and thus he must discourage autonomy and encourage submissive faith.

The same tired false premises and caricatures about evidential apologists . . .

The apologist must evidence, even in his method of argumentation,

"Method"? Oh, man, he gets so close to what he needs to talk about (gettin' "warmer"!), but will he?

that he is a new man in Christ; he uses presuppositions which are at variance with the world. He makes the word of God his starting point, knowing that it alone gives him the assured knowledge which the unbeliever cannot have while in rebellion against Christ. The non-Christian's thinking has no firm foundation, but the Christian declares the authoritative word from God. If he did not, he could not evangelize at all: he could only pool his ignorance and speculation with the unbeliever. In doing so the Christian would be robbed of all the treasure of wisdom and knowledge which is deposited in Christ alone. Besides this, the apologist who attempts to show his intellectual self-sufficiency by moving to a position of neutrality in order that he might "prove" certain isolated truths in the Christian system forgets that grace alone has made him the Christian that he is; he should, instead, continue to think and behave in the same manner in which he received Christ (by faith, submitting to the Lordship of Christ).

Nope; same old same old . . . there's no hope for this article. The end is near. The "argument" is seen to be completely circular and based on a wholesale caricature of non-presuppositionalist methods.

Therefore, in light of the character of evangelism, the nature of the unbeliever, the nature of the regenerated apologist, the nature of conversion, the nature of genuine knowledge and salvation, the Christian apologist ought to use a presuppositional approach in his defense of the faith. The evangelistic character of apologetics demands nothing less "But set apart Christ as lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and respect," (1 Pet. 3:15); "we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses, destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God - we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

It's like drinking a hundred gallons of the same flat soda pop, or peeling an onion to figure out what is the core (there is none). He just keeps repeating what all Christians who accept the inspired biblical revelation believe. Big wow. I want to know how to reach the unbeliever . . .

I find it highly ironic that the same person who in 1985 excoriated fellow Calvinists R.C. Sproul and John Gerstner for their supposed cluelessness as to the nature of presuppositionalism (see my paper on this, in response to James White, for the documentation):

[They have] oversimplified, jumbled, or handled with little more than slogans . . . painfully naive, . . . Van Til's presuppositionalism is so badly misrepresented. . . . Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley have simply not taken the time to understand correctly what they have chosen to criticize. . . . he continues to force the good professor into the mold of his preconceptions. This is unreasonable - making a presupposition ride roughshod over the evidence!

. . . it should be the authors of this uncharitable and false representation who should be embarrassed. Anyone can knock down a straw man.

For this reviewer, the authors have not begun to interact meaningfully with presuppositionalism. . . . misconstrual of Van Til, . . . embarrassment. The argumentation is too easy to discredit, . . .

The authors admit that their traditional apologetic "is sick and ailing" (p. 12). Judging from the case made in this book, the diagnosis may be overly optimistic. . . . reliable, logically sound guidance will not be found here. . . . if you are interested in understanding or criticizing contemporary presuppositional apologetics, save your money for another day.

This same person who made these scathing criticisms (of very well-known and widely respected Calvinists!) shows not the slightest understanding of non-presuppositional apologetic method (in fact, systematically distorting same and bashing a straw man). I hope he can do better in another article. As I said, I shall look over what can be found online. I am completely underwhelmed and disappointed. I was really hoping to find something challenging.

Most of what Greg Bahnsen says that is true and helpful is already patently obvious to anyone with the slightest acquaintance with biblical teaching, a biblical, Christian worldview, and who accepts the Bible as God's word. So it's not bad (i.e., in its true portions), but it doesn't teach anyone in that category anything they don't already pretty much know. It's literally preaching to the choir. And that is simply not apologetics; sorry.

All Bahnsen has succeeded in showing is what all dedicated, committed Christians of whatever stripe believe about the Bible and God as the font of all true knowledge and wisdom. That is Christian theology, but not Christian apologetics, let alone evangelism. I'm sure Dr. Bahnsen was a fine man, devoted to God and family and his fellow Christians. He was obviously very zealous and intelligent, but he has, in my opinion, and with all due respect, completely failed in the task of this article (by any reasonable analysis of what an article entitled "Evangelism and Apologetics" ought to set out to do).

Wisdom on the Despicable Sin of Gossip

This insightful little tidbit is posted on one of the pages on the website of my publisher: Sophia Institute Press:

* * * * *

Saint Philip Neri once gave a gossipy lady the following penance:

"Go to the market, buy a chicken, and pluck it on your way back here,
scattering the feathers as you walk. When you give me the plucked chicken,
I'll tell you the rest of your penance."

The baffled woman did as she was told. After she handed the plucked chicken to the saint, he said, "Now that you've spread those feathers about, go pick them up."

"But, Father! It's impossible to know where they've all gone!"

"Just like the words of your gossip," he said.

* * *

A chicken has about 12,000 feathers.

More James White Orwellian "Doublethink": Greg Bahnsen Thought R.C. Sproul & John Gerstner Were Exceedingly Stupid Too, Regarding Presuppositionalism

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Dr. John Gerstner: reformed Presbyterians all

In my last paper on this topic of (Calvinist / Reformed) presuppositional apologetics, and whether I have a clue as to what that is about, I showed how my view was pretty much identical with well-known Calvinist author R.C. Sproul's opinion. I also documented how Sproul is one of James White's heroes. Applying logic, then, it follows that if White excoriates me for my supposed profound ignorance of presuppositionalism, then he ought to be consistent and direct the same scorn to R.C. Sproul. But of course he won't do that. Hence, his logical dilemma and ethical double standard. White had written about my analysis:

The entire post is a classic example of missing categories and utter epistemological confusion . . . Sadly, Armstrong truly has no concept of what he identifies as presuppositionalism. Anyone who has spent any time at all with Van Til or Bahnsen cannot help but shake their head at Armstrong's wild swings at a phantom far removed from the truth.

In the updated version of White's reply, he keeps up the condescending mockery:

Dave Armstrong continues to beat himself in the head over his utter lack of understanding of the issues involved related to his very confident claims regarding presuppositionalism. To prove his great and in-depth study, he has now told us that RC Sproul is a critic of presuppositionalism! Shocking! I am so glad to learn of this! Oh...wait! I used Classical Apologetics as a text book in my Christian apologetics class I taught at Golden Gate Seminary at least six years ago! How could I have forgotten? Oh, I remember now! I was lecturing on the methods of apologetics and was providing my students with material from both sides! That's right! I even referred them to the Bahnsen/Sproul dialogue on apologetic methodology! So, Armstrong has a book I have assigned to my students! And what does this mean? That despite having such a book, he still couldn't understand what I was talking about and properly follow the categories!

As usual, White indulges in his usual methodology of talking about people and insulting them, rather than interacting with their arguments. (do you see anywhere in his post where he takes some argument of mine and examines it in context, and provides a superior alternative explanation?). He seems to think that this is how one does apologetics (or any purportedly intellectual discussion).

I also ran across an earlier statement by White in which he again lies about whether non-presuppositional apologetics accepts the certainty of the biblical apostolic proclamation. I already showed in my previous reply how this is a ludicrous caricature of Dr. William Lane Craig's position (that he was trashing) and my own. White wrote:

I point out yet again what I have said so many times before: the great apologetic divide goes to a simple question: has God spoken with clarity or not? Sadly, the largest portion of the academy today, Christian or non, says, "no." If you believe God has indeed spoken with clarity and force, you are in a minority. And you know how you can discover the strength of the foundation upon which a gospel presentation is based (or, at least, how consistent the person is in their presentation)? It's pretty easy. The Apostles did not present the resurrection and the call to repentance and faith as probabilities. "It is highly probable that if you weigh the evidence in an unbiased fashion that you will come to the conclusion that there is a better chance Jesus rose from the dead than there is He didn't." Is that how the Apostles preached? No. They presented not only the existence of God as a certainty, but the resurrection is presented as a reality that demands of every man, woman, and child, the response of repentance and faith. That kind of preaching requires the highest view of Scripture, and sadly, when people say, "Why don't we hear powerful preaching any longer?" the answer is not difficult to find. Few believe they any longer represent God as an ambassador with a certain message with divine authority. That's why.

(1-29-07)

Now the plot thickens and it has become even more interesting (and comical), because another hero of White's, Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen (1948-1995), the late reconstructionist Calvinist apologist, also had some pretty choice words in describing what he thought was Sproul's profound ignorance of presuppositionalism. So I am in good company. White's two heroes and role models slugged it out years ago, and Sproul was painted as a clueless dunce by Bahnsen. So apparently it is the ignorant Sproul and myself in one camp vs. the intelligent, ultra-informed experts Greg Bahnsen and His Eminence, the Right Reverend Bishop "Dr." White in the other.

First, let's document White's opinion of Bahnsen:

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen believed that to deal with the academics of the day and their arguments against the Christian faith, it is necessary to do battle with them at the highest levels of scholarship using their intellectual tools against them. He could quickly analyze and give direct and compelling answers to all their objections. Prior to his untimely death in 1995, Dr. Bahnsen delivered a series of lectures on apologetics at American Vision's Life Preparation Conference. These lectures . . . set forth the basics of the Christian worldview and the biblical approach to defending the faith. These lessons have been distilled and turned into a one-of-a kind handbook on apologetics.

(3-10-07)

I would love to send him a t-shirt that says "Greg Bahnsen is my homeboy," but that's another issue.

(3-16-07)

And Greg Bahnsen will be fondly recalled as the man who could not only defend the faith at the highest level of philosophical discourse, but, as seen in that debate, could just as quickly give a warm, personal word of testimony to God's grace in his life.

(2-11-05)

The irony is that both TGE [Tim Enloe] and AtC [Paul Owen aka by White as "Alexander the Coppersmith"] posted comments that, if they are at all consistent, will force them to likewise ravage Dr. Greg Bahnsen's comments, which I link below. . . . I do wonder what ruminations will now appear as a result, or will the rC's [so-called "Reformed Catholics" who are really "Reformed Protestants"] ignore the citation? . . . there are folks who see through the smoke and mirrors to the reality. However, most telling are the "replies" to the Bahnsen quote. Telling, very telling.

(6-13-04 ; this proves that White comprehends the analogical arguments I have been making regarding Sproul and my own opinions on apologetic method, but will he be "consistent" and also apply his righteous indignation to R.C. Sproul? Don't hold your breath . . .)

. . . Dr. Bahnsen had contacted me and asked me to take his place in debating Matatics in Omaha, Nebraska, due to a schedule conflict (which I did).

. . . If the rC's have the courage of their convictions they will do what they must do: they have said I am wrong to say everything Greg Bahnsen said about Rome. Now, will they just have the temerity to come out openly and say, "Bahnsen, too, was wrong. He cooperated too closely with Baptists, and hence was part of the problem, just like those Presbyterians who cooperate with Baptists today. He clearly refused to give Mother Church the deference and honor she is due, so as to bring the blessings of God." Or is there division in the rC camp?

(7-24-04; another instance of the same force of analogy: White was pressing these folks to be consistent and condemn Bahnsen's view -- because they respected him --; likewise, I am pressing White to condemn Sproul's view on presuppositionalism -- just like he does mine -- because White respects him; but White is just as reluctant to do so as they were regarding Bahnsen; thus showing himself a hypocrite for the, oh, maybe 735th time)

Now let's look at what Bahnsen wrote about the ignorance of R.C. Sproul, in the very book of Sproul's and John Gerstner's (Classical Apologetics) that I have cited in agreement with my views. This is from his article: A Critique of "Classical Apologetics", published in Presbyterian Journal 44:32 (Dec. 4, 1985) [Response to Gerstner & Sproul in defense of Van Til]. The bolded emphases are mine:

On their chosen method of reasoning in defense of Christianity, though, we must agree much less. We must find it, actually, contrary to good reasoning.

. . . In short, without analyzing and refuting the presupposition of secularism about what is knowable, the authors simply beg the question they set out to answer.

. . . A concept which has somewhere been lost by our authors is that of man's total depravity, including the noetic effects of sin. . . . our author's conception of apologetics is untrue to their Reformed theology.

Their book on apologetics is flawed by a number of philosophical lapses as well. When positions taken by philosophers are represented in the book, they are too often oversimplified, jumbled, or handled with little more than slogans (rather than analysis). Their discussion of the (allegedly) "non-negotiable" and "virtually universal" assumptions about logic, perception, and causality in the knowing process (pp. 77ff.) is painfully naive, interacting with none of the modern epistemological problems surrounding empiricism, induction, or the foundations of science and logic.

. . . In the last half of the book, our authors turn to a critique of the presuppositional apologetic, especially as advanced by Cornelius Van Til. Little of this discussion proves helpful or even relevant, however, because Van Til's presuppositionalism is so badly misrepresented.

. . . Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley have simply not taken the time to understand correctly what they have chosen to criticize. . . . he continues to force the good professor into the mold of his preconceptions. This is unreasonable - making a presupposition ride roughshod over the evidence!

The authors are quite harsh about Van Til's presuppositionalism. "The implications of presuppositionalism, in our opinion, undermine the Christian religion implicitly" (p. 184). They end their book by ridiculing it: "The emperor of the Land of Presuppositionalism where Van Til, Frame, Clar, Henry, and others live, has no clothes. Van Til is embarrassed" (p. 338). In fact, it should be the authors of this uncharitable and false representation who should be embarrassed. Anyone can knock down a straw man.

For this reviewer, the authors have not begun to interact meaningfully with presuppositionalism. They do not seem to understand it any better than we found them to understand the philosophical issues in constructing a theistic proof according to traditional natural theology. In contrast to their weak effort, as well as in contrast to their misconstrual of Van Til, presuppositional apologetics sets forth the intellectual challenge to all unbelief that "unless [Christianity's] truth is presupposed there is no possibility of proving anything at all" (Jerusalem and Athens, p. 21). This is the furthest thing from fideism. It is actually very Pauline (1 Cor. 1:20).

. . . College students cannot expect to respond to skeptical challenges with the kind of thinking found in this book and not suffer intellectual embarrassment. The argumentation is too easy to discredit, . . .

The authors admit that their traditional apologetic "is sick and ailing" (p. 12). Judging from the case made in this book, the diagnosis may be overly optimistic. . . .

Finally though, should you purchase a copy of this book? If your interest is the actual practice of defending the faith, you will be disappointed because reliable, logically sound guidance will not be found here. Even if our interest is the intramural, specialized study of apologetical methods, you can find more adequate examples of what this book attempts to do. And if you are interested in understanding or criticizing contemporary presuppositional apologetics, save your money for another day.

This is a gold mine of delightful analogy:

White on Armstrong (on presuppositionalism) I: "classic example of missing categories and utter epistemological confusion" . . .

Bahnsen on Sproul and Gerstner (on presuppositionalism) I: "contrary to good reasoning . . . oversimplified, jumbled, or handled with little more than slogans . . . painfully naive . . . Little of this discussion proves helpful or even relevant, . . . intellectual embarrassment . . . easy to discredit, . . . reliable, logically sound guidance will not be found here.


White on Armstrong II: "Sadly, Armstrong truly has no concept of what he identifies as presuppositionalism."


Bahnsen on Sproul and Gerstner II: Van Til's presuppositionalism is so badly misrepresented. . . . Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley have simply not taken the time to understand correctly what they have chosen to criticize . . . the authors have not begun to interact meaningfully with presuppositionalism. . . . misconstrual of Van Til


White on Armstrong III: "Anyone who has spent any time at all with Van Til or Bahnsen cannot help but shake their head at Armstrong's wild swings at a phantom far removed from the truth."

Bahnsen on Sproul and Gerstner III: "he continues to force the good professor into the mold of his preconceptions. This is unreasonable - making a presupposition ride roughshod over the evidence! . . . it should be the authors of this uncharitable and false representation who should be embarrassed. Anyone can knock down a straw man.

Particularly amusing is Bahnsen's observation that Sproul and Gerstner's book demonstrated that they had "lost" the Reformed Protestant doctrine of "man's total depravity, including the noetic effects of sin" and that Sproul's and Gerstner's apologetic is "untrue to their Reformed theology." How cute. Here is the man (Sproul) whose book Chosen by God "turned" White "from a reluctant Calvinist into a passionate one" (White on 3-26-07) yet Sproul, according to White Hero #2 Bahnsen doesn't even possess or understand the Reformed doctrine of total depravity (!!!): the "T" in the famous five Calvinist points of "TULIP"?

And Sproul's apologetic method is "untrue" to authentic Reformed theology? How fascinating! This is the guy that White (on 2-15-07) decribed as "a genius, and everyone knows that" and he can't even get elementary aspects of Calvinist theology right? After all, Greg Bahnsen said it, and he can't be wrong.

These are the two modern Reformed thinkers (Sproul and Gerstner): the only two that White included in a list of such Calvinist luminaries as "Calvin, Beza, the crafters of the Westminster and London Confessions, John Owen, Francis Turretin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, William Cunningham, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, John Murray . . ." (10-23-00) and they are this abominably ignorant? They have a profound Calvinist theology (or do they???) but can't defend it? The "genius" misses the most elementary and foundational aspects of proper Reformed apologetics? Something just doesn't add up here . . .

Lastly, White has preserved an exchange in 1995 (a series of letters) between Greg Bahnsen and fellow Reformed Protestant P. Andrew Sandlin, in which Bahnsen again engages in his charge that his (fellow Reformed) opponent is abominably ignorant (gee, we see now the profound influence that he obviously had on White's own method of "argumentation"). The bolding is again my own:

Sandlin's piece represents not serious analysis (or even accurate discussion) but simply pontification. (When the argument is weak, pound the pulpit harder!) Notice as well the many inflammatory (and unargued) epithets: "modernistic invention," "knee-jerk reaction to baying hounds," "[Warfield] polluted Reformation bibliology," "pernicious theory," etc. This is a textbook example of the fallacious style of reasoning which should be shunned in any serious Christian scholarship. No case is strengthened by emotive language and name-calling -- especially when the rhetoric is irresponsible and false. For instance, Sandlin attributes views to his opponents which they simply do not maintain (e.g., the outrageous suggestion that they say the Bible is inspired if infallible -- or even worse, only if infallible in our human judgment). For his own integrity Sandlin ought to issue a retraction and apology for such misleading red herrings and unfair misrepresentations.

. . . I should also humbly observe in passing, as someone with a bit of background in epistemology, that Sandlin has simply wandered into left field when he tries to make the issue "a rationalist standard of supposed scientific accuracy" to which we are allegedly trying to conform. To think that is the issue is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debate is about in the first place. It is not just rationalists and modern scientists who say two conflicting texs cannot both be original. . . . Shame on Mr. Sandlin for this unseemly diatribe.

(30 May 1995)

It would be the course of wisdom for Andrew Sandlin to withdraw from perpetuating an unnecessary and sharply worded public squabble, and that I why I prayerfully decided to send a "last comment" and leave it to readers to do their homework, granting Andy the last word. Instead he has now sent along TWO missives, both quite lengthy. But even that would be alright with me, were it not for his continuing to misrepresent my view (and to misunderstand the nature of the dispute regarding the autographa). That is why I briefly and with regret re-enter the discussion with a "very last" comment. (I really have other duties I ought to be pursuing.)

In his second June 2 letter, Sandlin falsely attributes to me the notion that infallibility is lost in "the infinite regress of the lost autographa." He has no hesitation: "This search of infinite regress.. is EXACTLY what Greg contends in his essay." Sandlin claims to state my view "PRECISELY" that the "extant Biblical text" does not constitute the inspired word of God.

These MIGHT constitute public lies, except I do NOT for a moment suspect Sandlin of perpetuating falsehoods intentionally here. But the alternative is that he does not understand and/or is not careful to be accurate -- which only exacerbates his cutting pontifications ("pernicious," "rationalism," "devotees of IOA have miserably apostatized," etc.) and logical fallacies (guilt by association, hasty generalization, false cause, etc.). By not wishing to impugn his character, I was indeed forced to impugn his scholarship. He does not have a correct picture of his opponent's position (although insisting he is exact and precise) and presses unreasonable lines of thinking to reach a condemnation even of that.

. . . Hopefully the reader can understand, then, why I question Andrew Sandlin's scholarship. He has pinned on me nearly the opposite of what I actually wrote. I cannot appreciate being publicly and grossly misrepresented (by someone claiming he is "exact" and "precise" in portraying my view), especially as a prelude to publicly condemning it as pernicious apostatizing.

(2 June 1995)

How familiar. I don't know if Bahnsen is correct in his assessment or not. I didn't read the entire exchange; nor do I wish to. I am simply highlighting the fact that these charges were made, which is similar to what Bahnsen did in his book review above. I do know for a fact, however, that James White has been misrepresenting, butchering, caricaturing, lying about my positions for 12 years.

I have no wish, like Dr. Bahnsen, to accuse White of "perpetuating falsehoods intentionally" either (even though he has stated that about myself, more than once), so I conclude that his anti-Catholic bias and personal animus against me seriously cloud and adversely affect his reasoning abilities. That's the most charitable take I can come up with. But misrepresent my opinions, he definitely does (i.e., to the pitifully small extent that he deigns to interact with them at all). There is no doubt about that.

"Blackwhite": James White Proves That R.C. Sproul's Critique of Presuppositionalism is "Utter Epistemological Confusion" & "Wild Swings at a Phantom"

The James White Three-Ring Circus of Logical Circularity, Straw Men, and Folly has arrived in town yet again. In his latest of a long line of ad hominem attacks against my person and generous appraisals of my supposed clueless stupidity in all Matters Christian and Biblical (in response to a critique of mine), White has inadvertently condemned the thinking abilities of one of his own heroes: R.C. Sproul. Please let me explain this, if I may.

As I explained in a three-part reply (one / two / [especially] three) in comments underneath my latest critique of White (and defense of Protestant apologist William Lane Craig, whom White excoriated), I noted how I had done a lengthy critique of presuppositionalism. This was linked to in my original reply (easily identifiable by the blue print of linked terms): in the third paragraph.
Remember, White had written about my reply:

Armstrong truly has no concept of what he identifies as presuppositionalism. Anyone who has spent any time at all with Van Til or Bahnsen cannot help but shake their head at Armstrong's wild swings at a phantom far removed from the truth.

Alright. Does my paper on that topic back up what he is saying? In that paper, Van Til's name appears 73 times (and Bahnsen's ten times: because Van Til was the primary target being critiqued).

Also in that paper, a major support for my critique of presuppositionalism was one R.C. Sproul (his book with co-authors John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley: Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House / Academie Books, 1984).

I agree with virtually everything he and his co-authors state in that book (hence many quotes). Sproul is a Calvinist, and much-beloved by James White. You see him cited all over the place by White on his blog and website (here are just a few instances, easily located in a search):

I would recommend to your reading one of the finest books on the topic, the one that turned me from a reluctant Calvinist into a passionate one, RC Sproul's, Chosen by God.

(3-26-07)

If you have not read this book [Chosen by God], you must. Not just you should, you really must. I read it over two decades ago in a single sitting. And it changed my life. It planted the seeds that eventually produced Pulpit Crimes, to be honest, because so much of what I decry in that work is the shallow, fluffy preaching of a church that has no grasp upon the seriousness of the business of worship because it has no grasp upon the holiness of God.

Sproul's a genius, and everyone knows that, but genius often stands in the way of communication, zeal, and passion. As a result, really smart folks can write some horrifically boring books. But that is Sproul's gift: he can write with clarity, pace, and passion. That's why I couldn't put the book down in 1986, and you won't be able to as well in 2007.

(2-15-07)

I spent the first fifty minutes of the program [Dividing Line] today reviewing Jon Modene's amazing "sermon" against R.C. Sproul, . . .

(8-10-06)

I started off the program reading from R.C.'s own writings on the nature of the new birth, and then played Modene saying R.C. does not preach on the new birth. A telling contrast.

(8-15-06)

Going back to Dr. Sproul, I am well aware that he does not desire to debate Roman Catholic apologists. In fact, just this year, in chatting with him at the Christian Bookseller's Convention in Anaheim, I mentioned that I would be debating Gerry Matatics on the Marian doctrines the next month on Long Island. "That's a mistake" he said strongly. "Why?" I asked. "You are giving them credibility they don't deserve" he replied.

Now, I happen to disagree with Dr. Sproul on the wisdom and even the necessity of engaging in public debates, but he is right in one sense. One cannot approach this issue without proper discrimination. You don't want to grant credibility to those who do not deserve it. Yet, at the same time, an answer must be given for the sake of those who are being deceived by the smooth-sounding talk and arguments of Rome's modern defenders. It may well be that, given Dr. Sproul's prominence, he is wiser to not grant such notoriety. I am in a better position, since I'm hardly known by anyone.

(Muddying the Waters: A Reply to Robert Sungenis' Triumphalistic Article in the June, 1996 This Rock Magazine, 1996 [?]; John Gerstner is also favorably mentioned in the same section on Sproul)

Surely you cannot believe that the likes of Calvin, Beza, the crafters of the Westminster and London Confessions, John Owen, Francis Turretin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, William Cunningham, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, John Murray, and modern writers such as R.C. Sproul or John Gerstner, have never heard your objections before, can you?

(10-23-00)

. . . R.C. Sproul’s fine works such as Chosen by God, Faith Alone, and Grace Unknown.

(Does the Bible Teach Predestination? An Exegetical Debate; before October 1998)

This very same person, R.C. Sproul is a strong critic of presuppositional apologetics. I agreed with just about everything he argued and stated in his book on the topic, including the following observations:

In all systems of thought except presuppositionalism circular reasoning is considered demonstrative evidence of error. In presuppositionalism, instead of being a vicious circle, it is a sign of intellectual virtue. While neo-orthodoxy could say that "contradiction is the hallmark of truth," presuppositionalist orthodoxy makes circularity the hallmark of truth. This "glorious circle" distinguishes revealed truth presupposed from all other systems which are circular also but ingloriously so . . . a circle gets one nowhere and . . . those who travel in these circles either admit this, or are naked fideists.

(Sproul et al, 318)

Van Til not only reasserts this principle of circular reasoning, but gives the reason for so doing. We say that circular reasoning is the end of all reasoning and Van Til not only considers it the beginning of all reasoning but he gives a reason for the necessity of circular reasoning. This is a circle within a circle. If Van Til can prove that circular reasoning is necessary if there is to be any reasoning at all, he has proven circular reasoning by noncircular reasoning . . . one simply cannot live in circles and think as a rational human being. In order to justify abnormal, antitraditional, irrational patterns of thought (circles), he has to accept normal, traditional patterns of thought.

Reason "learns" of its proper function from Scripture. Reason, therefore, is represented as already existing and functioning. Now it reports to headquarters and gets orders as to how it is to function.

. . . the transcendental argument . . . though Van Til often infers it he never apparently explicitly defends it. If he did, that would be the end, of course, of his presuppositionalism. He insists on presupposing God without rational compulsion. Then he moves to the world which can be understood, he argues, if approached presuppositionally. But he cannot argue, because that would be proving the presupposition which cannot be proven by autonomous human reason. But the understanding of the world is assumed because the God who explains it is assumed. We cannot get off this theoretical merry-go-round. It cannot move up and down or even spirally, but only in dizzying circles.

(Sproul et al, 322-326)

. . . instead of being a "glorious circle" it [circular reasoning] leads inevitably to anti-intellectualism and ultimate fideism even in the most "rational" presuppositionalists. The Emperor of the Land of Presuppositionalism . . . has no clothes . . . Classical apologetics, with its horror of circularity, is the little child who embarrasses everybody by pointing out the obvious.

(Sproul et al, 338)

If we are endowed with intellect, then our intellect has first to function in apprehending the nature of God who created the intellect for that purpose . . .

How do we explain Van Til's apparent blindness to such an obvious matter? It is his overall thinking which controls him here and pulls him out of the rational order . . . one simply cannot know before he knows.

. . . In Van Til's thought, as in . . . every other rational being's thought, the intellect has to precede even his thought of God. This does not detract from God, since it is He who made us this way . . .

(Sproul et al, 228-230)

. . in certain Christian circles there is a persistent allergy to rationality . . . The fear is that reason makes God subject to a law which is greater than Himself, making God answerable to Aristotle, rather than Aristotle to God. But Aristotle did not invent logic or reason. Aristotle was no more responsible for the invention or creation of logic than Columbus was for inventing or creating America.

. . . The Christian faith affirms logic not as a law above God but as an aspect built into Creation which flows from His own character. According to Gordon Clark, "The law of contradiction is not to be taken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking."

(Sproul et al, 75-76)

If the presuppositionalist offers any reason, he ceases to be a presuppositionalist. Bahnsen is too consistent to do that. But a faith in Scripture, or in anything for that matter, that does not rest on reasons, is fideism. Thus, if Van Til or Bahnsen deny that their faith in Scripture is fideistic they will be denying their presuppositionalism. If they admit it, they admit fideism. In short, presuppositionalism is a form of fideism, and this charge cannot be denied without denying presuppositionalism.

(Sproul et al, 309)

But Sproul is a wonderful man of God and I am a nitwit and clueless imbecile in White's eyes (including, of course, on this subject). How can this be? It's rather simple logic:

1) R.C. Sproul is a strong critic of presuppositionalism.

2) Dave Armstrong is also a strong critic of presuppositionalism.

3) In fact, Dave Armstrong heavily cites from Sproul's book on the topic, in strong agreement, as well as extensively from Van Til.

4) But James White says that "Armstrong truly has no concept of what he identifies as presuppositionalism. Anyone who has spent any time at all with Van Til or Bahnsen cannot help but shake their head at Armstrong's wild swings at a phantom far removed from the truth."

5) But if Armstrong's views on presuppositionalism are virtually identical to those of R.C. Sproul, how is it that Sproul can be regarded as a profound genius, and Armstrong as completely ignorant on the topic?

Only so many things can be concluded here (i.e., assuming the validity of classical syllogistic logic):

A) If Armstrong is this stupid regarding presuppositionalism and agrees all down the line with R.C. Sproul, then Sproul (from whom many of Armstrong's ideas were derived or verified and substantiated) must be as dumb as Armstrong when he treats presuppositionalism; therefore what was said about Armstrong applies equally to Sproul.

B) If Sproul is a genius and profound Calvinist thinker, who wrote a critique of presuppositionalism, and if Catholic Dave Armstrong agreed with it to an extraordinary degree, then Armstrong cannot be nearly as dumb (on this topic, at any rate) as James White makes him out to be.

So White is left with an unenviable choice:

i) His icon R.C. Sproul is as dumb (on this topic) as lowly, despicable Dave Armstrong, whom White has been slandering and insulting for 12 years.

ii) Dave Armstrong's position on presuppositionalism is as reasonable as R.C. Sproul's, since the former agrees with the latter, and copiously cited the latter in support of his own positions.

Both choices are utterly unacceptable to White: he can never admit that Sproul is anything like me, in any way, shape, or form. This is his hero. Nor can he admit that I am not as utterly stupid on this topic as he has made out, because my position is identical to Sproul's. That's been his modus operandi for 12 years: to altogether discredit me (by various unsavory and unethical tactics that we won't revisit) and publicly wonder out loud why anyone takes my apologetic work seriously at all.

So what does White do? Logic requires one choice or the other, but both are utterly unacceptable to him. I didn't invent the rules of logic. Of course, White could thumb his nose at the laws of logic and simply hold two contradictory positions in his head at the same time:

x) When Dave Armstrong believes hypothesis / belief-system z (in disagreement with James White) he is a stupid, clueless idiot.

y) When R.C. Sproul believes the very same hypothesis / belief-system z (in disagreement with James White) he remains a theological genius and a hero, and what is said about Dave Armstrong cannot possibly also be said about him.

He could do that. It would be the "doublethink" made famous in George Orwell's book 1984. [actually, more specifically, Orwell's Newspeak word blackwhite; see a comment on this post by Nick and my two subsequent replies]. It wouldn't be White's first time, by any means, believing in mutual contradictories (in fact, the position of anti-Catholicism itself -- held by both White and Sproul -- is a huge ongoing vicious self-contradiction).

Let Bishop White stew in his own juices if he is too proud to admit he has made a fool of himself yet again . . . He can keep attacking me with insults and lies and slander if he so chooses. I will continue to critique him with logic, fact, Scripture, and substantiated history. Readers can choose which method they prefer.

Reply to James White's Unwarranted Trashing of Protestant Philosopher & Apologist William Lane Craig / Does Dr. Craig Believe in Original Sin?

William Lane Craig

Baptist apologist James White's latest post: On How Theology Determines Apologetics, devoted to the prominent Protestant philosopher William Lane Craig (one of my very favorite Christian thinkers today: see his own website) is a classic case-in-point of where his presuppositionalist and fundamentalist mindset leads. Dr. Craig is probably the leading Christian apologist with regard to the Resurrection of Jesus (examples: one / two / three / four / five).

He's also known as perhaps the ablest Christian proponent of the cosmological argument for God's existence (made famous by St. Thomas Aquinas) and an excellent debater of atheists. He's a fine Christian man and wonderful apologist. I wish there were a thousand more out there like him. Here I am, a Catholic, and I greatly appreciate my Protestant brother and fellow apologist, but White the Baptist condemns him. Oh the irony and the tragedy (and right after we have just celebrated the holy day of Easter) . . .

White opposes William Lane Craig (at bottom, I believe) because he is neither a Calvinist in soteriology nor a presuppositionalist in apologetic methodology. This was all apparently brought about by a letter that White received. He allows no comments on his blog, but occasionally he decides to bless us with some reader feedback:

I would like to request James White to use his knowledge to tame Islam - rather than wasting time on other christians [sic] like William Lane Craig, who frankly is doing a very good job. Let us focus on the MAIN doctrines like Divinity of Christ, his life and message, which we all accept cutting across different apologetic styles, cutting across denominations etc. So, instead of wasting time on minor issues of differences, it will be better to spend time on those who do not accept Christ at all.

Now, to his credit, White actually does a great deal of contra-Muslim apologetics, and even debates Muslim apologists. I link to some of it. It's good stuff. But he will also go unfairly critique other Protestants and create unnecessary strife and division (because he doesn't even accurately represent what they believe in the first place). He proceeds to describe Craig's beliefs as "Vanilla Christianity" and "sub-biblical" and continues:

His Molinism is more of a symptom of a wider theological weakness, one that, I believe, illustrates what happens when philosophy becomes the guiding force in theology. As a result there is a tremendous difference between the apologetic he represents and that which would flow from a consistent theological position. Apologetic methodology must of necessity flow from our theology. What we believe about God, His self-glorifying purpose in Creation, His nature, His power, His will, and His creatures, will determine how we defend His truth. A theocentric theology will result in a theocentric apologetic; an anthropocentric theology always results in an man-centered apologetic.

As a Molinist myself, I can defend this position. White often fails to properly understand other positions and ends up warring against straw men. White doesn't argue in these instances; he merely proclaims what he already holds (too often, circular logic). This is, broadly speaking, a huge problem with the presuppositionalist approach.

For White, pretty much, whatever isn't Calvinist is "sub-biblical." It's that simple in his mind. He can't handle the notion that competing systems of theology, even regarding an extraordinarily complex topic such as free will and predestination, could be respectable and permissible (as is allowed in the Catholic Church, in the Thomism vs. Molinism schools).

Rather, he has to demonize Arminians (in classic fundamentalist Calvinist fashion) because they come down a different way on one of the most difficult problems in philosophical theology. His way is "biblical"; therefore, the Arminian way must not be. Black and white. East vs. west. Divine vs. evil.

And if some theological belief is not Calvinist, then it is, of course, "man-centered." White is apparently unable to comprehend and conceive of a non-Calvinist theological belief-system that is not "man-centered" and not Pelagian (the heresy that makes man the ultimate determiner and initiator of his salvation, rather than God: firmly condemned by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent). For White, the non-Calvinist cannot possibly glorify God (i.e., if at all) the way that the Calvinist does, or fully accept His sovereignty, His providential care of His creation, His glory and majesty, etc. And so this jaundiced, warped perspective affects how he argues. Let's examine a bit, then, where he goes with this critique:

Let me give you an example. It is common for WLC and those trained in his system to argue that the "preponderance of the evidence" points to the "greater probability" of the truthfulness of Christianity. Is this kind of argument consistent with the Apostolic proclamation? Did the Apostles claim that "there is very good reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead!"? Or did they proclaim it as a certainty, the very foundation of God's judgment itself (Acts 17:31).

This is an amazing unawareness of the basic biblical teaching concerning apologetics: all the more striking coming from an actual Christian apologist. Where to begin? Well, for example, how about the story of Doubting Thomas after the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus? I wrote in my soon-to-be-published book, Mere Christian Apologetics (p. 46):

Jesus thought it was important to furnish empirical proofs of His Resurrection to His followers. His Resurrection was, by its very nature, tied up inextricably with history and eyewitnesses (legal-type proof) and physical sensory experience (scientific or empirical evidence). Thus, belief in His Resurrection was the very opposite of blind faith.

Jesus presented "many infallible proofs" of His Resurrection (Acts 1:3) and appeared on one occasion solely to destroy the doubts of skeptical, hard-nosed empiricist Thomas -- a type of modern "scientific" man (John 20:24-29). Jesus did say that it was better to believe without the necessity of such undeniable proof (20:29), but after all, He still chose to appear for Thomas' sake, and told Thomas to put his hands in His real, physical wounds. For that person who seems to require such evidence, then, we ought to attempt to provide it for them, following the example of Jesus with Thomas.

The other disciples and followers of Jesus (e.g., Mary Magdalene) touched Him as well (Matthew 28:9, Luke 24:39, John 20:17), and Jesus ate fish with them (Lk 24:41-43, John 21:12-13) – a wonderful, earthy and (outwardly) "unspiritual" act if there ever was one! Likewise, we must give unbelievers reasons for belief in Christianity, such as historical evidence for the Resurrection, etc.

Jesus gave proof of His Resurrection, which was, in turn, the proof of His claim to be the Messiah and God the Son. Paul and the early Christians preached Christ risen on the basis of eyewitness and empirical proof. Paul himself appealed to eyewitnesses, as he had not seen the glorified Jesus in the flesh.

This is emphatically apologetics, and it cannot be separated from our overall presentation of the gospel. An irrational, a-historical faith is no better than any other religion on the market, and the unbeliever instinctively senses this. Apologetics is crucial in the process of revealing the absolute distinctiveness and uniqueness of Christianity.

White mocks the notions of "preponderance of the evidence" and "greater probability" as antithetical to biblical Christianity and the proclamation of the gospel, yet the early Christians proclaimed eyewitness testimony of what they had seen and heard. If they presented "legal"-type testimony, then why cannot an apologist use the same sort of argument today? No one alive was an eyewitness of these events, so it is necessarily the case that we have to make legal-historical arguments in order to do an intelligent rational apologetics.

This does not involve any lessening of the certainty of faith at all. All Christians should have a rock-solid faith. But Christian faith is not identical to philosophy. Christian certainty in faith is not philosophical epistemological certainty. Yet we have to argue philosophically in order for the non-Christian to understand us. St. Paul did this. He gave us the principle (quite hostile to presuppositionalism) of approaching people where they are at:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

(1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

Applying this principle in his own actions, we see him at Mars Hill (the Areopagus) in Athens (Acts 17:22-34): the intellectual center of the world and of the Greeks, and speaking to people according to concepts that they can understand. Did Paul condemn all Greek philosophy when he preached the gospel? No; to the contrary, he cited the Greek pagan poet Aratus in Acts 17:28 (and also the Cretan philosopher Epimenides), and other Greeks in 1 Corinthians 15:33 (Menander) and Titus 1:12 (Epimenides, again, whom Paul even describes as a "prophet").

Furthermore, Paul consistently "argued" and "reasoned" with the Jews and Greeks. This is not mere proclamation; it is attempted persuasion. And in order to persuade, one must find common ground with one's opponent and go on from there to undermine their position and demonstrate the superiority of another one. The presuppositionalist (by and large) doesn't even try to do that. He simply proclaims, and whoever doesn't accept the preaching is (so he reasons) obviously unregenerate, which is why he can't comprehend it in the first place. This is scarcely apologetics at all. It's fideistic preaching. And it is not the biblical model that we clearly see.

Thus Paul refers to the "defence and confirmation of the gospel" (Phil 1:17). The Greek word dialegomai is where we get our English word dialogue. This word is used to describe St. Paul "reasoning" or "disputing" with Jews and Greeks in many places: Acts 17:2; 17:17; 18:4; 18:19; 19:8-10. Obviously, Paul firmly believed the things he was arguing about (just as Dr. Craig does and as I do). But that doesn't mean that he ignored the rhetorical tactics of persuasion according to evidences and (strictly from from the perspective of the unbeliever) probabilities and plausibilities.

Likewise, Jesus is referred to as "reasoning" (Gk., suzeteo) in Mark 12:28. Once one tries to argue a position, this is inevitable. But White wants to run it down. Somehow he has missed all of this. He talks a good "biblical game" but I have actually demonstrated the biblical teaching on how to do apologetics.

Did they say there is more evidence Yahweh exists than there is that He doesn't, or did they identify as foolish any argument raised against the existence of the Creator by the created?

The fact that Paul reasoned with the Greeks using terms and arguments they could understand, suggests that he took their own beliefs seriously inasmuch as he could use them to build upon, in presenting a Christian apologetic and gospel proclamation.

The Greeks believed in idols and false gods. Paul talks about how he observed these, walking in Athens (Acts 17:23). But did Paul simply mock all that as from hell and the devil? No. He used common sense and persuasive techniques (not to mention considerable charity). He commended the pagan Greeks for being "very religious" (17:22), then he cited their pagan poets and philosophers (17:28). He proceeded not to blame them as rank idolaters, but to excuse them (at least to a large extent, it seems) for their ignorance (17:30).

All of this is very different from common techniques of Calvinist polemicists like James White, who think they have a monopoly on religious and theological truth. Paul didn't dismiss all of this pagan religiosity as only "foolish" and nothing but foolish and false and stupid; he built upon what they knew and led them to Christian truth by means of it.

I believe a consistent biblical theology will result in the proclamation that outside of the Creator, who has revealed Himself perfectly in Jesus Christ, there is no grounds for human predication at all, and that Christianity is not merely the "best of a number of possibilities," but it is the only possibility.

Ultimately, this is true. We all believe this. White need not lecture Dr. Craig about the truths of Christianity. That is what is so ridiculous about White's approach: as if other non-Calvinist Christians don't share this outlook. But non-believers can also believe much truth. That is because God gives them the ability and the grace to do so, whether they are aware of it or not. Apologetics is the task of persuasiveness according to what a person knows in his present state. It is not merely condescending preaching, taking the lowest possible view of the moral integrity and thinking capacities of any nonbeliever.

What is more, the WLC system places the sinner, man, in the position of "neutral judge" of these "probabilities," and again, this is something the Apostles did not do. Man is not a neutral judge of the existence of God: he is a rebel creature busily suppressing the knowledge of God.

Again, no one disagrees that man is in rebellion. But the same Paul who wrote Romans 1:18-32, all about human rebellion and suppression of the truth, approached the pagan Greeks as he did on Mars Hill and elsewhere. Moreover, in the very next chapter (and remember, the New Testament didn't have chapters, as it was originally written, so this is immediate context to Romans 1) he wrote very differently about pagan Gentiles, showing that he was not intending to teach that absolutely every unbeliever was a wicked rebel through and through:

12: All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15: They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
16: on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

(Romans 2:12-16)

This shows that men who haven't even heard the Law of Moses, let alone the gospel, can be "justified," because they are "doers of the law" based on the knowledge in their conscience. Extremely unCalvinistic! It looks to me (I'd be happy to entertain other opinions) that Paul says they can even be saved (the "excuse" in 2:15 seems to imply this possibility). They are saved by Jesus and the gospel whether they know about Jesus or hear the gospel, but they can be saved without hearing about this. So White's view is, I submit, directly opposed to the Bible and the Apostle Paul.

What you believe about these things will tremendously impact your apologetic methodology as a whole,

That's right. We see how White's own somewhat unbiblical approach to apologetics has adversely affected his method, leading him to attack even fellow Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, on ludicrous, baseless grounds.

How about we consider the words of Dr. Craig himself (White didn't do him the courtesy of citing a single word of his)? Do the following statements from Dr. Craig sound like "vanilla Christianity," and "sub-biblical" and "fuzzy" theology? Do they reflect a stunted, unbiblical worldview that White cynically presents as characteristic of Dr. Craig's personal beliefs?:

There is a danger in this sort of book that ought to be mentioned at the outset. One might receive the impression that belief in God is based solely on rational proofs, so that a person who does not find the arguments convincing can dismiss god without another thought. That would be a grave mistake. The Bible does teach that there is evidence of God's existence in the natural world around us -- but it also teaches that God's spirit "speaks" inwardly to the soul of each man in an unmistakable way, drawing him to God.

. . . God gives undeniable testimony of His existence to each individual through this inner drawing of His Spirit.

. . . I know that God exists because, in 1965, I responded to the inner pull of His Spirit and gave my life to Jesus Christ. Now God's Spirit lives within me and undeniably assures me of His existence. God will speak to your heart as well, giving you assurance of His presence, if you seek Him sincerely.

. . . Should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that is my fault, not God's. it only shows that I am a poor philosopher, not that God doesn't exist. Whether you judge my arguments to be sound or fallacious, God still exists; he loves you and holds you accountable. I will do my best to present sound arguments to you. But ultimately you must deal, not with arguments, but with God Himself.

(The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe, San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, 1979, 9-10)

For readers who want to delve into the question of the epistemology of belief in God in great depth, see Craig's fascinating survey: Introduction: The Resurrection of Theism; particularly the lengthy section where he interacts with the brilliant Calvinist philosopher Alvin Plantinga (another one of my very favorite Christian thinkers). At the conclusion of this "feast for the theistic mind" he expresses his unalterable supra-philosophical belief in God, in more sophisticated and biblically-soaked terms:

Now what Plantinga asks is why some belief itself may not have sufficient warrant to overwhelm its potential defeaters; it would in that case be an intrinsic defeater-defeater. He provides an engaging illustration of someone who knows that he has not committed a crime, but against whom all the evidence stands. Such a person is perfectly rational to believe in his innocence even if he cannot refute the evidence against him. In the same way, says Plantinga, why could not belief in God be so warranted that it constitutes an intrinsic defeater of any considerations brought against it?

With this Plantinga has moved, I think, in the direction of the Reformers and the New Testament. For the Reformed theologians, the basis of faith which could withstand all rational attacks was the testimonium spiritu sancti internum. For Calvin, apologetics was a useful discipline to confirm the Spirit's testimony, but it was by no means necessary. A believer who was too uninformed or ill-equipped to refute anti-theistic arguments was rational in believing on the basis of the witness of the Spirit in his heart even in the face of such unrefuted objections. The Reformer's doctrine was grounded squarely on the New Testament teaching about the work of the Holy Spirit. According to both Paul and John, it is the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that provides the ultimate assurance that one's faith is true (Gal. 4-6; Rom. 8:15-16; Jn. 14:16-26; I Jn. 2:20, 26-7; 3:24; 4:13; 5:7-10a). Paul uses the term plerophoria (complete confidence, full assurance) to indicate the surety that the believer possesses as a result of the Spirit's work (Col. 2:2; I Thess. 1:5; cf. Rom. 4:21; 14:5; Col. 4:12). Nor is the Spirit's work restricted to believers; He is at work in the hearts of unbelievers in order to draw them to God (Jn. 16:7-11). Being a theist, then, is not a matter left to historical and geographical accident; even a person confronted with what are for him unanswerable objections to theism is, because of the work of the Holy Spirit, within his epistemic rights, nay, under epistemic obligation, to believe in God.

It seems to me, therefore, that the biblical theist ought to hold that among the circumstances that rationally warrant and, indeed, justify theistic belief is the witness of the Holy Spirit, and that non- propositional warrant is an intrinsic defeater of any potential defeater that might be brought against it. It is here that William Alston and Illtyd Trethowan's contributions on religious and moral experience as the grounds for properly basic belief in God become relevant. Though their philosophical viewpoints are diverse, each attempts in his own way to show how an immediate experience of God constitutes the circumstances for a non-inferential knowledge of God's existence.

And here is another clear statement from Dr. Craig, along the same lines, putting the lie to White's jaundiced and twisted caricature of what Dr. Craig believes (and by extension, what all or at least most non-Calvinist apologetes allegedly believe, according to White):

Most people would say that it's impossible to "prove" the existence of God and that therefore, if one is going to believe in God, he must "take it by faith" that God exists. I've heard many students say this as an excuse for not believing in God. "Nobody can prove that God exists and nobody can prove that he doesn't," they say with a smile, "so I just don't believe in him." I've already argued that such a blithe attitude fails to appreciate the depth of man's existential predicament in a universe without God. The rational man ought to believe in God even when the evidence is equally balanced, rather than the reverse. But is it in fact the case that there is no probatory evidence that a Supreme Being exists? This was not the opinion of the biblical writers. The Psalmist said, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of his hands" (Ps 19:1), and the apostle Paul declared, "Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they [men] are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). Nor can it be said that this evidence is so ambiguous as to admit of equally plausible counter-explanations-for then people would not be "without excuse." Thus, people are without excuse for not believing in God's existence, not only because of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, but also because of the external witness of nature.

(Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics [1984], Crossway Books: Wheaton IL, Revised Edition, 1994, p. 77)

white creates trumped-up differences where there are none. I challenge any reader, of any belief to show how these three statements betray some alleged "sub-biblical" worldview that is supposedly far inferior to White's own certainty of God's existence, and destructive of a healthy biblical assurance of same. How is this at all "man-centered"? Best wishes in that futile endeavor . . .

* * * * *

Robert Fisher (of unknown Christian affiliation) asked in the comboxes below:

Dave - do you believe in the doctrine of original sin? Craig denied this in one of his debates with Shabir Ally - White plays it on the Dividing Line from 1/30/07 [link] - I think that's mainly what's concerning him. Even in the two quotes from Craig you posted one can see that there is no mention of sin and judgment. White is merely concerned about the weak approach Craig is taking, he's not anathematizing him.

You imply White is against evidential apologetics from this one post of his, but I think all he's trying to do is show where Craig's emphasis is off, not present his complete view on evidential apologetics (I've heard him use evidential arguments before. Btw, even Van Til thought evidential arguments were valuable).

Of course I do. There was no particular need to mention sin and judgment in the two quotes because the topic was the basis of belief in God (i.e., ontology and epistemology and metaphysics, not soteriology). So that's neither here nor there.

I've been searching around to see if Craig denies original sin anywhere. I found this:

Number 3: Original Sin. Dr. Curley gives the following argument:

1) Infants are damned because of original sin.

2) The Bible teaches original sin.

3) Therefore the God of the Bible does not exist.

[Dr. Craig] 11. I dispute the first premise. In fact, I challenge Dr. Curley to read me a single passage of Scripture that teaches that infants are damned because of original sin. The Bible teaches no such thing. On the contrary, Jesus took up the little children in his arms and blessed them, saying, "Let the little children come to me, for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven." [1]

His opponent noted that Craig "does not explicitly reject either the universality of sin or original sin" and "It's worth noting that Craig does not explicitly reject the second premise, that the Christian scriptures teach the doctrine of original sin. He limits himself to denying that the Christian scriptures teach infant damnation."

I listened to the relevant portion of Dividing Line (1-30-07). Dr. Craig claimed for sure that the particular argument he gave about God did not depend on original sin. Whether he also personally rejects it is unclear to me and not sufficiently proven (at least not for me) from these words alone.

One can distinguish between elements in particular arguments and personal acceptance of various things. In other words, if I don't use an element in some argument I am making it doesn't follow that I don't believe it.

I do think, however, that there is enough doubt and ambiguity as to Dr. Craig's meaning that it is worth pursuing further. He should be asked exactly what he believes, and if he truly denies original sin. Until that is clarified, I assume that he accepts it, because I have seen no compelling evidence to convince me otherwise.

I think the excerpt I offered above from William Lane Craig shows that if he did deny original sin, then he had a golden opportunity to state that he denied premise #2 (that "the Bible teaches original sin"). But he didn't do that. He only denied that infants are damned solely due to original sin.

ADDENDUM: James White's Comments on Dividing Line
(4-12-07)

[starting at 16:50 on the audio file, up through 18:20]

. . . this has been coming up a lot because of what I said about William Lane Craig on the blog a couple days ago, that I have serious theological problems; I view his theology as sub-biblical. Molinism is a Roman Catholic construct that was specifically designed to get around the teaching of the Reformers. It is not biblical. It does not come from exegesis. You're never going to come up with this idea by exegeting the text of Scripture. It's externally derived, forced on the Scriptures, and the greatest proponent of Molinism today is William Lane Craig. I'm sorry if you're offended that I say that. Dave Armstrong had a cow, that I would dare say that. What is so surprising about that? I've been saying this for a long, long, long time.

I cannot view as having any meaningful foundation, a Roman Catholic methodology of getting around the sovereignty of God, as Molinism is. . . . If you hold to what I consider a sub-biblical theology, it's gonna result in a different kind of apologetic methodology. . . . if you have primarily an Arminian theology, you have a weak doctrine of sin; you have a high view of the capacities of man; a low view of the work of the Holy Spirit of God, I would argue, in being able to bring regeneration, etc., etc. . . .

Nine of My Manuscripts to be Published Soon / E-Books Spruced-Up and Proofread Again

I'm at work busily preparing my nine books as yet unpublished (all the e-books I offer, except for in-print titles A Biblical Defense of Catholicism and More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism) for Lulu. Chad Toney, who has been on this blog, is doing the art work for the covers. I made suggestions for all of them and actually selected the photographs (or paintings or engravings in two cases) to be used, for seven of them (I also came up with the idea on the More Biblical Evidence cover).

This will make a total of 14 books in print, after the process is complete (takes about a month, I think), and my new book, The One-Minute Apologist finally sees the light of day (the latest rumor has that happening in May). Lulu.com is really cool, because they take you step-by-step through the whole publishing process, and it is either free or $100 for an ISBN and ability to post on amazon and other such venues (which is crucial, I think, to get decent sales). They also pay royalties every month via PayPal, which is wonderful in my situation as a full-time apologist trying to eke out a living and support a family of six.

I proofread all the books again and caught many mistakes. So they have been improved for sale as e-books too. I created new PDF files from the revised word files (using this easy free tool). I am still offering the 11-for-$15 deal (Word via e-mail) or $20 for both Word and PDF on a CD sent to your house. Please consider a purchase, to help support this apostolate. I mentioned in a letter today that I receive about $1.70 for each paperback sale, but $15 or $20 for e-book sales, which are pure (or almost total) profit for me, or nine / twelve times the amount of a paperback sale.

I hope you'll consider purchasing the new paperbacks, too, when they come out. I plan on putting out many more in the future, if it is this simple. I'll wait a year and probably put out two more next spring, and the year after that, etc. I can't really lose. All I have to do is make up the $100 and then it is all profit to me, for no additional work. It's great if the book sells. Mine do (about as well as could be expected), but the catch is that the Catholic apologetics market is so tiny that in real numbers a bestseller doesn't add up to very many copies sold or royalties in pocket.

Oh well. I never entered this profession to be rich or popular. But it is nice to be able to pay one's bills and have a little extra breathing room. I hope that those of you who like my writing and find it edifying and beneficial to your spiritual life will seriously consider purchasing more books of mine, and of course I always appreciate generous donations, too. I don't "beg" but I have no problem occasionally making the need known, and I think anyone can readily see how hard I work at what I do.

Thanks, as always, for reading. I appreciate all of you very much. The work I do is for you.

Anton Bruckner: the Devout Catholic and Great Symphonist

Anton Bruckner (c. 1860)

Introductory Thoughts

This is intended as an overview of several interesting tidbits (some of which I discovered last night) concerning Austrian composer Anton Bruckner (1824-1896). I am an unashamed, enthusiastic admirer of 19th-century German-Austrian romantic orchestral music (Wagner, Beethoven, and Mahler being my musical "trinity"). I played trombone in the orchestra and band (1973-1976) at Cass Technical High School in Detroit: a public school that has been nationally-renowned for its musical program.

Bruckner can plausibly be regarded as the last of the great German-Austrian-Viennese symphonists and composers of the Romantic Period Proper (basically the 19th century). Brahms was his contemporary, but the two followed very different paths, with Brahms (more musically conservative, though even that may be an unfair simplification in some ways) hearkening back to Schubert and Schumann, whereas Bruckner was profoundly influenced by Wagner. Both saw themselves as continuing in the tradition of Beethoven (as did Wagner himself). This musical school (in a broad, inclusive sense) arguably came to an end with the "post-Romantics" Mahler (died 1911) and The Alpine Symphony of Richard Strauss (1915).

Was one school the true development of the universally-revered Beethoven and the other a corruption? This was a matter of intense controversy in Bruckner's day, but not so much anymore. We can appreciate each for its own qualities, with the benefit of hindsight. I believe that both general styles are legitimate musical developments of Beethoven and romantic classical music. Why does one have to choose? Live and let live.

I always thought that entire musical civil war was foolish and silly. The real revolution in music was to come with Debussy and Stravinsky, with their fluctuating tonalities and meters, and far more so, the American Charles Ives, with his outright dissonance and polyrhythmic and polytonal scores. Then came Schoenberg's 12-tone atonality, but even he started out as a fairly traditional romantic composer (e.g., his Pelleas und Melisande, 1907), and (ironically) considered himself in line with the tradition of Schubert, and Brahms. Compared to their "radical" scores, Bruckner looks like Mozart or even Haydn.

For those unacquainted with Bruckner, I recommend listening to his symphonies 4, 7, and 9 (in that order), followed by (if you want more) symphonies 8, 6, and 5. Two of my favorite recordings for awesome sound (especially the brass, which is always what I listen for) and tremendous performances are Bruno Walter conducting the Columbia Symphony Orchestra (largely the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and sounding for all the world like the peerless Vienna Philharmonic) in symphonies no. 4 and no. 9.

Other classics highly praised by critics are Herbert von Karajan conducting no. 7 (Berlin Philharmonic / Vienna Philharmonic), no. 8, and no. 9 (both Berlin Philharmonic), and Otto Klemperer's no. 6 (Philharmonia Orchestra of London); also Daniel Barenboim and the Berlin Philharmonic for symphony no. 5. For complete sets, Bernard Haitink's cycle with Amsterdam's Concertgebouw Orchestra and Eugen Jochum's with Berlin and Bavaria are both held in high esteem by critics and collectors.

c. 1868

Bruckner the Great Composer: Opinions of Musicologists and Music Critics

From that day [the Austrian premiere of his seventh symphony in March 1886] . . . Bruckner's position in the hierarchy of nineteenth-century symphonists was assured . . . . [a] deserved place in the musical firmament.

(Martin Bookspan, 101 Masterpieces of Music and Their Composers, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. / Dolphin Books, revised edition, 1973, 116)

[B]e assured, that this squat, homely, diffident man ranks with the greatest composers of the Romantic era . . . [the Bruckner symphonies] contain much that is immediately appealing, including some of the most heroic brass writing in all of music . . .

(Jim Svejda, The Record Shelf Guide to Classical CDs and Audiocassettes, Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, revised 4th edition, 1995, 125)

Unquestionably, however, he should figure prominently in a history of Romantic music . . . all of his nine or more symphonies . . . represent in the clearest and most magnificent manner one side of the Romantic movement, that arising from the mystical conception of sound . . .

He was in conformity with the spirit of the age only in so far as his art is inconceivable without the precedent of Beethoven and especially of Schubert . . . Bruckner took over with complete unconcern the great four-movement form of Beethoven's symphonies and of Schubert's C-major Symphony [9th], and again filled in the outline with content that was entirely his own and purely musical.

(Alfred Einstein, Music in the Romantic Era, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1947, 155)

Bruckner is the direct descendant of the Beethoven of the Ninth Symphony and the Schubert of 1828.

(Rey M. Longyear, Nineteenth-Century Romanticism in Music, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, second edition, 1973, 192)

[H]is use of almost free dissonance, disjunct melodic writing, and abrupt chromatic chord progressions places him in advance of many of his peers.

(Preston Stedman, The Symphony, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1979, 180)

Bruckner's symphonies present an utterly personal world of expression, and one very different from Wagner's, in spite of some superficial resemblances in thematic material. They are so original in form that any attempt to relate them to Beethoven's is also fruitless and beside the point. Huge masses of material are presented in apparent isolation. The 'voids' are followed by unexpected developments, which seem to be reaching for a climax only to fall away into another void, or into some sudden build-up of a persistent motif. Continuity is not of the essence, but tonal tensions are, and the final effect of Bruckner's structures is a new kind of, and wholly unique, symmetry.

. . . the music now remains unassailable in its splendour and originality.

(in Charles Osborne, editor, The Dictionary of Composers, New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1977, 76; article by Alan Blyth)

Is it so extraordinary that a peasant born and bred, a simple, God-fearing soul, should have written music of genius? It is. But the nineteenth century was one in which anything might happen, a century in which eminent men were eccentric and unique, and not an intensification of types as they now tend to be. Bruckner's type is familiar, his eminence unique. . . . in the century par excellence of individualism, he achieved a major work -- major and original by the century's own standards -- by simply applying himself, with no deliberate aim at originality, no conscious exploiting of his personality, to a job of work, the writing of symphonies to the glory of God, in the frame of mind of any honest craftsman.

(Ralph Hill, editor, The Symphony, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1949; chapter by Richard Capell, 211-212)

Bruckner is not Beethovenish in his view of music, or in his psychological make-up. He has neither Beethoven's range of imagination nor his tremendous smithy. There is no anvil in Bruckner, no hammer, no white-heat. Bruckner's music is sturdy, without protest or rebelliousness. It is sure of itself even if it stumbles, which frequently it does. . . .

Of course, the duration of a Bruckner symphony is connected with the character and extent of the material treated, and to the way the mind of the composer works. It was an original mind. The simplicity of Bruckner has been overdone; it was a simplicity of nature, not of musical imagination. The argument and syntax, the unfolding and folding of a Bruckner symphony asks for close and intent musical thinking; his logic is less formal than that of say Brahms . . . We are not able confidently to go through a Bruckner movement guided by the recognizable first-subject and second-subject finger-posts, each unmistakably marking the crossroads . . . Bruckner has deeps worth our while to plumb.

. . . To ears fresh to Bruckner, the abrupt silences may well imply that the structure is insecure, that Bruckner has lost the thread to his discourse. A silence in Bruckner is called in German an Atempause; a pause to take in breath. Bruckner himself said that when he wanted to say something especially significant it was necessary for him first of all to create a silence. An intake of breath! -- inspiration literally. . . .

We can also overdo the organist influence in Bruckner's technique. His orchestration is masterful, with a sure ear for instrumental character. His judgment of dynamics is seldom at fault. He opens the heart of wood-wind; his brass is majestic or stirringly triumphant in turn, never merely brilliant or spectacular. His writing for strings, especially lower strings, is beautifully nuanced and harmonized . . . the Bruckner orchestral tissue . . is absolutely masculine.

(Neville Cardus, Composers Eleven, New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1959, 91-95, 100)

1885

[Anti-Wagnerite critic and Brahms partisan Eduard] Hanslick, admitting quite frankly that he found himself unable to judge Bruckner's music dispassionately, nevertheless proceeded to blast away at it as "unnatural," "inflated," "sickly," and "decayed." . . . Bruckner reserved final judgment on Hanslick until late in his career . . . "I guess Hanslick understands as little about Brahms as about Wagner, me, and others. And the Doctor Hanslick knows as much about counterpoint as a chimney sweep about astronomy."

(Robart Bagar & Louis Biancolli, The Concert Companion, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1947, 143-144)

. . . one of the most important composers of the last hundred years . . .

(Charles O'Connell, The Victor Book of the Symphony, New York: Simon and Schuster, revised edition, 1941, 171)

[Bruckner said to a friend] "I think that if Beethoven were alive, and I should go to him with my Seventh symphony and say, 'Here, Mr. Beethoven, this is not so bad, this Seventh, as certa9n gentlemen would make out,' -- I think he would take me by the hand and say, 'My dear Bruckner, never mind, I had no better luck; and the same men who hold me against you even now do not understand my last quartets, although they act as if they understood them.' Then I'd say, 'Excuse me, Mr. van Beethoven, that I have gone beyond you in freedom of form, but I think a true artist should make his own forms and stick by them.'"

(Olin Downes, Symphonic Masterpieces, New York: Tudor Publishing Co., 1939, 163)

Bruckner was no simpleton. The Fifth Symphony in particular is testament to a gloriously wrought dovetailing of intellect and imagination.

An extraordinary pedigree of conductors have taken up Bruckner’s cause over the past century. And, increasingly, they’ve brought us to realize how far ahead of his time Bruckner was—or rather, how radically far he was outside our normative concepts of time and sequencing in classical music, where patterns of tension and release give us a sense of events occurring in a linear flow. As the brilliant musicologist Deryck Cooke observed, Bruckner’s “music has no need to go anywhere, no need to find a point of arrival, because it is already there.”

Bruckner was, in fact, quite removed from the concepts of late romanticism that prevailed during his own time . . .

Bruckner’s symphonies exist wholly on their own terms, expressing an inner drama. Robert Simpson, a 20th-century composer who authored perhaps the most perceptive general study on Bruckner (The Essence of Bruckner), saw him as in fact anti-romantic. In other words, instead of being about the drama of expectation and fulfillment, or the nervous excitement of “some all-embracing emotional climax,” Bruckner’s music burns with a “calm fire.”

(Cleveland Orchestra program notes for 10-7-06, Thomas May [online] )

1890

Bruckner the Great Composer: Opinions of Composers and Conductors

[T]he German conductor Hermann Levi presented the Seventh Symphony in Munich [March 1885], calling it "the most significant symphonic work since 1827" -- an obvious gibe at Brahms . . . "

(Martin Bookspan, 101 Masterpieces of Music and Their Composers, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. / Dolphin Books, revised edition, 1973, 114)

Bruckner dedicated his Third Symphony to Richard Wagner, who told Bruckner, "The work gives me uncommonly great pleasure."

(In Charles Osborne, editor, The Dictionary of Composers, New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1977, 74)

[Wagner wrote: "I know of only one who may be compared to Beethoven, and he is Bruckner."

(in Charles O'Connell, The Victor Book of the Symphony, New York: Simon and Schuster, revised edition, 1941, 171)

[Gustav Mahler wrote about Bruckner] "I was always one of his greatest admirers."

"[P]erhaps I can call myself his pupil with more justice than most other people, and I shall always do so with profound respect and gratitude."

"I think of you with all my longstanding friendship and admiration, and one of my aims in life is to contribute to the victory of your superb and masterly art."

(Henry-Louis de La Grange, Mahler, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Vol. 1, 1973, 48-49)

[Bruckner told Richard Wagner] "Dr Liszt played through my Fifth Symphony, and 'proclaimed' (his own words!) my virtues to [Prince] Hohenlohe. My only consolation in Vienna!"

[Johann Strauss, Jr., the famous waltz composer (Blue Danube, etc.), writing to Bruckner after hearing his Seventh Symphony]: "Am much moved -- it was the greatest impression of my life."

(Martin Bookspan, 101 Masterpieces of Music and Their Composers, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. / Dolphin Books, revised edition, 1973, 114)

Some of the finest words ever written about Bruckner came from [the great conductor] Felix Weingartner not long after the Austrian composer's death . . .

. . . bow in homage to this man . . . I confess that scarcely anything in the new symphonic music can weave itself about me with such wonderful magic as can a single theme or a few measures of Bruckner . . .

(Robart Bagar & Louis Biancolli, The Concert Companion, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1947, 144)

[W]hen he was examined for his skill in counterpoint by a committee of three, the conductor Anton Herbeck -- the same who discovered the score of Schubert's "Unfinished" symphony -- said, "It is he who should examine us"; and Bruckner lived to teach theory and composition and lecture on these and other subjects at the Vienna Conservatory of Music.

(Olin Downes, Symphonic Masterpieces, New York: Tudor Publishing Co., 1939, 165)

I confess that for many years, despite my love for Bruckner's tonal language and his wonderful melodies, despite my happiness in his inspirations, I felt somewhat confused by his apparent formlessness, his unrestrained, luxurious prodigality. This confusion disappeared as soon as I began performing him. Without difficulty I achieved that identification with his work which is the foundation of every authentic and apparently authentic interpretation. Now, since I have long felt deeply at home in his realm, since his form no longer seems strange to me, I believe that access to him is open to everyone who approaches him with the awe due a true creator. His super-dimensions, his surrender to every fresh inspiration and new, interesting turning, sometimes not drawn with compelling musical logic from what has gone before, nor united to what follows, his abrupt pauses and resumptions: all this may just as well indicate a defect in constructive power as an individual concept of symphony. Even though he may not follow a strictly planned path to his goal, he takes us over ways strewn with abundant riches, affording us views of constantly varying delight.

(Bruno Walter, Chord and Dischord [online] )

. . . a kind of Gothic architecture in music . . . In the melodic content, towering structure and emotional world of these symphonies I found the immense, devout and childlike soul of their creator . . . I cannot put into words the importance that Bruckner's works have had for my life since then and cannot express the extent to which my admiration of the beauty and symphonic power of his music has continued to increase and become an ever richer source of edification for me.

(Bruno Walter, "On the Moral Strengths of Music," 1935)

The Influence of Faith in Bruckner's Music

[Bruckner's symphonies] finest moments tend to be private and internal: the deeply spiritual utterances of an essentially medieval spirit who was completely out of step with his time.

. . . Adagio from the Fifth, in which we become party to one of the most moving spiritual journeys ever undertaken by a nineteenth-century composer.

(Jim Svejda, The Record Shelf Guide to Classical CDs and Audiocassettes, Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, revised 4th edition, 1995, 125)

[T]his music will take [many listeners] as close to God as humanly possible . . . these are not the works of a naive nor simple-minded man, but the product of a consummate craftsman whose religious spirit was unquenchable and who may be seen as extending from the tradition of Schubert rather than Beethoven.

(Douglas C. Brown, CD Guide to Classical Music, 1993 edition, Ann Arbor, MI: CD Guide, 1993, 238)

The essence of Bruckner's music, I believe, lies in a patient search for pacification. This does not mean a mystical longing for "peace," and I do not share the view that only a religious man (and some would insist, even an Austrian Catholic) can understand Bruckner . . .

I mean its tendency to remove, one by one, disrupting or distracting elements, to seem to uncover at length a last stratum of calm contemplative thought.

(Robert Simpson, The Essence of Bruckner, cited in The Detroit Symphony: 1985-86 Program Notes, 48)

[H]is symphonic art . . . sprang from the same source as his church music -- from the religious. In the slow movements as well as in the first and last movements, it is always a coming to terms with God . . . The religious element and the feeling for nature converge into the mystical . . . We call this Romantic: the purest music within traditional outlines, but connected with a mystery, made palpable to sense in the very radiant emanations from the tone of the strings, and especially from that of the winds, full of mighty crescendos. almost always concluding in a sonorous, almost Baroque halo of the brass choir -- in all harmonic and melodic aspects at once monumental and tender.

. . . we shall see in Anton Bruckner's Te Deum and Masses how a genuine Catholic handles liturgical texts without forfeiting his freedom as a creator.

(Alfred Einstein, Music in the Romantic Era, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1947, 156, 162)

In non-musical terms, his symphonies seem related closely to his unshakeable and all-pervading Roman Catholic faith and to his awe before his natural surroundings, while his Scherzo movements almost all reflect the rough dances and folk-tunes of his native heath . . .

Bruckner himself regarded the Te Deum as his 'finest work' and 'the pride of my life' and dedicated it to God 'in gratitude', as he wryly put it, 'because my persecutors have not yet managed to finish me off'.

(in Charles Osborne, editor, The Dictionary of Composers, New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1977, 76; article by Alan Blyth)

Bruckner is never aware of himself; he is lost to the world in worship. He does not supplicate. He is God-intoxicated . . . There is no awareness of evil in Bruckner's music, nothing daemonic. His Catholicism is Austrian and as likeable and humane as Haydn's. When Bruckner is not praising God from a grateful heart, he is enjoying nature. A Bruckner scherzo is genial, rustic, windswept. . . .

Bruckner does not seek God; he has found Him. He is content to praise God; then, his devotions over, he enjoys the Heimat of his scherzo, which he does heartily, not like Mahler, looking back nostalgically to a lost innocence and world of Wunderhorn.

. . . Every symphony of Bruckner is a mountain, moved very much by faith.

. . . With Schubert was born the Austrian symphony, not heroic or ethical but inspired by nature worship, with romantic implications. To the Schubert symphony Bruckner . . . brought a religious note deeply felt, patient and trustful . . .

The tumult of his outer movements, the stride of brass and the grandeur of an orchestral great-swell, create the impression of . . . gusto for the visible sensible world, mantle of invisible God . . . If ever a composer was a good man it was Bruckner . . .

(Neville Cardus, Composers Eleven, New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1959, 89, 91-93, 100)

For a few, he was and is, at rare intervals, a seer and a prophet -- one who knew the secret of a strangely exalted discourse, grazing the sublime, . . . sometimes, rapt and transfigured, he saw visions and dreamed dreams as colossal, as grandiose, as aweful in lonely splendor, as those of William Blake. We know that for Bruckner, too, some ineffable beauty flamed and sank and flamed again across the night.

(Lawrence Gilman, cited in Robart Bagar & Louis Biancolli, The Concert Companion, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1947, 139)

Only God, Wagner, and his own music kept him alive. For he never lost faith in himself. Despite his defeats he kept on writing, confident in his creative power. "When God calls me to Him and asks me: 'Where is the talent which I have given you?' Then I shall hold out the rolled-up manuscript of my Te Deum and I know he will be a compassionate judge," he once said. And he felt the same way about his symphonies.

. . . The mystic and the peasant in him speak in his music with often compelling effect. Some of the scherzos and finales of his symphonies are filed with the lusty peasant vigor of the Austrian folk dance; here we have a Bruckner who is infectious, full of spirit, ingratiating. But even finer are many of the slow movements in which the mystic unfolds his revelations. Now, stripped of pomp and pretentiousness, his music unfolds vistas of beauty and serenity rarely encountered in symphonic literature. In these pages, as Lawrence Gilman once remarked so aptly, "there is a curious intimation of immortality." Gilman went on to say: "These pages are filled with amusing, consolatory tenderness, with a touch of that greatness of style which we sometimes get in the Elizabethans when they speak of death . . ."

(Milton Cross' Encyclopedia of the Great Composers and Their Music, Milton Cross & David Ewen, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., revised edition, 1962, Vol. 1, 154, 157)

The great German poet Goethe very aptly once likened architecture to “frozen music.” In the Fifth Symphony—and particularly in the final movement, we encounter the cathedral-like architecture that Bruckner’s music evokes for so many listeners. Bruckner’s artistic vision was deeply infused by his lifelong faith as a devout Catholic. At the same time, there is nothing dogmatic or complacent about the music of the “God-intoxicated” Bruckner. As with Bach or Messiaen, Bruckner can deeply move a listener who has no sympathy whatsoever with his belief system.

(Cleveland Orchestra program notes for 10-7-06, Thomas May [online] )

[A]ll Bruckner's symphonies can be understood as spiritual quests expressed in musical terms. The Ninth, written by a man who knew he was close to death, is the most urgent of these quests: a battle between the composer's faith and fears. . . . Despite his religious faith, Bruckner suffered bouts of paralyzing depression throughout his life, and in the Ninth we experience this literally life-and-death struggle with his demons and his failing body.

(Baltimore Symphony Orchestra program notes [online] )

[Conductor Benjamin] Zander cited one critic of Bruckner's day who called his eighth symphony the "anti-musical rantings of a half-wit." In contrast, the conductor explained the work in terms of the composer's deep Catholic faith. The Eighth is a search for calm in a world of turmoil - a tortuous journey of extraordinary beauty that can be thought of in terms of the composer's very personal spiritual experience.

(Boston Philharmonic series provides tutorial with concert, David Polk, 2/14/05 [online] )

Bruckner was a deeply devout man, and it is not by chance that his symphonies have been compared to cathedrals in their scale and their grandeur and in their aspiration to the sublime. The principal influences behind them are Beethoven and Wagner. Beethoven's Ninth provides the basic model for their scale and shape, and also for their mysterious openings, fading in from silence. Wagner too influenced their scale and certain aspects of their orchestration, such as the use of heavy brass (from Sym. 7 Bruckner wrote for four Wagner tubas) and the use of intense, sustained string cantabile for depth of expression.

(Extracted with permission from The Grove Concise Dictionary of Music, edited by Stanley Sadie, © Macmillan Press Ltd., London [online] )

Above all, however, Mahler and Bruckner are (though in different ways) religious beings. An essential part of their musical inspiration wells from this devotional depth. It is a main source of their thematic wealth, swaying an all-important field of expression in their works; it produces the high-water mark of their musical surf. The tonal idiom of both is devoid of eroticism. Often inclined to pathos, powerful tragedy, and emotional extremes of utterance, they attain climaxes of high ecstasy. Clear sunshine and blue sky seldom appear in the wholly un-Mediterranean atmosphere of their music. . . .

Mahler's noble peace and solemnity, his lofty transfiguration are the fruits of conquest; with Bruckner they are innate gifts. Bruckner's musical message stems from the sphere of the saints; in Mahler speaks the impassioned prophet. He is ever renewing the battle, ending in mild resignation, while Bruckner's tone-world radiates unshakable, consoling affirmation. We find, as already stated, the inexhaustible wealth of the Bruckner music spread over a correspondingly boundless, though in itself not highly varied realm of expression, for which the two verbal directions, "feierlich" (solemnly) and "innig' (heartfelt), most often employed by him, almost sufficed, were it not for the richly differentiated scherzi that remind us of the wealth of the humoristic external ornaments of impressive Gothic cathedrals. . . .

Mahler was, like Bruckner, the bearer of a transcendental mission, a spiritual sage and guide, master of an inspired tonal language enriched and enhanced by himself. The tongues of both had, like that of Isaiah, been touched and consecrated by the fiery coal of the altar of the Lord and the threefold "Sanctus" of the seraphim was the inmost meaning of their message. . . .

[I]t is rather his work that reveals the true greatness of his faith and his relationship to God. Not only his Masses, his Te Deum, his devotional choral works, but his symphonies also (and these before all) sprang from this fundamental religious feeling that swayed Bruckner's entire spirit. He did not have to struggle toward God; he believed.

(Bruno Walter, Chord and Dischord [online] )

If the spirit of Protestantism finds superlative musical expression in the works of Johann Sebastian Bach, then perhaps the same claim could be made for the spirit of Catholicism in the music of Josef Anton Bruckner (1824-1896). Though not as popularly celebrated as his German predecessor, the music of Bruckner is equally sincere and just as moving in its evocation of Christian spirituality. And just as Bach’s music is able to transcend its historical context, so too the music of Bruckner, though located in a particular time and reflective of the aesthetic trends of its moment, continues to speak in a relevant and inspiring manner.

. . . The utter transparency, the compete lack of any trace of irony, characterize . . . all of Bruckner’s works. This alone makes listening to Bruckner’s music a refreshing and edifying experience.

The Mass, along with his other choral works, including two other Mass settings, a Requiem, as well as motets and other choral pieces, most notably the magnificent Te Deum for chorus and large orchestra, express the obviously Catholic aspect of Bruckner’s music. Many of these works are still in the active repertoire, and some of them are simply among the best settings of these texts that exist.

It is with his mid-life turn to the symphony, which became his almost exclusive artistic medium, that Bruckner produced the works for which he is most popularly associated. In Bruckner’s hands the symphony as a musical convention takes on new depth of meaning. While clearly taking musical cues from Hayden, Beethoven and Schubert, Bruckner instills a uniquely religious significance into the symphonic format. With Bruckner, the symphony is transformed into an ascent narrative, beginning in mystery and uncertainty, moving through considerations of both the beauty and suffering of the world, conversely smiling and weeping with it, but always concluding with a victorious arrival, a conquering of a challenging mountain peak.

. . . To listen appreciatively to Bruckner is to enter into an arduous journey with him.

Bruckner also enlarged the scope of the concert orchestra, with woodwind doubling and augmentation of the brass section, especially in his last three symphonies. Bruckner wields these forces to impressive effect, characteristically alternating between shimmering pianissimo string passages with shattering brass entrances, or combing the two sonorities into some of the greatest orchestral crescendos in the literature.

The outcome of these stylistic techniques is the communication of a religious sensitivity and a personal self-effacement that are the hallmarks of all of Bruckner’s music. . . . Rather than “I have to be me,” it is “I want to love Thee” that is expressed in Bruckner’s works. And it is this aspect of Bruckner’s music, this attitude, couched though it is in the musical idioms of the late Romantic Period, that transcends the historical moment and expresses Christian spirituality across time, perhaps more so now than before.

Many people are put off, even intimidated, in their initial contact with Bruckner’s music, in much the same way as some are put off by their initial contact with Roman Catholicism. Like certain aspects of Catholic liturgy and theology, Bruckner’s music is complex, densely textured, and lengthy. It does not yield itself to casual encounters. Bruckner’s music is usually an acquired taste, almost requiring a kind of aesthetic conversion, especially for those accustomed to more familiar, “listener-friendly” fare. Appreciating Bruckner requires attention, repeated listening, respect for slow development, and above all, patience. For many, a satisfying introduction to Bruckner is found in the rustic exuberance of the Fourth Symphony, or in the exquisite lyricism of the Seventh. For those oriented toward vocal music, the Mass in F Minor, or the plainsong inspired Te Deum, are great places to begin.

It is often said that Anton Bruckner’s symphonies are like cathedrals of sound. There is truth in this analogy. Like the architectural foundations of a great cathedral, the symphonies rely on certain structural patterns that support the whole edifice, giving rise to elaborate and ornate development. Cathedrals are the creation of sacred space, wherein humans assume their proper significance before the reality of God. Bruckner’s music can have a similar effect upon the listener. In cathedrals, common elements of light and sound are captured and reconfigured through the interaction with the structure and content of the building. The same effect is true in Bruckner’s handling of musical elements. In a great cathedral, the worshipful are drawn toward something beyond the structure and beauty of the building. This too is true in Bruckner’s case. Like a great cathedral, Bruckner’s music irresistibly eventuates in only one direction – up.

(Spirituality in the Concert Hall: Reflections on the Music of Anton Bruckner, James McCullough [online] )

Bruckner was an absolute musician, and his great soul was not in need of an abundance of worldly experience, intellectual life, and literary culture for him to be able to write his mighty symphonies with their transcendental content; they sprang from the impulses given to his elemental musical creativeness by the boundless emotional resources and exalted visions of his soul.

(Bruno Walter, Of Music and Music-Making)

[Bruckner] "They want me to write differently. Certainly I could, but I must not. God has chosen me from thousands and given me, of all people, this talent. It is to Him that I must give account. How then would I stand there before Almighty God, if I followed the others and not Him?"

(in Robert Layton, editor, Guide to the Symphony, Oxford: 1995, 172)

Bruckner's creative achievement endures. Whether written for church or concert hall, his music pulls audiences into a different realm, where ordinary thought is transcended. . . . The numerous masses, motets, and hymns are also unparalleled in both aesthetic and religious terms. As attention spans become narrower and values change from the spiritual to the material, musicians have feared Bruckner's music losing popularity. But it is this inherent spirituality, this certainty of faith, which makes it perhaps even more attractive in our time.

(Paul-John Ramos, ClassicalNet [online] )

Bruckner the Pious, Devout Catholic

Although many of the anecdotes about his naivete and self-effacement can be dismissed as petite histoire, his deep humility, piety, and personal integrity made him the most noble figure of nineteenth-century music.

(Rey M. Longyear, Nineteenth-Century Romanticism in Music, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, second edition, 1973, 192)

Throughout his trials, Bruckner was sustained by his profound Catholic faith. So devout was he that students recalled his interrupting classes to kneel at the sound of the Angelus bell from nearby St. Stefan's Cathedral. He touchingly dedicated his Ninth Symphony "To my dear God."

(Baltimore Symphony Orchestra program notes [online] )

A firm consciousness of God that knew no wavering filled Bruckner's heart. His deep piety, his faithful Catholicism dominated his life. . . . Bruckner sang of his God and for his God, Who ever and unalterably occupied his soul.

(Bruno Walter, Chord and Dischord [online] )

Hilarious Misprint of Brahms' Photo on a Bruckner Recording

The Haas vs. Nowak Debates Regarding Various Editions of Bruckner's Symphonies

Robert Haas (Wikipedia)

Leopold Nowak (Wikipedia)

Detailed article on various complete editions of Bruckner's symphonies

Symphony Versions Discography [+ much more; an amazing website], John F. Berky

Bruckner Symphony Versions, David Griegel

The Several Versions of Bruckner's symphonies (a synopsis), Jose Oscar Marques

Bruckner Works and Discography, Paul Geffen

Historical Bruckner Symphony Recording: 1924-1959, Lionel Tacchini

Score of Symphonies 4 and 7

Score of Symphony No. 9

Score of Symphony No. 5

Wilhelm Furtwangler on the Haas editions

The Reconstructed Fourth Movement of Bruckner's Ninth Symphony

The Completion of Symphony #9, Dave Lampson

Discography for Symphony No. 9 Fourth Movements

Aart van der Wal's essay

Gunnar Cohrs' essay

Peter Jan Marthe's essay

James White's Reply to My Recent Critique / The "Vow Breaker" Bum Rap

I refuted James White's paper on the Council of Nicaea, after he practically dared and begged any Catholic apologist to do that. And now White has made a substantive, meaningful reply.

The centerpiece is a posting of mine from 14 March 2001 (that's six years ago, folks), that wasn't even on my site, as I recall, but on Steve Ray's discussion board, as a result of a dare (probably calculated, judging by the way the anti-Catholics have tried to throw it in my face ever since). I wrote about it recently on another blog:

Svendsen cited a statement I made in 2001 after being fed up with anti-Catholics and their idiocies and evasions. I said I would never talk to them again, and no one else should, either. This was obviously too extreme of a statement, and impossible for an apologist like myself to abide by (since I have to deal with error of that sort, by profession).

So it was wrong and stupid for me to make such a resolution. Indeed I broke it. But I don't see this as even a sin. We all break resolutions all the time (diets, not smoking or drinking anymore, to control our tempers, better use of time, etc.).

I can admit that. I have no problem with it (I already have done so in public, long ago). I spoke with too much extremity and set myself up for later mockery by these anti-Catholic clowns. If mine was a sin at all (I'm not so sure, but possibly) it is certainly venial, and long since confessed.

But Svendsen takes it to a whole other level: that of pretending that this resolution was a vow or an oath. Svendsen has repeated this charge many times (to try to discredit me as a