Lutheran Pastor and Slander Expert Paul T. McCain "Replies" to My Paper on the Communion of Saints

As of the last several months, about all that Pastor McCain could do in "response" to my work was to write tiny put-down posts on my blog or at Josh Strodtbeck's blog. He even noted (with seeming satisfied pride) that he had never mentioned me by name on his blog. Well, obviously that is no longer true. So let's see what the good Reverend has to say. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Dr. James White offers a helpful refutation [link] of the popular way among Roman Catholics to defend their practice of praying to the saints.

I find it highly amusing that Rev. McCain has tried to insult me in the past by making out that I am "the Catholic version of James White" and suchlike, but as soon as White agrees with him he cites him against me, even though his argument was pathetic ("my enemy's enemy is my friend"). I have already made several replies to White's efforts. Rev. McCain wrote, for example, the following on a Lutheran blog, c. 22 March 2007:

Warning!

Dave Armstrong is one of those sad persons who apparently spend nearly every waking moment on their Internet site. He is a Roman Catholic apologist who culls through the Internet looking for any chance he can to pounce on people who dare breathe a word of protest against what "Holy Mother" Rome has to say on anything. As is the case with most apologists like him, he tends to get his facts pretty screwed up.

If you engage him, it is akin to sticking your hand on flypaper, he and his groupies like to swarm.

He is the Roman version of a guy like James White, who has a similar style.

Dave Armstrong is not interested in "helpful discussion" but only attacking non-Romanists. I informed him that he is unwelcome to post on any of my blog sites. He only wants a platform to spread his false teachings. [he is welcome on my blog, any time]

Just a word of caution.

His foil here is a Roman Catholic layman named Armstrong who self-published a book titled, "The One Minute Apologist."

Nice try, but, um, no cigar. It is published by Sophia Institute Press, a very reputable and well known Catholic publishing house that specializes in classics (and I received an advance of $3000: that would be quite a feat indeed for a self-published book. Who would write the check, I wonder?). One would think that a "reviewer" could get his basic facts about the book reviewed straight, but no such luck.

I always get a chuckle out of this "self-published" charge (Bishop White has stated the same long after it was demonstrably untrue), since I'm now on my fourth published book with a "real" publisher (Our Sunday Visitor: the largest Catholic publisher, put out my New Catholic Answer Bible -- co-author: Dr. Paul Thigpen).

And my previous two books with Sophia are both consistently on the bestseller list on amazon (Catholic theology category). The Catholic Verses is, right now as I write, sitting at #12 on the list of Top 100, with a #6,164 sales rank. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism is #26, with a #13,816 sales rank, while The New Catholic Answer Bible is at #88 and has a #45,505 rank.

Rev. McCain then cites (I believe) the entire "review" by White. He shows no awareness that I have already disposed of it in reply, even though his post was written a few days after my reply.

Nor does he make any attempt of his own to actually deal with my biblically-soaked reasoning. True to form, he simply asserts and proclaims the Lutheran view without argument. This is in line with his stated antipathy to apologetics:

Perhaps we would do well to distinguish between apologetics and polemics. Lutherans have done polemics since the "we condemn" of the Lutheran Confessions. Apologetics? Not so much.

When I read Dave Armstrong's blog, or James White's blog, I frankly find myself getting bored, in a hurry. Both men are self-proclaimed and self-annointed [sic] "apologists" and yet they seem to spend a lot of their time attacking other apologists and arguing with how other apologists argue, and then debating who said what, about what, when, and where, etc. It is really finally absurd.

I think Lutherans much prefer simply to proclaim, and confess, and teach and let the truth speak for itself.

That is not to say that we do not do polemics. This is a perfectly fine and even necessary thing to do, but apologetics? Well, like I said, not so much.

(5-30-07, on Josh Strodtbeck's blog)

Not impressive . . . thus far, everyone who has recently taken a crack at this topic in reply to my apologetic has either ignored my arguments altogether (Rev. McCain), or dealt with one or two and ignored all the rest (White) or thoroughly misunderstood even what my arguments were, as shown by their "counter-reply" (Doug Mabry and some other anti-Catholics also).

Shame shame shame . . . how I long for a critique that actually understands its target and offers a real challenge: something that is actually engaging and stimulating to reply to.

It seems that Rev. McCain's impulse to finally mention me on his blog has something to do with a marked dislike of my person. On the same discussion thread (the next day) he "proclaimed":

By the way, this particular post and thread has set Dave "I'm a Roman Catholic apologist" Armstrong off on what can only be described as a temper tantrum becoming a three year old. It is however a very good illustration with the problem of most of this on-line "apologetics" work going on. Dave tried to bait me into an argument, one of his favorite tactics, and then failing to do that he didn't take kindly to some observations I made about his blog site and his apologetics methodologies and then the mud really started to fly.

Armstrong is a convert from what he calls "Evangelicalism" though admitted to be a member of an ELCA congregatio[n] at some point or another. Now, as is so often the case, he must breathlessly, with near desperation, "defend" Romanism against any perceived slight. The funny thing is that he can't see that the very things he finds as faults with others and how they express themselves, are all precisely the same way he conducts his "apologetics ministry" only at about a multiplying factor of ten.

It finally gives me a good case of the giggles.

Pray for this man. He is a pastor and presumably guides his congregation in the pastoral sense of spiritual oversight. God used Balaam's ass and frogs (one of the plagues on the Egyptians), so I'm sure He can and does mightily use Pastor McCain and blesses his ministry, but hopefully, juvenile expressions and "thinking" like this are the exception to the rule in his discourse and counseling and preaching. But it may not be, for all we know. Pray! Ask the Blessed Virgin Mary and other saints to intercede before God for this man, that he may cease providing scandalous example of the behavior of a man of the cloth. It isn't just a "Protestant problem." Divisive, overly-sectarian, propagandistic-like antics of any Christian has some adverse effect on all Christians insofar as those who read him project his attitudes onto all of us. It's not good (least of all for the one doing it).

Dialogue With a Reformed Baptist Presuppositionalist, Round Three (vs. John Knight)

Michael Polanyi (1891-1976)


See Part One and Part Two. John's words will be in blue; his older words in green and my older words in purple.

* * * * *

At the same time, the presuppositionalist offers the unbeliever the benefits which flow from acknowledging the fear of the Lord as the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, & understanding. He points to the riches of knowledge that are to be found in Jesus Christ. As Augustine put it, “Without belief there is no understanding.”

How does one have a discussion at all with someone, if one requires them to accept one’s own conclusion in the first place? That would mean that there is no rational discussion to be had at all, because in effect one is required to say, “you have to be a Christian [my position] before we can even begin this discussion.” So the situation reduces to blind faith from the outset, since the Christian cannot discuss anything with the atheist until the atheist first becomes a Christian (or, adopts Christian presuppositions, which amounts to the same thing, in terms of the discussion at hand).

When we look at Bahnsen’s debates, or those of some others, we can see from the example of very good presuppositionalist debaters that this interpretation of the Van Tillian approach is misguided. The approach is emphatically not to say, “You must accept my presuppositions before I will even talk to you.”

Rather, the approach is to show the unbeliever two things: (1) Unbelief leads to ignorance & irrationality.

I've been doing that for years, so we agree on that.

(2) The Christian world-view provides a foundation for knowledge. In other words: “Premise A leads to ignorance & logical contradiction. Premise B leads to logical coherence & empirical knowledge.” The actual work of demonstrating the cases is, of course, non-trivial.

Good.

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



Dave distinguishes between two propositions:

1) Whoever does math, logic, science, language, and makes moral claims is ultimately relying on the inherent knowledge and presuppositions that God gave them [ability to reason, senses, presupposing basic tenets of knowledge and existence of ourselves and the universe, assuming the general “uniformitarianism” and predictability of life and nature, etc.], whether aware of it or not.

2) Whoever does math, logic, science, language, and makes moral claims must deliberately, consciously adopt overtly Christian presuppositions before it is even possible to do these things.

Agreed. That is exactly the distinction that Bahnsen, Frame & others make.

Excellent. Then we do agree on that, too.

The very idea of “presuppositional apologetics” is to force the unbeliever — through reason & example — to acknowledge that he implicitly relies on Christian presuppositions when using math, science, language, moral claims, and so on. This approach depends on showing the unbeliever the implications of his false world-view — logical contradiction & ignorance — in contrast to the implications of the Christian world-view.

If by that you mean something like the above, then I agree. Perhaps this particular dispute, then, turns on clarifying definitions and how terms and concepts are being used and applied. Doesn't mean there are no differences, but it is good to see this commonality. But then again, I myself am not strictly an "evidentialist". I draw from the insights of several different schools of thought in apologetics.

Paul even equates philosophy with “empty deception” when that philosophy is “according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Col 2:8,9) Their speculations “futile” — that is, their theories & philosophies are pointless, useless, ineffectual. (Romans 1:21)

Oftentimes, yes. But not always; else why would Paul bother to cite two pagans in his Sermon on Mars Hill?

I would argue that Paul could quote pagan philosophers because those pagan philosophers had (unknowingly) relied on Christian presuppositions in order to attain those insights. Paul turns it back on them showing how their insights contradict their premises. For example, Paul highlights the altar to “the Unknown God,” with its inherent contradiction between ignorance of this unknown god & sufficient knowledge to properly honor him.

Very interesting . . .

The problem for the pagan is that, whatever insights he may have, he cannot justify them on pagan grounds. In that sense, his speculations are futile, unable to rationally justify his knowledge-claims.

Okay.

* * *

If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

As the foregoing examples show, evidence does not speak for itself. It must be interpreted within a framework. This framework (or paradigm [Kuhn] or world-view [Kant] or language-game [Wittgenstein] or web of belief [Quine]) evaluates the evidence & gives it weight & meaning. Different frameworks reach different conclusions. How can we know which conclusion is correct? Obviously, we can only know which conclusion is correct if we know which framework is correct, but how can we make that determination?

Obviously, an atheist can criticize Asatru on atheistic grounds & find that it fails the epistemological criteria of his atheistic world-view. An Asatruar can evaluate Christianity & find it wanting on Odinistic grounds. A Christian can examine atheism & reject it as false, contradicting Christian truths. Such are arguments are both circular & pointless.

To say that atheism is true because it can reject theistic religions on the basis of atheistic criteria is not satisfactory in any way. Christianity is coherent on Christian grounds; does that fact in itself prove that Christianity is true? How then do we resolve a conflict of world-views?

First, let's take a closer look at the evaluative frameworks that we use to judge evidence. Such a framework includes -- indeed, it hinges on -- ideas that are granted "revisionary immunity," core beliefs that are held to be true under all circumstances, which will not be revised no matter what the evidence. Such beliefs are necessary, for all judgments depend on them. Judgments turn on these core beliefs -- as it were like hinges on which those turn.

I agree, pretty much.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, the most important language philosopher of the 20th Century, called such beliefs "indubitables." There are certain propositions in any language game or system of beliefs in order even to have an intelligible doubt. He made numerous observations of this sort:

One cannot make experiments if there are not some things that one does not doubt.
That is to say, the questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn. That is to say, it belongs to the logic of our scientific investigations that certain things are indeed not doubted.

Doubting and non-doubting behavior. There is the first only if there is the second.
If I wanted to doubt whether this was my hand, how could I avoid doubting whether the word "hand" has any meaning? So that is something I seem to know after all. But more correctly: The fact that I use the word "hand" and all the other words in my sentence without a second thought, indeed that I should stand before the abyss if I wanted so much as to try doubting their meanings -- shows that absence of doubt belongs to the essence of the language-game, that the question "How do I know" drags out the language-game, or else does away with it.

Knowledge is in the end based on acknowledgement. Our knowledge forms an enormous system. And only within this system has a particular bit the value we give it. Certain propositions seem to underlie all questions and all thinking. Doesn't the whole language-game rest on this kind of certainty? Or: isn't this "certainty" (already) presupposed in the language-game? Namely by virtue of the fact that one is not playing the game, or is playing it wrong, if one does not recognize objects with certainty.

Something must be taught us as a foundation. When a child learns language it learns at the same time what is to be investigated and what not. Doubt itself rests only on what is beyond doubt. A doubt without an end is not even a doubt. The child learns by believing the adult. Doubt comes after belief. If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the meaning of your words either. If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

These reflections make it clear that one must begin with a set of core beliefs in order to make judgments possible. If I say, "That is a red barn," the statement presupposes that I know what "red" means & what a "barn" might be, among other things. To evaluate my claim, you must also know what the words mean -- as well as the grammar of the sentence. Even to doubt my claim requires that you take something for granted. "A doubt without an end is not even a doubt."

These insights, like those of Polanyi, Kuhn, Plantinga & others, revealed the failure of the Enlightenment project to establish human knowledge on neutral ground, on a blank slate. The Enlightenment presupposed that objective knowledge required neutral grounds -- and failed as a result.

Reasoning, then, does not begin with a blank slate. "Knowledge is in the end based on acknowledgement." We cannot begin reasoning, doubting & evaluating without a foundation taken to be true. We cannot argue without presupposing the truth of certain statements.

However, as we have seen, there is no agreement over which propositions should be regarded core beliefs or foundational truths. This turns out to be a problem for at least two reasons:

I think this is all great insight. I would also recommend Cardinal Newman's Grammar of Assent, that takes the same general approach to epistemology.

All knowledge, all reasoning, all judgment takes place within some framework. (LW: "Our knowledge forms an enormous system. And only within this system has a particular bit the value we give it.") And each system depends on certain core propositions. Some of these propositions may not be held explicitly -- they may be what Michael Polanyi called "tacit rules" but they form the basis of all our judgments.

However, there is obviously no agreement over which propositions should be regarded core beliefs or foundational truths. This lack of agreement turns out to be a problem for at least two reasons.

First, differences in identifying these core beliefs can alter the arrow of falsification, even among people who seem to share the same beliefs. Suppose that Burz & Kugash both believe that Sauron is a god & that the gods are immortal. Following the War of the Ring, they encounter convincing evidence that Sauron is dead. (A giant red eyeball on a pike, perhaps.)

"Agggk," says Burz, "Sauron is no god."

"Blasphemer!" replies Kugash, "All this proves is that some gods die."

So, even if we consider just two beliefs, it is unclear which proposition is falsified. (This problem undermines Popperian falsificationism.) In practice, people actually hold innumerable interconnected beliefs, and may reject or revise one of several beliefs in the face disconfirming evidence.

According to W.V.O. Quine, those beliefs that are less central to a "web of belief" are most subject to rejection or revision. Beliefs which are closer to the core in one's web of belief have more connections to other beliefs. Altering or removing those beliefs would have a larger impact on the web of belief, implying a larger shock to one's world-view. This tendency to revise beliefs that are less central to one's world-view Quine summarized as his "maxim of minimum mutilation."

One can see evidence of this tendency at work in areas relevant to our discussion. Over the last 50 or 60 years, theories of terrestrial, undirected abiogenesis have had a nasty habit of failing. (For example, I don't think anyone has offered an adequate answer for the problem of AMP synthesis.) One reaction to these difficulties might to abandon the naturalistic assumptions of such a model & embrace some variety of theism. Another would be to posit aliens who seeded the rest of the universe with life. The latter position was actually adopted by Francis Crick (who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the double-helix structure of DNA) though he later recanted.

Second, the lack of agreement in core beliefs means that evidence is subject to evaluation by standards that vary from one world-view to the next. Differences in core beliefs include disagreements in epistemology (the theory of knowledge) as well as disagreements in metaphysics (the theory of reality) & ethics.

One may consider, for example, the differences between G.W.F. Hegel & David Hume. Hegel represents a strain of thought that emphasizes continuity & unity, in which statements are merely provisional. Logical analysis means interacting a thesis with an antithesis, an interaction that is resolved in a synthesis, moving us from one unstable equilibrium to a new & higher level of unstable equilibrium.

Hume, of course, is a more familiar figure, representing a strain of thought with a discreteness orientation that emphasizes contrast. Logical progress involves a once-for-all sorting of propositions in which claims are determined to be "consistent" or else "contradictory."

But now imagine that we resurrect Hume & Hegel so that they can sort out their differences. How will they go about it? The problem, of course, is that they can't even agree on how to resolve their dispute. Hume complains that Hegel doesn't make clear distinctions ("I don't even know what you're saying") while Hegel complains that Hume "falsifies the whole" by focusing on just a little piece of the truth.

The poor guys can't even agree on which metaphors to use. Hegel is constantly comparing things to a bud which becomes a blossom which becomes a flower. Hume, on the other hand, pictures the universe as a billiards table, with discrete object interacting with another discrete object.

Other divisions are just as deep. A conversation between, for example, Immanuel Kant & Soren Kierkegaard would quickly bog down. Kant would complain that Kierkegaard was to involved & couldn't be detached enough to answer the question. Kierkegaard would reply that Kant was a mere spectator & could not really understand the question because he didn't experience it. Conceptually, neither would speak in a language the other could understand.

The conflicts between these different world-views cannot be settled in the same way that we settle questions about the price of eggs at the grocery store. The parties to the debate cannot even agree on the standards to use in answering simple questions. The debate between the Christian & the atheist threatens to devolve into that kind of stalemate.

Is there another way to answer the question?

I can't find anything where we would disagree significantly enough to make a comment!

“We know more than we can tell.”

~Michael Polanyi

“Our knowledge forms an enormous system. And only within this system has a particular bit the value we give it.”

~Ludwig Wittgenstein

In Part One, I observed that, despite claims to the contrary, there is an abundance of evidence for the existence of God. However, theists & atheists disagree on how to evaluate the evidence. As an example, I argued that the Big Bang is evidence for the existence of God — but only within a more or less theistic world-view. The presuppositions of the committed atheist cause him to insist that non-theistic explanations should be preferred.

I disagree here. I think that both theist and atheist can utilize science as we know it to determine that the Big Bang makes it just as rational and plausible to believe in God as to not do so. It can't absolutely prove there is a God, but it can bring one to a place to see that this belief is a better explanation for the universe than any other: and that based on science alone before one even gets to philosophy per se.

I further developed this theme with the examples of Intelligent Design. Life on Earth displays evidence of design or not based on one’s presuppositions. Atheists presuppose a world without design & interpret individual cases in light of that governing presupposition. Christians & believing Jews presuppose a world guided according to a larger purpose, and interpret individual cases accordingly.

I would say (because I love both these arguments and consider them powerful theistic evidences) that the atheist explanation of design is thoroughly incoherent and makes no sense. It is implausible in the extreme, and normally if we feel that way about an argument then we should be very cautious in our claims about it. Thus, the atheist, lacking any plausible alternative explanation of Design, ought to be honest with himself (from his own presuppositions of naturalistic science, etc.) and admit that the theistic explanation is at the very least no less rational or plausible than what he believes. This is how I apply these arguments in my own apologetic. And I have debated both scientists and professional philosophers in these areas.

Likewise, atheists reject historical accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus as inaccurate or unreliable or fanciful because they believe that no reliable account could record a clear evidence of a man rising from the dead. Given their presuppositions, men do not rise from the dead.

Exactly. Their premise is anti-supernaturalism (that being the case; obviously they would reject the Resurrection out of hand). They rule out the miraculous before they begin. And so one must attack their premise and show that it is untenable.

On Christian presuppositions, there is no reason that God should not raise men from the dead when it suits his purpose. The historical evidence thus confirms the divine role & power of Jesus of Nazareth — on Christian presuppositions.

Sure.

In Part Two, I tried to explain these differences of interpretation in terms of conflicting set of presuppositions. In particular, I highlighted the necessary nature of presuppositions. All reasoning, even all doubting, begins with presuppositions. The idea that we shouldn’t presuppose anything turns out to be a misguided presupposition.

I couldn't agree more. Like I said, as a Socratic in method, I very much resonate with this emphasis, because the Socratic is constantly critiquing premises in opponents.

In Part Three, I argued that all world-views, atheist or not, are insulated against empirical falsification, since beliefs on the outer fringes of the web of belief can be sacrificed to preserve core presuppositions. Moreover, disagreements between world-views face the challenge arising from radically different standards of proof & knowledge.

Yep.

So, where exactly does that leave us? Presuppositions are necessary to thought, reason, doubt, & argumentation, manifesting themselves at the outset of our inquiries. They shape our interpretation of empirical data, & guide our choice of questions, analogies, & modes of proof. Conversation across radically different world-views is akin to two people speaking completely different languages.

Is there no possibility of discourse? I want to suggest that there is a rational way to resolve these differences…

As seen, I agree with most of this. I think our differences would come down to mostly disagreement on the place of natural theology and the traditional theistic arguments.

Thanks for the input. What you have presented is great food for thought for my readers.

Ecumenical Video Common Ground to Air on TBN: 14 July 2007

I wrote about this dynamite presentation and ecumenical effort in an earlier post, because I am the author of the Study Guide that will soon be available for the video. If you are at all interested in ecumenism and Protestant-Catholic dialogue and unity, watch this. I guarantee that you won't be disappointed, and will be greatly edified.

5 PM Eastern Standard Time

4PM Central

3 PM Mountain

2 PM Pacific

Here is an honest conversation between two deeply committed men of faith, an Evangelical pastor and a Catholic priest, about their shared faith in Jesus Christ. I recommend this resource to all who are interested in Christian unity, in keeping with a prayer of Jesus himself that his disciples be one as he and the Father are one, so that the world may believe.

--Timothy George, Dean, Beeson Divinity School
Christianity Today, Senior Editor

An astonishingly honest, lucid, and winsome conversation about what unites and divides Catholics and Protestants. Father Riccardo and Pastor Andrews exemplify the kind of encounter made possible and necessary by the fact that we are, in the words of "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," 'brothers and sisters in Christ.'

--Rev. Richard John Neuhaus
Editor in Chief, First Things

"Informed Brother" Kevin Johnson is Laughing "His Head Off" Over The One-Minute Apologist

[source]

I should have seen this coming, but I admit it caught me by surprise. I get blasted all the time for writing lengthy posts and supposedly saying nothing in them, or being a sophist, etc. ad nauseum. Now, "Reformed Catholic" Kevin Johnson goes to the other extreme and blasts me for writing a book with two-page entries. The underlying assumptions Kevin must have in order to reduce a book (likely not read at all) to a laughingstock are so absurd that I need not even delve into those in order to shoot them down. A few moments' reflection will disabuse anyone of such foolish notions.

So what am I supposed to do? Perhaps I should take a survey of all the intelligent, serious, wise Christians out there like Kevin Johnson, so that I can get the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for word length? I'll just send out a thousand or so surveys and average them out and then stick religiously to how many words the average turns out to be? Don't wanna have too many or too few words!!! But if I check with Kevin first, then maybe I can produce yet another bestselling book that (as an extra bonus) won't have people laughing their heads off from the east to the west.

Ironically, the book wasn't even my idea in the first place. Like my last one, The Catholic Verses, the origination of the concept for the book was entirely from my publisher, Sophia Institute Press. Anyway, here is Kevin's ultra-charitable "review" of my book (and you thought James White's hit piece "review" lacked substance?), complete with an accompanying Avril Lavigne video that is supposed to have some relation to what I do:

When I see things on the Internet by Roman Catholic Internet apologists like the “One Minute Apologist”–what can an informed brother do other than just laugh his head off? I mean, really.

I continue to draw from pop culture to illustrate the absurdity of such an approach–as if this would ever convince anyone who is familiar with the relevant issues let alone handle the issues in question with any sort of respect for other opinions or even the truth of the matter. When you’ve got someone in your face demanding that their way is the better way, that your current church is fraught with all sorts of problems, and that their church is the only answer to all your problems–’think you need a new one’? No, just play this Avril Lavigne song/video for them. It’s the same song, different verse.

[in comments]

The last thing we need is rabid apologists for any point of view. While my initial critique was leveled at certain Roman Catholic “Internet apologists”–it could just as easily be leveled at other partisan groups with similar goals (including Protestants and other non-Catholics)–out to convert the already converted.

The sort of (Roman) Catholic I learn from is one that participates in the broader wisdom of the Church over the ages in the Western world. The sort that doesn’t have to argue people into anything because the very gravitas of their view and life is centered in the wisdom that the Church has provided her children over the centuries through a strong Western and Christocentric view of all things.

Since Kevin wants to play games with videos, I thought I would provide a little something to think about, too: Bob Dylan reciting his poem in honor of Woody Guthrie (from around 1963):

Biblical Evidence (Suggested by Protestants Like Jonathan Edwards) For Saints in Heaven Being Aware of Earthly Events

(John Piper is a very well known Reformed Baptist pastor)

Anti-Catholic Baptist apologist James White has sought to deny that saints ion heaven are aware of earthly happenings, by denying that Hebrews 12:1 ("surrounded by a cloud of witnesses") has anything to do with this notion, and dismissing any contention that the souls who pray under the altar (Revelation 6:9-10) are aware of what happens on earth. I have responded to him already. In his latest "reply" to my new book, The One-Minute Apologist, White reiterates, in his comment on Revelation 6:9-10 (bolding added):

These are martyrs "who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained." It is easy to see the role these play in the text: the Christians to which the book is being sent by God are undergoing just this kind of persecution. Their cry to God is simple: how long will justice be delayed in avenging their deaths? The response is that they are given white robes (evidently they didn't need a trip through purgatory before being pure), and they are told to wait a little while longer. There was a certain number of martyrs yet to be made (hard to read this without seeing God's sovereignty, for, "blessed in the sight of God is the death of His saints"), and they are to wait until that time is completed.

Now, this is the contextual meaning of the passage. Where does Hahn, and by extension, Armstrong, get all the rest of these assertions? Where is the evidence that these souls have knowledge of current events on earth? Where is the evidence that they have communication with anyone on earth? They are not aware of events on earth; and to say they have "foreknowledge" of the future is to say nothing more than they know God is just and will punish sin, which, of course, means we all have foreknowledge of the very same kind. They are informed about the fact that there will be more martyrs, they do not have this information naturally (which they would have known were they observing events on earth).

. . . Ironically, the Roman Catholic apologist, who so often refers to "private interpretation" as all you can have as a Protestant, has nothing more himself, in fact. And when we examine his use of Scripture, we find it strained, even tortured, and anything but compelling.

Today I have found some interesting material that would contradict this understanding, from various Protestants. Well-known Protestant activist and prolific author Randy Alcorn, for example, writes with great insight on this question:

6. In heaven, we will be aware of at least some of what is happening on earth.

Another controversial concept, yet again the Bible confirms it:

a. The martyrs in heaven appear to know what is still happening on earth (Rev. 6:9-11).

b. When Babylon is brought down, an angel points to events happening on earth and says "Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you" (Rev. 18:20). Since he specifically addresses them, the clear implication is that the saints in heaven are watching and listening to what is happening on earth.

c. There is "the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting Hallelujah" and praising God for specific events of judgment that have just taken place (Rev. 19:1-5). Again, the saints in heaven are clearly observing what is happening on earth.

d. When heaven's saints return with Christ to set up his millennial kingdom (Rev. 19:11-14), it seems strange to think they would have been ignorant of the culmination of human history taking place on earth. The picture of saints in heaven blissfully unaware of what is transpiring on earth, where God and his angels (and they themselves) are about to return for the ultimate battle in the history of the universe, after which Christ will be crowned king, contradicts clear indications in the context. But even apart from such indications, this notion of heavenly ignorance seems ludicrous.

e. When brought back to earth from heaven, Samuel was aware of what Saul had been doing and what he'd failed to do on earth (1 Sam. 28:18). Unless he was specially "briefed" on this, it follows he must have been already aware of it.

f. When called from heaven to the transfiguration on earth, Moses and Elijah talked with Jesus about his death about to happen in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). They seem aware of the context they stepped into, of what was transpiring on earth.

g. Hebrews 12:1 tells us to "run the race marked out for us," creating the mental picture of the Greek competitions which were watched intently by throngs of engrossed fans, sitting high up in the ancient stadiums. The "great cloud of witnesses" he speaks of are clearly the saints who've gone before us, whose accomplishments (some of them recorded in the previous chapter) on the playing field are now past. The imagery seems to suggest those saints, the spiritual "athletes" of old, are now watching us and cheering us on from the stands of heaven. (The witnesses are said to "surround" us, not merely to have preceded us.)

h. The unfolding drama of redemption, awaiting Christ's return, is currently happening on earth. Earth is center court, center stage, awaiting the consummation of Christ's return and the setting up of his kingdom. Logically, this seems a compelling reason to think those in heaven might see what is happening on the earth. If in heaven we will be concerned with what God is concerned with, and his focus is on the spiritual battle on earth, why would we not witness his works there?

i. Christ, in heaven, watches closely what transpires on earth, especially in the lives of God's people (Rev. 2-3). If the Sovereign God's attentions are on earth, why wouldn't those of his heavenly subjects be? When a great war is transpiring, is anyone in the home country uninformed and unaware of it? When a great drama is taking place, do those who know the writer, producer and cast-and have great interest in the outcome-refrain from watching?

j. Angels saw Christ on earth (1 Tim. 3:16). There are clear indications angels know what is happening on earth (Luke 1:26; 1 Cor. 11:10). If angels, why not saints? Don't the people of God in heaven have as much vested interests in the spiritual events happening on earth as do angels?

k. Christ said "there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine who do not need to" (Luke 15:7). Similarly, "there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:10). Who is doing this rejoicing in heaven, in the presence of angels? Doesn't it logically include the saints in heaven, who would of all people appreciate the joy and wonder of human conversion? (If they rejoice over conversions happening on earth, then obviously they must be aware of what is happening on earth.)

7. In heaven, saints will pray to God and ask things of him, and perhaps intercede for those on earth.

a. Christ, the God-man, is in heaven interceding for people on earth (Rom. 8:34). In at least one case, then, a person who has died and gone to heaven is now praying for those on earth. The martyrs in heaven in Rev. 6:10 pray to God, asking him to take specific action on earth. They are praying for God's justice on the earth, which may have intercessory implications for their brethren now suffering on earth. The sense of connection and loyalty to and concern for the body of Christ of which saints in heaven are part with the saints on earth, would likely be enhanced by being in heaven, not eliminated by it (Eph. 3:15). In any case, we know these are saints who have died, now in God's presence, actively praying concerning what is happening on earth.

b. Prayer is simply talking to God. Angels can talk to God, and therefore angels pray. We will communicate with God in heaven, and therefore we will pray in heaven, presumably more than we do now, not less. Our prayers will be effective given our righteous state (James 5:16).

c. The burden of proof lies on those who would argue saints in heaven cannot or do not pray for those on earth. On what biblical basis would we conclude this?

Rev. 5:8 speaks of the "prayers of the saints" in a context that may include saints in heaven, not just on earth. In any case, if saints are allowed to see some of what transpires on earth, and clearly they are, then it would seem strange for them not to intercede for them. (While we are not told angels pray for people, neither are we told they do not.)

It's a question of assumptions. If we assume heaven is a place of ignorance of or disinterest in earth, then we will naturally assume those in heaven couldn't or wouldn't pray for people here. In contrast, if we believe it is a place of interest in and observation of God's program and people on earth, and where the saints and angels talk to God, then we would naturally assume they do pray to God for those on earth. This is my assumption.

("Rethinking Our Beliefs About Heaven"; see his related article, entitled Awareness in Heaven of Events on Earth?)

James White loves the great American Protestant theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). For example:

Getting to Know Jonathan Edwards

When I was in seminary I had the wonderful opportunity of writing a paper on the theology of Jonathan Edwards on the sovereignty of God. It was one of the most exciting studies I did at that time. The "Edwards" field is huge, with many modern writers and speakers addressing the topic.

. . . brilliant, godly, Scripturally sound men like Edwards, or Spurgeon, or Warfield . . . [ link ]

I think this represents a scandalous lack of understanding of the deeper, more meaningful works of Calvin, Edwards, the entire body of the Puritans, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Warfield and any number of modern writers. [ link ]

Is it not very clear that the reason we produce Spurgeons and Edwards and Bunyans and the like is because we have a fundamentally different view of Scripture? [ link ]

Men like Spurgeon and Edwards and Warfield and Machen and Sproul, defenders of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the crucifixion . . . [ link ]

The gospel preached by the Reformers, the gospel of Paul preached wit h such power by men like Edwards and Spurgeon. [ link ]

I feel like reading some Edwards or Spurgeon or something just to wash my mental mouth out . . . [ link ]

But Jonathan Edwards would wholeheartedly agree with me on this general point of awareness of saints in heaven, of the earth, and disagree with James White:

There can be no doubt but that the saints in heaven shall see the flourishing and prosperity of the church on earth; for how can they avoid it, when they shall be with the King himself, whose kingdom this church is, and who as King manages all those affairs? Shall the royal family be kept in ignorance of the success of the affairs of the kingdom?

. . . doubtless they are not ignorant of the flourishing of the church here on earth.

. . . why should their knowledge of the affairs of Christ's kingdom on earth cease, as soon as Christ was ascended?

The saints in heaven are under infinitely greater advantages to take the pleasure of beholding how Christ's kingdom flourishes than if they were here upon earth . . . They can see the wise connection of one event with another . . .

(Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. VIII, pp. 540-541)

White can dismiss, if he likes, my exegetical and theological arguments as the raving of an unregenerate, ignorant Catholic apostate (that's what he thinks of me), but surely he can't dismiss Jonathan Edwards so easily.

My Biblical Passages Supporting Communion of Saints: Anti-Catholics Again Show a Dense Inability to Grasp Elementary Logic as Applied to Exegesis

"Mr. Incredible": one of the logical and exegetical giants that populate
anti-Catholic Douglas Mabry's Gojira's Stomping Ground blog.

I never cease to be amazed by anti-Catholic tunnel vision and irrationality. These people frequently miss the most elementary logical and exegetical distinctions, but then turn around and accuse Catholics of the stupidity that is actually descriptive of what they are doing, since their very response literally proves that they failed to grasp the argument made by the Catholic in the first place.

Recently I showed that this was very much the case with even the renowned anti-Catholic apologist James White (whose anti-Catholic polemics are supposedly so invulnerable and unanswerable), who (deliberately or not) distorted my arguments for invocation of saints and presented a pathetic caricature of my very argument to mock and "refute." He was guilty of basic, fundamental logical errors.

In an even more striking and humorous instance of the same shortcoming, Douglas Mabry (aka "Gojira") -- quite possibly -- based on circumstantial evidence -- the author of the notorious "fake blog" done in my name a few years back -- and some of his friends committed the same basic mistakes in reviewing my response to White. I suggest that in the future they try a bit harder to understand and grasp opponents' actual argument before setting out to mock it and making fools of themselves.

But if an anti-Catholic insists on making himself look ridiculous (by no means an infrequent event), I can do little or nothing to stop it except to write posts like this exposing their manifest follies, in dim hopes that they will benefit from reflection on their mistakes and learn their lesson.

First of all, as a preliminary, let me explain again the logical structure of biblical arguments in favor of the communion of saints and invocation of the saints in heaven. I did some of this in my response to White because he often couldn't comprehend exactly what I was arguing for with a
particular argument and often confused my method and purpose, in his rush to show how supposedly "unbiblical" my arguments were, and how allegedly (logically) circular:

1. We ought to pray for each other (much biblical proof).

2. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects (James 5:16-18).

3. Therefore it makes eminent sense to ask more righteous people to pray for us (implied in same passage).

4. Dead saints are more alive than we ourselves are (e.g., Mt 22:32).

5. Dead saints are aware of what happens on the earth (Heb 12:1 etc.), and indeed, are portrayed as praying for us in heaven (Rev 6:9-10).

6. Dead saints are exceptionally, if not wholly, righteous and holy, since they have been delivered from sin and are present with God (21:27, 22:14).

7. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible and wise to ask them to pray on our behalf to God.

In my refutation of White's "review" of my book, The One-Minute Apologist (section on communion of saints), a closely related issue came up that often does in such criticisms: whether God desires contact at all between those on earth and those in heaven (a larger category than simply invocation of the saints). This is a presuppositional issue that is related to invocation of the saints. The mini-argument would run as follows:

A. God desires contact between those in heaven and those on earth (this is a prior, or hidden assumption lying behind #7 above).

B. A is a necessary prerequisite for the notion of invocation or intercession of the saints. In other words, if A is untrue, then B also will be, since B is a sub-group or subset of A.

Note, then, that to support A with biblical examples, as I did, is not at all the same as supporting the full-blown doctrine of the invocation of the saints. Far from it. It is only supporting the necessary prior premise or antecedent premise. This is a fundamental logical distinction. James White expressly denied A above, in these words:

[T]he prohibition of contact with the dead is specifically in the context of people living on earth seeking to have contact with those who have "passed from this world"! This kind of argumentation leaves the prohibition of contact with the dead meaningless and undefined.

This can be annihilated with one biblical example, from St. Peter, who contacted the dead when He raised Tabitha, saying, "Tabitha, rise" (Acts 9:36-41). Who was he talking to? Well, Tabitha, of course: a dead person! You can't get much more straightforward and plain than that. Therefore, the Bible offers explicit proof that we can have contact with the dead in a certain sense, essentially different from necromancy, use of mediums, and so forth. The opposite argument against invocation of saints, then, from this perspective, is as follows:

X. God prohibits and forbids all contact between those in heaven and those on earth (passages against necromancy, occult arts, etc. are advanced as proof of this).

Y. X is a necessary prerequisite for the notion of invocation or intercession of the saints. Therefore, because X is untrue, Y is also untrue, since Y is a sub-group or subset of X. Case closed; there is no invocation of the saints, according to the Bible.

Besides the Tabitha example, I provided many more in my response, that would utterly contradict and overthrow the claim (White's claim, and that of most Protestants) of X:

A) 1 Samuel 28:12,14-15 (Samuel): the prophet Samuel appeared to King Saul to prophesy his death. The current consensus among biblical commentators (e.g., The New Bible Commentary, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary) is that it was indeed Samuel the prophet, not an impersonating demon (since it happened during a sort of seance with the so-called "witch or medium of Endor"). This was the view of, e.g., St. Justin Martyr, Origen, and St. Augustine, among others. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 6:19-20 reinforces the latter interpretation: "Samuel . . . after he had fallen asleep he prophesied and revealed to the king his death, and lifted up his voice out of the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people."

B) Matthew 17:1-3 (the Transfiguration: Moses and Elijah): . . . Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. (see also Mark 9:4 and Luke 9:30-31)

C) Matthew 27:52-53 (raised bodies after the crucifixion): . . . the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

D) Revelation 11:3,6 (the "Two Witnesses"): And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days . . . they have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall . . . and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague . . .

These two witnesses are killed (11:7-9), were raised after "three and a half days" and "stood up on their feet" (11:11), and then "went up to heaven in a cloud" (11:12). Many Church Fathers thought these two were Enoch and Elijah, because both of them didn't die; thus this would explain their dying after this appearance on earth. Some Protestant commentators think the two witnesses are Moses and Elijah, because of the parallel to the Transfiguration, and also similarities with the plagues of Egypt and the fact that Elijah also stopped the rain for three-and-a-half years (James 5:17).

We must conclude based on the above passages that contact between heaven and earth is God's will; otherwise He wouldn't have permitted it in these instances. The Catholic belief in more interconnection between heaven and earth cannot be ruled out as "unbiblical". One has to try other arguments to refute our beliefs in this regard.

With that background in mind, let's now examine how some anti-Catholics butcher my arguments, misrepresent them, and engage in a classic, downright quixotic example of flailing away against mere straw men:

First, let's take a look at a post ("A Quick Reply to the One Minute Man") from Douglas Mabry himself, who cites my biblical evidence of A-D above:

[in response to my refutation of White's "review"] Let’s take a quick look at his first. His major problem here is question begging. He is assuming something he actually didn’t offer any evidence of, which, of course, is building a case for invoking the intercession of the saints.

Nope. Absolutely not. I'm not question-begging in the slightest. I'm simply producing biblical data that contradicts the assertion of proposition X above (as opposed to trying to prove the whole notion of invocation of saints from this one passage and other related ones). X claims that God doesn't desire any contact between heaven and earth. The example of Samuel appearing contradicts that. I make my intention for this argument very clear in the way I introduced it:

But White is assuming here something that is quite unbiblical itself: the notion that God wants us to have no contact at all with those who have died. Why would he think this? I provided much evidence to the contrary in one of my papers:

So I guess Mabry suffers from poor reading comprehension and logical acumen, since I plainly laid it all out for the reader but he missed it.

What he does offer is if this was actually Samuel or not. That, however, is not the primary importance he should be concerning himself with in regards to this passage.

To the contrary, it is supremely important, because if a Protestant attempts to claim that this was not Samuel, but only an impersonating demon, then my argument (i.e., my actual one, not Mabry's twisted caricature) would be undercut. Therefore, it is relevant to establish that it was literally Samuel the prophet, appearing to Saul.

He first needs to establish whether or not it is even ok for Saul to seek the consultation of the dead or not. Consulting the dead is condemned in the Law, as is witchcraft and necromancy.

I don't need to "establish that because I already believe it. I condemned the occultic sort of "consultation of the dead" in the very section of my book that White was critiquing, that I cited in my reply under consideration. It's not at issue. What Catholics are saying is that not all "contact with the dead, or those in heaven" is of the same nature as this prohibited sort. Anti-Catholics usually assume that the occultic type of "contact" is a category that takes in all conceivable contact whatsoever. But it is not.

Dave Armstrong is either unaware of, or completely disregards, the witness of the Law in this matter. It does not take a brain surgeon to see that. In fact, that would be the first thing that anyone remotely familiar with the scriptures would point out.

This is where the humorous and dense, obtuse nature of this critique starts to become quite apparent (and it only gets worse, folks), since I dealt with this very thing in the same reply that Mabry is critiquing. So now he is mocking me for being a fool and an idiot because I supposedly am "unaware of" the very thing that I expressly address and condemn in the same paper! A curious methodology indeed . . . One is forced, then, to conclude either that:

1) Douglas Mabry did not read my reply in its entirety,

or

2) Douglas Mabry is deliberately lying about me when he writes asinine things like this that are disconnected from reality.

As I always extend the benefit of charity, I opt for #1: Mabry doesn't bother to read what he is critiquing (which is silly and absurd enough, of course). Here is what I cited from my book again, since Mabry obviously missed it the first time around:

A Protestant Might Further Object:

It is not clear how these Catholic practices are any different from the séances, magic, witchcraft, and necromancy forbidden by the Bible. When you come down to it, Catholics are still messing around with dead spirits.

The One-Minute Apologist Says:

Catholics fully agree that these things are prohibited, but deny that the Communion of Saints is a practice included at all in those condemnations.

The difference is in the source of the supernatural power and the intention. When a Christian on earth asks a saint to pray for him (directly supported by the biblical indications above), God is the one whose power makes the relationship between departed and living members of the Body of Christ possible. The medium in a séance, on the other hand, is trying to use her own occultic powers to “conjure up” the dead -- opening up the very real possibility of demonic counterfeit. Catholics aren’t “conjuring” anyone; we’re simply asking great departed saints to pray for us. If they are aware of the earth, then God can also make it possible for them to “hear” and heed our prayer requests. If this weren’t the case, then saints and angels in heaven wouldn’t be portrayed as they are in Scripture: intensely active and still involved in earthly affairs.

(p. 121)

Merely introducing this passage in the way Armstrong has is as desperate as it is humorous.

I'm willing to let readers make their own decision whether the humor and desperation here originates with me or with Doug Mabry.

Comments under this post are equally dense and obtuse and out to sea:

"Scribe": Dave Armstrong's "One Minute" apologies are more like light years of sychophantic [sic] discourses . . . it is funny how Dave tries to impose a methodological prescription out of wicked King Saul's reprehensible act of necromancy...that brother is "reaching".

Gordan illustrates the same exact logical fallacy I have highlighted above: On the Mount of Transfiguration, the most that is proved is that Moses and Elijah are "alive to God" as you said in the post. Again, the question is begged: if the old saints are alive, heck, it must be okay to pray to them. But nothing could be plainer: this passage says not a scribble at all about praying to saints. It doesn't even hint at it.

Exactly! DUH!!!!! Never said that it did . . . see the above explanations of how the larger biblical argument works, and the function and scope of this particular sub-argument.

Emboldened by Mabry's profound critique, "Mr. Incredible" (see photo above) writes a guest post that is likewise filled with marvels of illogical thinking. He cites my use of the Mount of Transfiguration passage, then Gordan's comment on it, and writes:

Amen. One would be hard pressed to find anywhere in the text where either Moses or Elijah spoke anything at all to Peter, John, or James.

That's irrelevant to my argument, which had to do solely with "contact between heaven and earth". But even if the point were relevant, in my other three references to similar events, there is much communication: Samuel talks to Saul, the Two Witnesses in Revelation preach and testify, and the bodies raised from the dead after the Crucifixion "appeared to many" (and it is quite reasonable to assume they spoke and communicated, rather than just walking around like a bunch of deaf and dumb zombies or Frankenstein).

And of course, the opposite is true as well -- you do not see either Peter, John or James approaching Moses or Elijah. It is kind of a Duh thing to build a case for prayers to the saints using this passage when Peter, John, or James didn't actually asked [sic] anything or converse with Moses or Elijah to begin with.

See my logical explanation at the beginning of my post. It's passing ridiculous and ludicrous to accuse me of making stupid "duh" arguments, when the person making the charge doesn't have a clue as to what I was actually arguing for in this instance. Again, we have dirt-poor reading and logical prowess exhibited in spades (pun half-intended).

Scribe then returns for another shot in the dark. He goes after my use of Matthew 27:52-53 (dead bodies rising and walking around):

How one can extrapolate any form of prescription as a modus operandi for communion with the dead from this passage is beyond me.

Me too! Shows the same stupefaction in elementary logical matters . . . There is nothing like a person who is, in fact, ignorant and/or grossly misinformed about something, thinking he is wiser than someone else whom he mistakenly portrays as an ignoramus and mocks and pillories, with condescension. It's equal parts sad and hilarious, as so much of anti-Catholicism.

One would have to foist upon it a prejudicial theological bias foreign to its contextual basis.

Indeed one would if they were to actually argue as the caricature presented here suggests.

[omitted comment having nothing particularly to do with my argument]

Bottom line: this verse has nothing to with Armstrong's eisegetical assertions that would posit a position in favor of his view...

All it has to do with is a refutation of assertion X, noted above. No more, no less.

Armstrong ultimately butchers the Matthew 27:52,53 to arrive at a conclusion that is simply not there . . .

Is that so? Repetition is a great teacher. So let's now go over for the third time what I claimed for the text, and ask whether this was unreasonable or controversial to the slightest degree:

My claim for the passage I cite:

"But White is assuming here something that is quite unbiblical itself: the notion that God wants us to have no contact at all with those who have died."

Passage cited as counter-evidence for White's denial and evidence for my assertion:

Matthew 27:52-53: . . . the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Perhaps these critics can tell me: how does Matthew 27:52-53 contradict in the slightest the claim I actually made for it (as opposed to the imaginary, mythical things these guys wrongly believe that I made)? I don't see how it is even arguable. About all that White and these anti-Catholic cronies of his might be able to do with this is sophistically argue that God doesn't want us to seek contact with dead saints, but does, however, initiate such contact Himself in extraordinary instances and situations (i.e., to somehow distinguish the two as completely different in essence, with one being "bad" and the other "good").

But that breaks down, too, because Peter deliberately initiated contact with the dead Tabitha, when he talked to her and told her to rise from the dead. That is not rebuked anywhere in the Bible (where, alas, was James White to rebuke Pope Peter when he needed to be rebuked and upbraided for his "unbiblical" practices?).

And it is implausible anyway to say that, on the one hand, God doesn't want us to contact the dead, when it is a plain fact that He Himself caused it to happen on at least four occasions, exactly the sort of "contact" that is (morally) indistinguishable from instances of our initiating contact. In other words, the following association of propositions and events do not exactly fit together with all that much coherence:

1. God wants no one to initiate contact with dead saints.

1A. Yet He sent the dead Samuel to rebuke Saul for his sins.

1B. Yet He sent Moses and Elijah to meet with Jesus on a mountain, in plain sight of Peter, James, and John.

1C. Yet He allowed dead bodies of the departed to resurrect and walk around Jerusalem appearing to many after the Crucifixion.

1D. Yet He will send at the end of the age the Two Witnesses referred to in Revelation (thought by many commentators to be either Moses and Elijah or Enoch and Elijah) to talk to many people for three-and-a-half years (!!!).

This is, technically, an argument from plausibility, not absolutely necessary logical connections (imagine how our anti-Catholic friends will distort this if I don't spell it out from the outset), but it still has considerable force. I would say that if #1 above were indeed true, as White and Mabry and anti-Catholics assume and assert, it would be (arguably or speculatively) implausible for God to allow 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D to occur, as they send a message quite arguably at odds with proposition #1.

To illustrate by analogy, it would be like saying, as a parent, "children shouldn't seek to have ice cream, because that is an altogether evil thing, and therefore forbidden by parents." But then the same parent gives the children ice cream twice a week. Would it really make sense to claim that it was evil for the children to seek an "evil" thing, while the parents themselves provide the "evil" thing themselves, that they told the children never to seek, on grounds that it was wicked to do so? Is that not a radically mixed message, and a bit incoherent?

Likewise, in the present case. Therefore, there is an indirect relation between these events and invocation of saints. But I only claim as much as I originally did: this biblical evidence unarguably, indisputably disproves the claim that God wants no such contact or communication at all.

--no different than the Charismatics misinterpretation and appropriation of the book of Acts to spuriously support their wild-eyed conceptions about the function of the Holy Spirit.

This is no argument, but merely a poor attempt at guilt-by-association.

More can be touched on regarding my misgivings concerning the interpretation offered by Armstrong but this is supposed to be a "quick reply" to Mr. Armstrong. ;-)

I'm sure much more could be written. But will it make any sense at all? That's the obvious question, having seen the atrocious, pathetic "arguments" offered thus far. I struggled with whether I should give these "critiques" the dignity of any reply at all, but they were such classic cases of anti-Catholic lack of comprehension of Catholic arguments, and thoroughly illogical thinking, that I simply couldn't resist.

Watch to see if our misguided anti-Catholic friends respond any further. Will they attempt to wiggle out of the trap they have set for themselves by logic (that I simply pointed out) and make a counter-argument to truly overcome mine, or will they simply mock and yuck it up amongst themselves, in back-slapping ignorant bliss, and pretend that nothing I have argued makes any more sense than their gibberish? You know which scenario I think is far more likely. :-)

I would urge my readers, though, not to just laugh at how lousy these "arguments" are (no one can fault you for doing that!), but to also incorporate the analysis of these "logical whoppers" into your approach when you run across anti-Catholics in the future. Always be on the lookout for these basic errors. What may appear to have some strength at first can quickly be turned around and shown to be completely fallacious and illogical.

* * *

These people frequently miss the most elementary logical and exegetical distinctions, but then turn around and accuse Catholics of the stupidity that is actually descriptive of what they are doing, . . .

One would be hard pressed to find just where I had called Catholics stupid. My reply, as well as those that followed, were directly to one person. This is Dave making a smoke screen by use of dishonesty. Can he point to any one place where I said Catholics are stupid?

Sure, I'd be happy to:

Dave Armstrong is either unaware of, or completely disregards, the witness of the Law in this matter. It does not take a brain surgeon to see that. In fact, that would be the first thing that anyone remotely familiar with the scriptures would point out.

Now, as usual with anti-Catholics, one must become legalistic and nitpickingly ridiculous to even waste one's time playing these word games. Like the JW who thinks he has a great argument by noting that the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible, Doug thinks that because he didn't use the word stupid, I am being dishonest in describing what he wrote with regard to myself in that way. But the remark above qualifies quite nicely: I'm so stupid I don't even know that the Bible condemns necromancy (even though I noted that in the same entry in my book that White criticized, and cited those words).

"It does not take a brain surgeon to see that." In other words, this is a sarcastic way of saying that anyone with any brains at all would know it (i.e., assuming that I am "remotely familiar with the scriptures"), so if I (allegedly) don't, well now, that makes me pretty stupid, doesn't it?, and it follows that I am not up on biblical teaching to the most elementary degree. Yet Doug objects to my describing these words as calling me "stupid" and indeed, accuses me of "dishonesty" in so arguing.

Indeed, I have taken a couple of rebukes (and rightly so) for being infantile in trashing Mr. Armstrong, but unless he is vain enough to equate himself as the totality of all Catholics, his dishonest antics are of an infantile level that I have not even descended.

Doesn't take long for anti-Catholics to locate nefarious motives and unsavory methods in any Catholic reply to their asinine nonsense.

This is how cunning Dave is.

Yes, gotta watch us clever, devious, "jesuitical" Catholics!

. . . and after naming me stupid in about three different ways . . .

In describing how you have densely mischaracterized and misunderstood my argument and have engaged in name-calling and claimed that I am being dishonest, I would describe that as "stupid" any day of the week, because sin is the stupidest thing one can do. I make no bones about calling that stupid, but you try to deny what you really think about Catholics (and myself as one of that species), and if I call you on it, then you immediately claim I am dishonest.

Get a life. I do admit that I was stupid to even respond to your puerile inanities in the first place, but I suppose there is some value in showing a typical example of anti-Catholic "argument."

* * *

And here is Doug's reply, amply confirming my opinion that it was foolish to deal with him at all (what else is new with anti-Catholics? Is it ever otherwise?):

What stupendious [sic], unrefutable [sic] response has Mr. Armstrong given my reply? Well, he simply has a meltdown: [then he cites my two paragraphs above as proof-positive of my supposed "meltdown"]

Coming Home Network Discussion Thread on The Catholic Verses

Some folks like the book. Thanks for reading and the encouragement and a little bit of extra advertising! Every little bit helps, to "bring home the bacon."

The Problem of Silly Priests (Fr. Paul Ward)

How many priests like this do you know?

Reply to James White's Review #2 of The One-Minute Apologist: The Communion of Saints

James White sanctioned rank idolatry by posting a picture of statues of "reformers" on the same day that he issued a critique of my book's discussion of communion of saints, and mocked statues of Mary and the saints.

* * *
As it turns out, James White has completely missed my dry humor above (which is all it was). He seems to think I was making an "argument". His words:

James White Promotes Worship of John Calvin!

...or so Dave Armstrong alleges this morning. As an example of his methodology of argumentation (which often includes the, "Oh, look at that issue over there that is completely irrelevant to the point at hand, isn't it interesting?" tactic), Armstrong's attempted response . . . begins by re-posting Dan Borvan's picture from Geneva of the "Reformation Wall" with this subtitle [cites the words above]. For this to be true, of course, it would have to follow that DA has evidence that Dan bowed down to these statues, lit candles to them, prayed to them, and sought the intercession of these men of God. Of course, Armstrong doesn't have that evidence, and, of course, Dan didn't do that, which only shows once again that Armstrong has no compunctions about constructing straw-men.

* * * * *

The Baptist Bishop James White has written his second installment of what appears to be an ongoing series of "reviews" of my latest book. I shall reply in full, with his words in blue.

* * * * *

Under the broad topic of Mary and the Saints, Armstrong attempts to defend Rome's doctrine of prayer to saints.


The correct description is "asking saints to pray, or intercede for us. They, in turn, go to God, Who answers the prayer (or doesn't, as the case may be, if His answer is "No"!). The title of the section on pp. 120-121 is entitled "Praying to saints is wrong" precisely because this is how Protestants describe what we do (since the book dealt with the objections as the starting-point of each reply). If a Catholic says "I prayed to Saint So-and-So" he means (unless he is ignorant of his faith) "I asked him to intercede"; so it is a question of semantics. Just to get that straight right off the bat . . . but 90% of anti-Catholics refer to the doctrine as "prayer to saints".

Once again, we find no evidence that he is interested in responding to the strongest objections to his position, but only to the weakest.

Actually, the point of the book is to deal with (as the subtitle indicates) "common Protestant claims". These may be weak or relatively strong (in my experience, almost invariably the former), but my task as an apologist trying to equip the Catholic with answers to objections, is to meet these objections, whatever they are strong or weak. So if they are weak but rather common, then the degree of weakness or strength is irrelevant to deciding whether to answer them or not.

White, therefore, inadvertently proves that the standard garden-variety anti-Catholic or contra-Catholic rhetoric is exceptionally weak, since the most common arguments from that sphere are pitiful as can be. But he is here to provide us all with "strong" objections, which I will be more than happy to shoot down as well. And (very unlike him) I will actually reply to and refute his objections whenever they are offered.

But despite this, even in responding to the weakest argumentation, the number of circular arguments and simply false assumptions is great indeed.

He can claim this all he wants, but demonstrating it is another matter entirely.

Armstrong rightly lays out the objection: "The Bible forbids communication with the dead. It also tells us there is only one mediator between God and men: Jesus." Exactly, and, if he has taken the time to listen at all, he knows that the vacuous, yet nigh unto universal, argument of Roman Catholic apologists regarding asking a friend to pray for you (this is somehow taken as having relevance to Jesus' role as the sole mediator between God and men).

I kept waiting for the end of the sentence to come; it is incomplete and ungrammatical. Because of that, I'll pass on comment for the moment, hoping he will clarify later in his "review".

The fact that Jesus role as mediator is essentially and necessarily different is lost on those who use this facile argumentation, for Christ has a grounds upon which to stand as a mediator that no one, including Mary, possesses.

No one is denying that, so it is irrelevant, and no point of contention between us.

This has been explained many times, but Roman apologists continue repeating their simplistic argument as if no one has ever responded to it.

We don't disagree that Jesus' mediatorship is absolutely unique and "essentially and necessarily different"; we are saying that asking a dead saint to pray is no different in essence than asking a living friend to pray for us or someone else. It is biblically-challenged Protestants who make the rather dumb objection that asking others to pray for us is the equivalent of denying that Jesus is sole mediator. That is where the dense incomprehension lies, and why we keep saying what we do, that White alludes to. The argument, then, boils down to establishing that asking a dead saint to pray is just as reasonable and biblical as asking a friend on this earth to pray. I think I have provided enough biblical support for the notion.

Armstrong's "one-minute" reply is that James 5:16-18 tells us that "the prayers of certain people are more effective than those of others." Of course, what James 5 tells us is that "the prayer of a righteous man has great power." From this, it seems, you can create a direct proportion statement, so that the saints, being perfected, have the greatest "prayer power co-efficient" possible.

Good; White shows that he at least comprehends my argument. That's a start. But as we'll see, he goes off into fallacy-land right away . . .

But please notice, there is nothing in James 5 about dead people praying for us. Nothing at all, in fact, just the opposite.

That's irrelevant to the argument. It only is relevant if one is claiming that this verse itself contains all the components of the Catholic doctrine of the communion of saints. I have not claimed that it does. It establishes the principle that lies behind why Catholics pray as they do. The Catholic chain of reasoning is as follows:

1. We ought to pray for each other (much biblical proof).

2. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects (James 5:16-18).

3. Therefore it makes eminent sense to ask more righteous people to pray for us (implied in same passage).

4. Dead saints are more alive than we ourselves are (e.g., Mt 22:32).

5. Dead saints are aware of what happens on the earth (Heb 12:1 etc.), and indeed, are portrayed as praying for us in heaven (Rev 6:9-10).

6. Dead saints are exceptionally, if not wholly, righteous and holy, since they have been delivered from sin and are present with God (21:27, 22:14).

7. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible and wise to ask them to pray on our behalf to God.

So James 5:16-18 only provides a portion of the entire biblical argument necessary (#2 and #3 above, with #1 implied as the background premise). Other biblical passages support propositions #4-6, with #7 following, based on James 5, provided that #4-6 are established on other biblical grounds. Therefore, it is a complete non sequitur for White to "object" that James 5 doesn't mention dead saints, because it was never my claim in the first place. It's based on his dumbfounded misunderstanding of how the argument works.

The example Armstrong relies on specifically says, "Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves." Yes, he was...and that likewise means he was alive!

Which is perfectly irrelevant, per the above, but (to get back to the land of relevance) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are "alive" too, according to Jesus (!!).

From this Armstrong recalls the examples of Abraham and Moses who interceded with God, which is, again, quite true. But it is likewise irrelevant since, obviously, they were both alive at the time of their intercession with God.

Another non sequitur, flowing from White's apparent inability to grasp how my argument is logically structured . . . this is so often frustratingly the case when dealing with Bishop White. But one gets used to it after so many years, like a spouse snoring or a child who lisps or whines. One must accept the deficiencies in others and exercise patience.

Then we have the statement,

If, then, the Blessed Virgin Mary were indeed sinless, it would follow (right from Scripture) that her prayers would have the greatest power, and not only because of her sinlessness but because of her status as Mother of God. So we ask for her prayers and also ask other saints, because they have more power than we do, having been made perfectly righteous (according to James 5:16-18).

You will remember that back in the days of the Reformation a common complaint made by the Reformers was that Rome's defenders were sophists, men who tried to look wise while promoting the most amazingly incoherent statements. Little has changed over the centuries. You take the statement that a righteous man's prayers have great power, which is said only of the living, transport this into another context, attach it to Mary (assuming her alleged sinlessness), and then "follows" "right from Scripture" (!!) that her prayers would have "the most power."

Again, the same incomprehension of how my argument works leads White to caricature it and present a twisted version of what my argument supposedly is in the first place, as something he then shoots down (the proverbial "straw man" of illogical argumentation). Also, it is true that here I assumed for the sake of argument that Mary was sinless:

If, then, the Blessed Virgin Mary were indeed sinless, it would follow . . .

Assuming things for the sake of argument means, in effect, saying, "I won't digress to argue that point at the moment [it's almost like a footnote], in the midst of this argument, because it is another topic; we will assume it here and argue it elsewhere." That is exactly what I did. In this book, my argument for Mary's sinlessness occurs in pages 108-109. I've defended that doctrine in much greater depth elsewhere in books and on my blog.

But note how White twisted and distorted the very nature of my argument. This is first-rate sophistry. He is accusing me of being the sophist, and of being incoherent. Yet what I did was completely coherent and therefore not sophistry at all. I assumed the hypothetical (Mary's sinlessness). I didn't argue it in this particular section (one can't digress when one has two pages to work with). But White completely blows it; he doesn't get it. Let me illustrate how he engages in this sophistry with a comparison. This is the structure of my actual argument:

1. The prayer of a righteous man has great power.

2. IF Mary is sinless [biblical arguments having been made elsewhere favoring this], it would follow that her prayers have the greatest power.

3. Assuming the hypothetical in #2 for the sake of argument, it follows "right from Scripture" that her prayers would have the most effect, based on the logical relationship of "more holy = more effective prayer" to "holiest of all = most effective prayer of all."

Now look at how White twists the very nature of my argument in order to mock and "refute" it:

1. The prayer of a righteous man has great power.

2. Assume that Mary is sinless (without argument, biblical or otherwise).

3. Assume ("right from Scripture") that her prayers have the greatest power.

4. Thus, the Catholic claim has no biblical support and is altogether incoherent and circular.

In other words, White wants to pretend that I am making an authoritative, dogmatic claim based on nothing at all. That's why he thinks my reasoning is circular: because he doesn't understand how the argument works in the first place. This recurrent logical deficiency in White's anti-Catholic apologetics (I've observed it countless times over twelve years) causes great flaws to appear in the very heart of his arguments. Anyway, what I was specifically referring to as "right from Scripture" was a purely logical relationship:

From the proposition:

"more holy = more effective prayer"

it follows that:

"holiest of all = most effective prayer of all."

That follows "right from Scripture." This is what I meant. I didn't assume Mary's sinlessness with no argument whatsoever. I assumed it in this context for the sake of argument, while providing arguments for her sinlessness elsewhere.

Then, you throw in the other saints, who now have more power (because the prayers of a living righteous man have great power), and tie it all up with another reference to James 5, and voila! the Roman position. Not compelling? Of course not. It really isn't meant to be. It is meant to have just enough appeal to it to keep the person who wants to believe it in a state of faith.

Of course it is not compelling because this is not the Catholic argument in the first place! It is a pathetic caricature of a stereotype of Catholic faith: what White mistakenly thinks that we teach, rather than what we actually believe.

This is then followed by the constant false appeal to inter-Christian prayers as if they are relevant. "Most Protestants are quite comfortable asking for prayers from other Christians on earth; why do they not ask those saved saints who have departed from the earth and are close to God in heaven? After all, they may have passed from this world, but they're certainly alive -- more than we are!" That sounds so nice, but it is double-talk. Passed from this world = dead to us. Alive to God? Of course. Spiritually alive? Completely. But the prohibition of contact with the dead is specifically in the context of people living on earth seeking to have contact with those who have "passed from this world"! This kind of argumentation leaves the prohibition of contact with the dead meaningless and undefined.

But White is assuming here something that is quite unbiblical itself: the notion that God wants us to have no contact at all with those who have died. Why would he think this? I provided much evidence to the contrary in one of my papers:

A) 1 Samuel 28:12,14-15 (Samuel): the prophet Samuel appeared to King Saul to prophesy his death. The current consensus among biblical commentators (e.g., The New Bible Commentary, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary) is that it was indeed Samuel the prophet, not an impersonating demon (since it happened during a sort of seance with the so-called "witch or medium of Endor"). This was the view of, e.g., St. Justin Martyr, Origen, and St. Augustine, among others. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 6:19-20 reinforces the latter interpretation: "Samuel . . . after he had fallen asleep he prophesied and revealed to the king his death, and lifted up his voice out of the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people."

B) Matthew 17:1-3 (the Transfiguration: Moses and Elijah): . . . Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. (see also Mark 9:4 and Luke 9:30-31)

C) Matthew 27:52-53 (raised bodies after the crucifixion): . . . the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

D) Revelation 11:3,6 (the "Two Witnesses"): And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days . . . they have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall . . . and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague . . .

These two witnesses are killed (11:7-9), were raised after "three and a half days" and "stood up on their feet" (11:11), and then "went up to heaven in a cloud" (11:12). Many Church Fathers thought these two were Enoch and Elijah, because both of them didn't die; thus this would explain their dying after this appearance on earth. Some Protestant commentators think the two witnesses are Moses and Elijah, because of the parallel to the Transfiguration, and also similarities with the plagues of Egypt and the fact that Elijah also stopped the rain for three-and-a-half years (James 5:17).

We must conclude based on the above passages that contact between heaven and earth is God's will; otherwise He wouldn't have permitted it in these instances. The Catholic belief in more interconnection between heaven and earth cannot be ruled out as "unbiblical". One has to try other arguments to refute our beliefs in this regard.

Sounds like, then, James White is the one making the circular arguments: assuming things but not proving them. I have made the biblical argument. Let him deal with Holy Scripture.

Further, there is a substantive, clear difference between asking a fellow believer to pray for you, and the prayers that are addressed to Mary and the saints. I have never asked anyone to save me from the wrath of Jesus, and yet that is what we read in this famous prayer:

O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou are more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.

Well, of course there is a difference between asking Mary, the Mother of God to pray for us and asking Pastor Doe or Grandma Smith. This is the whole point. We think Mary is the highest creature that God ever made. Everything she is, is because of God's free, unmerited grace. So her prayers are the most powerful of any human being. We could ask God for something, or we could ask Mary to ask God for the same thing. If indeed Mary is what we believe she is (sinless and God's highest creation) then clearly, her prayers would have far more effect than ours, based on James 5:16-18). That's precisely why we "go to her" instead of going right to God (but we can do that, too, anytime we want, and the Church doesn't require us at all not to approach God directly).

White cites this Marian devotion because he knows most of his readers (even more uninformed or misinformed than he is on such matters) will recoil with horror just as he does. But the properly informed Catholic understands the overall Christological context of Marian piety and Mariology.

I went through this fundamental spade work with two other anti-Catholics who wanted to go after St. Alphonsus Liguori by presenting a cynically selective, distorted view of what he taught. They would cite all the flowery language of Marian devotion while conveniently overlooking and not considering the many statements from the same saint about Jesus that are always assumed as lying behind the Marian expressions:

Does St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in The Glories of Mary, Teach That Mary is "Above God" and Can "Manipulate God"? (Corrections of Protestant Misunderstandings of Catholic Mariology) (vs. Len Lisenbee)

White's primary aim is always to play to his followers (preaching to the choir); to find the most "outrageous" things (i.e., from the warped anti-Catholic perspective) that will cause them to think that anyone who espouses such things is a nut and biblically illiterate; in spiritual darkness. But it is absurdly presented so selectively that it amounts to a half-truth, which is no better than a lie (in both a legal and logical sense).

If one doesn't understand the Christological emphasis behind Catholic Mariology (doesn't even try to do so), then one has no hope of understanding the Mariology itself. It's as simple as that. White sees to it that he never presents the full, balanced picture, because that would work against his purpose of making the Catholic look like a nutcase idolater who doesn't even know that Jesus is the one Who saves, etc., etc.

When Mr. Armstrong finds me bowing down in front of one of my fellow believers, rocking back and forth mouthing prayers while fingering a string of beads, and placing a lit candle before them, then we can talk about parallels.

One doesn't have to do that with living people (i.e., those still on earth with us, not having died), but plenty of folks bow down before the grave of a loved one, or at the place where they were killed in a car crash. People light candles in memory of people who died (look at, for example, what happened after the deaths of John Lennon and Princess Diana, or, for that matter, 9-11). I've seen many people kiss dead bodies in caskets. They are no longer there; it's just a dead body. So is that some abominable idolatry too? There are plenty of statues of people we regard as heroes.

Humorously enough, on the very same day that White issued this critique, he posted a picture of "the famed Reformation Wall'" in Geneva (see above): huge statues of "reformers" Farel, Calvin, Beza, and Knox. Statues honor the memory of people we admire for some reason or other. Otherwise, why have them at all (just for pigeon toilets?)? If White would get sufficiently biblical, he could bow before one of these statues and ask one of these men (represented by the statue, for a visual and devotional aid) to pray for him, too (assuming they are out of purgatory yet, and assuming they were granted the grace to even get to purgatory). After all, even John Calvin held that dead saints pray for us (Institutes, III, 20, 24), though he denied (without reason and against the evidence of Scripture) that they observed what happened on the earth or should be asked to pray.

I'd much rather see Mr. White rocking back and forth in a rocking chair with an introductory textbook to logic. Most of the prayers of the Rosary are straight from the Bible: the "Hail Mary" was uttered by an angel of God, Gabriel (Luke 1:28). The next part of the Rosary was uttered by Elizabeth, and recorded in Scripture (Luke 1:42). Would White counsel Christians to refrain from praying biblical prayers that came from the mouth of an angel and from Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist? That would be odd. But this is just another of White's tactics to divert attention from my actual apologetic that he is supposedly "refuting". For more on the Rosary, see my paper, Reply to Questions About Catholic Mariology (and the Rosary) From a Recent Convert (+ Discussion).

But then we find the paragraph that drew my attention to this section. I quote it in full:

If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power -- with plenty of supporting biblical evidence: 1) the "cloud of witnesses" that Hebrews 12:1 describes; 2) in Revelation 6:9-10, prayers are given for us in heaven from "saints"; 3) elsewhere in Revelation an angel possesses "prayers of the saints" and in turn presents them to God; 4) Jeremiah is described as one who "prays much for the people" after his death in 2 Maccabees 15:13-14. The saints in heaven are clearly aware of earthly happenings. If they have such awareness, it isn't that much of a leap to deduce that they can hear our requests for prayer, especially since the Bible itself shows that they are indeed praying.

(p. 121)

Let's examine this argumentation. First, the objection would be based upon a lack of biblical evidence, along with the positive biblical prohibition against contact with the dead.

We have seen how there is a quite permissible "contact with the dead" of some sort illustrated in the Bible, by four explicit, undeniable examples. I have condemned what is not permitted, right along with White, in the same section he is critiquing:

A Protestant Might Further Object:

It is not clear how these Catholic practices are any different from the séances, magic, witchcraft, and necromancy forbidden by the Bible. When you come down to it, Catholics are still messing around with dead spirits.

The One-Minute Apologist Says:

Catholics fully agree that these things are prohibited, but deny that the Communion of Saints is a practice included at all in those condemnations.

The difference is in the source of the supernatural power and the intention. When a Christian on earth asks a saint to pray for him (directly supported by the biblical indications above), God is the one whose power makes the relationship between departed and living members of the Body of Christ possible. The medium in a séance, on the other hand, is trying to use her own occultic powers to “conjure up” the dead -- opening up the very real possibility of demonic counterfeit. Catholics aren’t “conjuring” anyone; we’re simply asking great departed saints to pray for us. If they are aware of the earth, then God can also make it possible for them to “hear” and heed our prayer requests. If this weren’t the case, then saints and angels in heaven wouldn’t be portrayed as they are in Scripture: intensely active and still involved in earthly affairs.

(p. 121)

To reply, "Well, God is fully able to give them that power" is not, in fact a response. Of course God can do so. God has all power, and since that is not a point in dispute, this is a classic example of a red herring. If God had wanted to arrange things so that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces, and so that saints intercede on our behalf in a Christianized pantheon of gods in heaven, He could have done that. The question is not "does God have the power to do so," the question is "has God done so?"

There is indeed biblical evidence for this. The Bible plainly teaches us these things:

1. Dead saints are alive.

2. Dead saints are aware of earthly affairs.

3. Dead saints have specifically come back to earth and have had contact with human beings.

4. Dead saints pray for us in heaven.Those things are beyond dispute. They're explicitly biblical.

White seems to deny #4 ("saints intercede on our behalf in a Christianized pantheon of gods in heaven"). He describes this as an example of a red herring and denies that God has brought this state of affairs about. But he is contradicted by the explicit example of Revelation 6:9-10, that I cited in the very paragraph he noted in his own critique. It is a curious methodology that ignores explicit biblical proofs while wishfully fancying that there are none:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?"

As I explained in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 113-114):

Here the martyrs in Heaven are uttering what are known as "imprecatory prayers." These are not so much vengeful as they are a plea for, and recognition of, God's role as the wrathful Judge who will rescue and vindicate the righteous, either in this life or the next. Examples can be found particularly in the Psalms (35, 59, 69, 79, 109, 139) and in Jeremiah (11:18 ff., 15:15 ff., 18:19 ff., 20:11 ff.).

An angel offers up a very similar prayer in Zechariah 1:12. Jesus mentions a type of this prayer in Matthew 26:53, in which he states that he could have prayed to the Father and received legions of angels to prevent His arrest, had it been the Father's will. The idea is the same: prayer for judgment to be wrought upon the enemies of God. At the same time, imprecatory prayers often are intercessions on behalf of the righteous, as in this passage.

Therefore, unarguably, dead saints are praying for Christians on earth. If they can intercede for us, why should we not ask for their prayers? Clearly, they are aware of what is happening on earth, as indicated in this passage and, for instance, Hebrews 12:1. They are more alive, unfathomably more righteous, and obviously closer to God than we are. Omniscience is not required for them to hear our prayers, as is often charged. Rather, we have reason to believe that they are out of time, and therefore not subject to its constraints. We ought to ask for their prayers just as we would ask for the intercession of a fellow Christian on earth, and, if James 5:16 is true, their prayers will have incomparably more effect.

The well-known Protestant New Bible Commentary, [footnote 110] states that this plea in Heaven is indeed a prayer, which quickens the end of the age (8:1-5). This admission is of immense significance for our topic. For if the prayers of dead saints have such an importance regarding the last days and the final judgment, who can deny that such prayers are valid and effective with regard to far more mundane matters (such as our everyday concerns)? The doctrine of Communion of Saints, then, would appear to be irrefutably presented in the book of Revelation.

110 Guthrie, ibid., 1289. Concurring in this opinion is Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset, & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 (orig. 1864), 846, 1547.

Is it true that the Bible doesn't explicitly state that we should ask these same dead saints to pray for us? Well, yes and no. It's not absolutely explicit, yet the Bible does present angels in heaven having something to do with "prayers of the saints". I presented this also in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (p. 112):

Revelation 5:8: "The four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."

Revelation 8:3-4: "And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God."

It is somewhat unclear whether the twenty-four elders in this scene are angels or men, and commentators differ. Early Christian Tradition associated them with the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve Apostles, representing the churches of the Old and New Covenants, respectively (see Isa. 24:23; Dan. 7:9-10). References to them clad in white garments, with golden crowns (4:4,10) suggest the view that these elders are glorified human beings (see, e.g., 2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 2:10; 3:5,11; 6:11; 7:9,13-14). In any event, in both examples above, creatures -- whether men or angels -- are involved with our prayers as intercessory intermediaries, which isn't supposed to happen if the Catholic belief in the intercession of saints and angels is untrue.

So I ask Bishop White and anyone else who believes as he does: "what are men or angels (or both) in heaven doing with the 'prayers of the saints'? What sense does this make in the Protestant worldview?" Our prayers, according to that theology, go right to God without any intercessory "mediator". So how is this explained? Perhaps White can tell us how it fits into his Baptist tradition. I'll follow the teaching of the Bible rather than man-made traditions.

Now, back to what I was arguing above. The missing "plank" there was an example of biblical sanction of our asking saints to pray for us. I have just presented two biblical instances of creatures in heaven having something to do with our prayers. If they have received our prayers, then it follows logically that either:

1) human beings asked them directly,

or

2) God sent them their way, just as one post office might send a load of mail to another to "sort", before the ultimate destination (back to the original one).

or

3) Prayers automatically get channeled through creatures before they get to God.

In any of these scenarios, intercession of the saints is involved, and White stands refuted from the Bible. It's not just "me 'n' God". Others are involved in the process of prayer.

Moreover, even if these proofs are somehow rejected or discounted, it follows from common sense that if #1-4 above are true (the "chart" further above about dead saints), that we can ask them to intercede, since if they are aware of earthly happenings and even pray for those on the earth, then common sense would seem (at least to me) to dictate that they can, most likely, "hear" our prayers as well. So that is two different lines of argument: one explicitly biblical and the other a straightforward and plausible deduction from explicitly biblical data.

But what kind of supporting biblical evidence are we offered?

The sort that I have just outlined above, that I had already provided in my first book. In the present book, I had only two pages of space to defend each belief, so I obviously couldn't provide the depth that I could in my first book, where, for example, I devoted seventeen pages to communion of saints. In The Catholic Verses I provided the reader with fourteen more pages on the topic.

I mean, if prayer, an act of worship in Scripture, is to be offered to anyone but God,

Asking saints to pray is not the same as praying to them (in the sense of expecting them to actually answer the prayer).


surely there will be overwhelming evidence found in the normative practice of the Christian church, and in the writings of the early leaders of that church, the New Testament. But is that what we find?

Yes. I have provided the biblical evidences. I'm not gonna spend more of my time delving into patristics, as this is, ostensibly, a review of my book (mostly biblical arguments). But it's assuredly there, if White wants to argue about patristic beliefs.

The first text given is Hebrews 12:1, "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us." Armstrong assumes that the "great cloud of witnesses" refers to saints in heaven observing events on earth. However, given that this is a transitional statement following the chapter on the faithful men and women of old, it is far better to understand this text as referring to them and to recognize that a witness is not one who is observing events (as in Western thinking) but one who testifies, witnesses, by their life. The faithful of old are the ones who have witnessed to God's faithfulness by their own lives, and, since we have their testimony, we are to run the race with patience and joy. There is no reason, in the context of Hebrews, to conclude that the writer was positively teaching that saints in heaven observe earthly events, a concept that would be completely irrelevant to his point.

Well, that is Bishop White's opinion. He is entitled to it, but he has to argue for it and establish why it is the most plausible exegetical position, just like anyone else. He can't simply expect everyone to accept his word as if from on high because he said it. Many others disagree with him on this.

I have myself found at least three non-Catholic language references that confirm that the element of "spectatorship," which lends itself to the Catholic notion of communion of saints, where saints in heaven are aware of, and observe events on earth, is present in Hebrews 12:1, and cannot be ruled out simply on the basis of a prior doctrinal bias. Witness is the Greek word martus, from which is derived the English word martyr:

1) Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Joseph H. Thayer, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 4th edition, 1977; originally 1901, p. 392) defines it - as used in this verse - as follows:

One who is a spectator of anything, e.g. of a contest, Heb 12:1.

[Strong's word #3144; similar usages cited by Thayer: Lk 24:48; Acts 1:8; 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39; 13:31; 26:16; 1 Pet 5:1 - the sense is indisputable in these other verses]

2) Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin R. Vincent, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980; originally 1887; vol. 4, p. 536), another standard Protestant language source, comments on this verse as follows:

'Witnesses' does not mean spectators, but those who have borne witness to the truth, as those enumerated in chapter 11. Yet the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer's picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith who, after having borne witness to the truth, have entered into their heavenly rest, watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid.

3) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (edited by Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich; translated and abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985; p. 567), an impeccable and widely-used linguistic source, states:

In Heb. 12:1 the witnesses watching the race seem to be confessing witnesses (cf. 11:2), but this does not exclude the element of factual witness.

To summarize:

White: "There is no reason, in the context of Hebrews, to conclude that the writer was positively teaching that saints in heaven observe earthly events"

Thayer: "spectator"

Vincent: "the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. . . . the vast host of the heroes of faith . . . watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, . . . filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid."

Kittel: "this does not exclude the element of factual witness."

Carmen J. Bryant, an exegete and seminary professor with whom I have had the pleasure to dialogue a few times, notes two of the "many" other Protestants who agree with this assessment (my bolding):

Henry Alford, in his extensive commentary on the Greek New Testament [The Greek New Testament, vol. 4; Chicago: Moody Press, 1958, 234-235], insists that the cloud of witnesses must be onlookers . . . Interpreting marture otherwise would miss the point, he claims, . . . Cloud suggests that the witnesses are literally looking down from heaven. Anything short of this is too “tame.”

Leon Morris, in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, notes the debate over the word witnesses. It is not a question of identity but a question of function. Are they witnesses to the faith, or are they spectators of the race? Morris admits that normally marture is used in the former sense, and “it is doubtful whether it ever means simply ‘a spectator.’ Still . . . the imagery of the present passage favors it.”

I'll go with the three great Greek scholars and two reputable commentators, thank you. If I'm a fool and a simpleton for believing as I do about this verse, then at least I am in good scholarly Protestant company. If five such scholars can be found, I'm sure there are many more, and I need not find them at this time. My point is sufficiently made by now.

White cites the Scottish exegete Marcus Dods (1834-1909) in favor of his interpretation, and noted (fairly) that the Anglican scholar "Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, . . . derive[s] 'observation' from the metaphorical language." So now we have six scholars who take my position on this versus one mentioned by James White and he himself (who is no scholar, since he received his supposed "doctorate" from a diploma mill).

But the point that must be seen is that for the Roman Catholic usage of this text to stand, an equivalency must be drawn between "witness" and "spectator." It is not enough, in light of the context lacking any emphasis at all upon communication with the dead, the observation of living people by the dead, or exhortation based upon such concepts, to merely say it is "possible" to read the text in this fashion. Something much stronger, much more compelling, must be provided than the mere suggestion that "witness" can be taken in such a fashion.

I will accept the informed opinions of the six scholars above who say that the notion of spectatorship is present. That is all that is necessary for the verse to fit into my particular apologetic on the communion of saints. But even if it weren't, it is clearly the case that dead saints are aware of what is happening on the earth, on the basis of passages such as Revelation 6:9-10.

And I hardly think I need to point out, yet again, that Rome has not officially defined the meaning of this text.

So what? How is that relevant to anything at all? See my paper: The Freedom of the Catholic Biblical Exegete.

In fact, some would argue Rome has not officially defined the meaning of any text at all,

The Catholic Church has defined the meaning of seven texts. See the just-mentioned paper of mine.

so for the Roman Catholic who constantly decries "private interpretation," consistency would demand they recognize that their own interpretations do not have dogmatic sanction from their own ultimate authority.

No one said they did. Another of a long list of non sequiturs, or red herrings.

Both Armstrong and Hahn address the same text in Revelation 6:9-11 next, so I will address their comments as time permits.

I can't wait.

* * *

Here is White's "response" (about half of it was devoted to my humorous posting of the "Reformers" statues, cited at the top). Based on his history, it may very well be his only "response". There is always a first for everything, though. Maybe one day White will truly engage in real dialogue with a Catholic. For now, though, this is all we get:

I note briefly in passing as well that Armstrong's response proves that he is unable to engage the actual texts under discussion outside of relying upon secondary sources. That is, all he can do is try to line up commentators on one side or the other and say, "See, my point is possible because these guys say so." But he is not capable of responding to the substance of the comments regarding martu,rwn, qeatai, etc., for this is beyond his area of study. Now, there is nothing wrong with someone being ignorant of the original languages, exegesis, etc., however, there is everything wrong in being ignorant of these things and yet making repeated pronouncements about the conclusions of the study of these fields.

Lutheranism, Catholic "Absolute" Authority, and Private Judgment

The Whore of Babylon (Albrecht Durer)

From the comboxes of a post on Josh S.'s Lutheran blog:

Josh S.: The problem with absolute submission to an institution . . .

Who is in "absolute submission"? If Catholic Church dogma all of a sudden proclaims that sodomy is fine (as the Episcopalians have done), I'm out of here tomorrow. If contraception becomes fine and dandy, I'll leave [because that was a central reason that led me to be here in the first place]. It the Trinity is dumped, I'll split pronto. Etc., etc.

That's not absolute at all. But I stay (based on many many reasons; not least of which are biblical ones) because I believe it is the One True Church that truly preserves (because of the supernatural help of the Holy Spirit) the fullness of the apostolic deposit in a way that no other Christian body does. Because that is the case (as we believe) those things do not and will not happen (so we believe ultimately in faith, but firmly based on past precedent).

But if they do change [speaking merely hypothetically and philosophically now], the claim will be wrong, and I'd be one of the first to admit it. The fact that it never has in 2000 years is one of the amazing things that helped me decide to become a Catholic. But it is strongly based on reason; the very opposite of blind faith.

The religious freedom issue [alluded to in Josh's comments] is a long and very complex one. But it is not only our problem; it is yours, too. Setting aside the infallibility thing, you don't get off the hook, because now you have people (the "Reformers") who claimed to be especially guided by God; almost quasi-prophetic, yet they repeated the same errors of killing other Christians.

To me that is every bit as problematic as what you (wrongly) believe our problems to be, because it brings into question the very calling and mission of these so-called "reformers" who claimed to be so knowledgeable over against Catholic tradition, yet couldn't even figure out that it was wrong to drown an Anabaptist or burn a Servetus. So you say, "well. they got that wrong; so what?" But if they could get that wrong, how can we be sure all the innovations and novelties they also introduced are not wrong as well?

It's a long discussion, and I don't have time to really get into it in the depth it deserves, but I wanted to make some comment, anyway.

Someone said this attitude was scarcely different from Luther's. It's rather simple. In that instance, Luther (and even more so, Melanchthon) redefined (and more than that, changed) by completely arbitrary fiat and with no authority whatsoever what had been passed down through history and believed by the Church. He claimed this was patristic belief but it is easy to demonstrate that it was not. Luther was saying:

"If the Church doesn't conform to my [ultimately arbitrary], groundless revision of what it has always taught on soteriology (cuz I got a direct line to God and unique insight on biblical evidences), then I am outta here."

But my (the Catholic) view is completely different:

"if the Catholic Church changes a doctrine that had always been authoritatively taught (and this, able to be demonstrated through historiography), and starts pronouncing evil good (as many Protestants do with divorce, almost all with contraception, and the Anglicans and others with sodomy), then I shall conclude that she is not what she claims to be, and promptly leave."

Luther simply couldn't demonstrate (hardly even tried) that his novel soteriology was the heritage of the early Church, let alone uninterrupted succession, whereas I can easily demonstrate that all Christians opposed contraception as grave evil before 1930, that the early Church was quite opposed to remarriage after divorce, and did not teach a host of 16th century Lutheran novelties, etc.

All I'm doing is what the Fathers did: appealing to apostolic succession (in effect, history). I'm applying St. Vincent's dictum: "everywhere, always, by all" or however it goes. The same exact source where that famous line comes from (Commonitorium) is also the most explicit patristic witness to the development of doctrine. Cardinal Newman began his analysis right there.

At that point, it isn't all that difficult to determine what Church has continued an unbroken line of apostolic succession (with development presupposed, as St. Vincent, St. Augustine and others assume).

It's the very opposite of private judgment. The Catholic accepts the claim that the Catholic Church carries on the ancient apostolic succession and sacred Tradition in its fullness. I was received into the Church in 1991. I didn't have everything worked out to a tee back then. But I knew enough to accept in faith that the Catholic Church was the One True Church, and to accept its authority. That's not Luther's private judgment at all.

The Catholic who accepts this in faith can then proceed to do apologetics and give much more full historiographical justification for what he believes. But again, that is not Luther's method. Luther feels he can judge all by himself whether Catholic teaching is wrong. I don't do that. I accept it (in faith, with much reason) for what it is.

Nevertheless, I can imagine a hypothetical where the Catholic Church could be hypothetically shown to be not what it claims to be. Reversing the stance on contraception (the liberal renegade priests and theologians were hoping and praying for that in 1968) or women priests or adopting Open Theism any number of things of that nature would be a deal-breaker and I would be in the place that many devout traditionalist Anglicans are today, trying to figure out how their beloved church could have sunk so low as to sanction extremely serious, soul-destroying sin.

That's not "Protestant"; it's simply being in reality (epistemological or otherwise), just as St. Paul said "if Jesus is not raised from the dead we are of all men most to be pitied." He didn't think that this was the reality any more than I think it is reality that the Catholic Church will fall away from the fullness of truth and start compromising with the world, as virtually all Protestants do in one way or another. But he and I can "theorize" about such things as possible in some conceivable world.

My measuring-rod is that of the Church Fathers. If I am a "Protestant", so are they, but of course that is ludicrous. You [Lutherans] haven't demonstrated that Lutheran teaching is that of the Fathers, over against the Catholic Church. You lose every time you try to make that argument.

Perhaps that is one reason that Lutheran apologists are as rare as pro-life Democrats? It becomes too much of a hassle to war against demonstrable historical truths and so you simply retreat back to fideism, quietism, and "proclamation" and mere polemics?

James White claims I never was a Protestant (when I certainly was one: from 1958 to 1991) and then someone else on this list claimed that I am one "in effect" now (when I am a 100% Catholic, who believes everything that the Church teaches authoritatively).

See how much fun apologetics can be? More fun than a human being should be allowed to have . . . LOL

It remains true, in any event, that no Lutheran (or anyone else) can provide sufficient biblical proof for sola Scriptura. It just ain't there. I have debated this several dozen times. You can't find it. You have to deduce. And how about the canon? Where is that in Scripture? The canon is a developing doctrine, that depends on Church authority and tradition to get off the ground at all.

Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue on Corpus Christi (Eucharistic Processions and Adoration)

This initially came about as a result of Lutheran Josh S.'s post, The Lutheran Case Against Corpus Christi. But discussion began under a follow-up post.

Color codes:

Rev. William Weedon: blue
Tom R.: purple
Rev. Paul T. McCain: green
John H.: orange
Josh S.: red

Note that the Lutherans in 17th century Magdeburg DID continue to observe Corpus Christi - in the sense that the Divine Service on the Thursday after Trinity shared the same readings and almost the exact same sequence hymn as the Roman Catholics. But of course with the Lutherans there was no procession with half the Sacrament or other such tomfoolery. Instead, I'd be willing to bet, there was preaching against the Roman practices that ran contrary to the Words of the Lord and instead an exulting in what those words give us: the Lord's true body and blood for us Christians to eat and drink under the form of bread and wine for the forgiveness of our sins. Whether or not such a feast is worthy of being revived among Lutherans today or not - that is a question Lutherans can and should engage and discuss. What is beyond dispute is that it continued in some form among Lutherans long after the Reformation and into the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy.

Why is it considered "tomfoolery" simply because we believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist longer than you do? It seems to me that is something where reasonable people can disagree. I don't speak in such terms of the Lutheran view of the Eucharist; I simply disagree with it, while also rejoicing in the similarities between us.

I am much more likely to be severely critical of the Reformed notions of the Eucharist, because I consider it incoherent philosophical mumbo-jumbo. But see, that is because that is a major disagreement: they deny the Real Presence. But you guys don't.

It's a relatively minor disagreement between us (we largely agree on the "majors" of Real Presence).

The tomfoolery is not in regard to questions of duration (about which Lutherans have some honest disagreements among themselves), but to a use of the Sacrament for which it was not instituted. Our blessed Lord gave us His most precious body and blood and commanded: "eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins" not "divide and process through the streets."

I'm moderately agnostic on whether the bread and wine remain the Lord's body and blood after the Supper has ended. My understanding is the Lutheran position is that it's better to ensure nothing is left over ("take, eat") than to start asking questions about the nature of any "leftovers".

I just completed reading again the Smalcald Articles and what the Formula of Concord has to say about the Lord's Supper. Dynamite stuff that.

Reserving the Blessed Sacrament, the Most Venerable Sacrament of the Altar, as it is described in the Formula...is...tomfoolery and hokum.

The Lord gave it to us to eat and to drink, not to tuck away somewhere to "adore" it outside of its instituted use. Much pastoral wisdom there.

There, I said something about Corpus Christi festivals in Lutheran churches.

Where is sola Scriptura in the deposit of faith? The best apologists for that false doctrine (e.g., Keith Mathison) will even concede that it is an inference and not a direct teaching of Scripture (I think Keith said that; I'd have to check again for sure).

Where is the canon of Scripture in the apostolic deposit?

Where is the Chalcedonian definition of the Two Natures of Christ in the apostolic deposit? Did not the Church have to make quite significant inferences and deductions and elaborate "speculation" on the simpler kernel of Jesus' divinity that was received in the deposit?

I'm sure I could think of other examples, but this suffices.

It seems to me that a Lutheran must concede that there were legitimate developments and "inferences" made, in application of the received doctrines and revelation.

Granting that this is the case (as I contend you must), then your burden is to establish that liturgical practice is somehow an entirely different category, whereby no "inference" or development of practice or diversity of allowable practice is allowed. Josh wrote: "God gives promises with his own mouth; we do not deduce them."

Is that so? Where, then, is the canon of Scripture from God's "own mouth", or sola Scriptura, or (for that matter) Jesus "in, with, and under" the elements, as you guys believe, or the Two Natures or refutations of Monophysitism or Monotheletism?

That would be extremely interesting for me to see how you would argue that. I hope someone does.

Josh wrote: "Further, God is deadly serious about inventing worship that seems right to us without his command and promise."

I see. So, then, tell me: how do you view all the differences in liturgical practice among Lutherans (e.g., the closed communion controversy)? Do you get all upset and outraged that the next Lutheran denomination over has departed from God's instructions? I don't believe it is absolutely uniform. So why don't you loosen up a bit and allow diversity of worship?

If that objection collapses, then you are left with the merely "quantitative" arguments based on duration of the Real Presence (and two of you have acknowledged that there are inter-Lutheran disagreements on that).

Therefore, if these Lutheran differences exist, it seems to me that the Catholic approach is only a bit further along on the continuum: we believe Jesus is present for a longer period and that it is appropriate, therefore, to worship and adore Him in processions, etc.

On what basis, then (in this second scenario) is there an objection, let alone describing it as "tomfoolery" or "hokum" or far worse mocking, denigrating terms that I'm sure Luther and others have uttered through the years?

Why can't we just respectfully disagree? Something like, "my Catholic brethren differ from us in this regard but we respect their belief as an alternative vision of eucharistic adoration that we don't ourselves hold. They are worshiping consistently and reverently according to their conception of how the Real Presence works out in practice. Their desire is to worship Jesus, and surely we can't object to that, though we disagree with this particular method and conception of eucharistic worship".

Would that put anyone out, to have that sort of tolerant, ecumenical attitude about it, while not compromising one's own belief in the slightest?

Do you, as a Catholic, believe that Christ is present when an ordained Lutheran pastor holds up a Eucharistic host and recites the words "This is my body"? Or is there just a layman in a white robe holding a piece of bread?

The latter, due to the absence of apostolic succession and hence, [fully sacramental] ordination. That doesn't mean we would mock what goes on there, as you guys do our eucharistic adoration and sacrifice of the mass. We think there is a great deal of value in the piety of sincere beliefs and reverence, and Luther's view on the Eucharist is pretty good. But the succession question is key to why we ultimately have to dissent from believing that Jesus is truly present, as He is in the Orthodox and Catholic liturgies.

Since the Word of God provides us with the instruction of our Lord about the use of the Holy Sacrament - that we are to eat and drink His body and blood and thus proclaim His death until He comes - and says nothing about parading around town with the most sacred species, I will stick to calling it tomfoolery, which it is, and ask my dear Roman brother to please consider that it is not out of malice that we reject such a practice and speak against it, but out of faithfulness to the revealed Word and love for the Blessed Sacrament.

I appreciate that disclaimer. Nor is it out of malice that I hold the view that the Real Presence isn't "real" in Lutheran services, based on our beliefs. But I can't imagine making fun of a rite that adherents believe to be much as we believe our Mass to be. I respect that. It's a sincerely held error, and God looks at the heart. Lutherans are at church to worship Jesus, just as we are.

Bill Cork's Catholic-to-Adventist Conversion: If You Have No Reason to Stay in a Communion, or to Join Another, Why Stay (or Leave?)

Dr. William Cork

Josh S. (Lutheran) had written about Bill Cork's odyssey on his blog:

It's interesting. [link to original sermon] The last few paragraphs are especially interesting. I kinda wondered why he would switch from RC-ism to SDA-ism, but I guess it makes sense if his wife and kids were SDA the whole time. I think the phenomenon of such radical theological shift is really fascinating and makes me appreciate Luther that much more. I think that when so much doctrine is put forward almost entirely on the premise, "trust us," when you stop trusting the guys in charge, nearly every doctrine falls, including biblical doctrines like baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence. Chemnitz has some interesting remarks to this effect on the lack of Scripture proofs in Trents statements on infant baptism.

I replied:

This is precisely what can happen, of course, when one ditches apologetics and doesn't incorporate it into his belief-system. If you don't understand why you believe what you believe, then all it takes is a few difficulties or disappointments or a bit of adversity (or family conflicts) and it can all come crashing down like the proverbial house built on a foundation of sand.

I wasn't the slightest bit surprised by this news about Bill Cork because I had seen how he was trashing apologetics: the very thing that could have been a great aid to prevent him from returning back to where he was. In other words, if you have no reasons for why you are in a certain place, then there is no reason to stay there! It's as simple as that.

It's common sense, really: if you trash the very enterprise that is dedicated to giving a rational defense, then obviously you must not think that it can be defended at all, and so therefore, you leave yourself wide open.

This dynamic applies to any Christian body, not just to Catholics. In fact, I saw on this very blog where you wrote that Lutherans don't really do apologetics; they simply proclaim. If you want to go that route, then don't be surprised if you see folks leaving Lutheranism, since Lutheranism has deliberately, consciously shunned the apologetic enterprise. If Lutherans must simply accept the whole thing with blind faith and check their mind at the door, then what else would you expect?

Some folks will have sufficient faith, but others who aren't so blessed will be dissuaded by skepticism and outside influences.

Then I read Cork's testimony and replied at greater length:

* * *

Yep; I read Cork's sermon and found exactly what I expected to find: postmodernist mush:

1) No reasons given for why he left Adventism in the first place, other than the natural rebelliousness and cynicism of a 21-year-old ("I was not only over my head theologically, but was beginning to get a big head on my shoulders, too . . . I can laugh now at my attitude in those days.").

2) Refreshingly, he did, at least, have a decent reason to leave a liberal ELCA church (sanctioning of homosexuality). But one needs no apologetics to know this because it is an intuitive moral question that is ingrained in all of us.

3) No reasons given for why he became Catholic in the first place other than friendly Franciscans and the "beauty and love of many of its members, and by its rich traditions of prayer and spirituality."

I'm glad he met some loving Catholics, but this stuff can be found anywhere. You want family values and squeaky clean morals? The Mormons do great at that. If you want nice people, the Methodists will do (having been raised Methodist and with both parents and all four grandparents Methodist, I can say that). You want traditions of prayer and spirituality? The Orthodox can do that; even the Anglicans, with their glorious Book of Common Prayer. Pentecostals have great committed prayer (and experience, if that is your thing); Mennonites have a great spiritual tradition and understand simple living. Lutherans and Anglicans have pretty church buildings and an appreciation of art and music. Reformed are good at culture and Baptists at evangelism and missions. Etc. etc. None of this is any compelling reason to choose one truth claim over another. Yet this is all he has given us. He apparently had no theological clue as to why he left Adventism and none for why he adopted Catholicism.

And people are surprised that he decided to make another change?

This guy could be a director of religious education, did evangelism, and was a campus minister and didn't even have an elementary understanding of the apologetic, biblical basis for his beliefs?

4) At length Cork concluded: "Many Catholic teachings have no other foundation than the Church’s claim to teach with authority: purgatory, Marian dogmas, saints, indulgences, the papacy, etc. These are not Bible doctrines."

Good grief. How in the Hades does a guy become a Catholic, teach, become involved in extensive lay ministry for thirteen years and not even have the slightest awareness of the abundant biblical apologetics to be had for all these doctrines??!!

So he was sitting there teaching all this stuff, while at the same time believing that the Church gave no biblical reasons whatsoever for the beliefs? This is incomprehensible to me. When I was an evangelical, I sought to understand the apologetic for that (broad) position; when I was considering Catholicism, I extensively studied the apologetic for Catholicism and critiques of Protestantism. I could no more convert to another belief-system without having abundant reasons for doing so than water could cease to be wet.

But in our postmodernist era, reasons in matters of religion count for little or nothing. It's all subjectivism and private religion. Reason leads to division and fights (so the pomo mentality goes), so let's just make religion a private matter of taste . . .

This is fundamental. One may agree or disagree with the defenses given, but at least people ought to make some attempt to become familiar with the arguments that Catholics give on these things, from the Bible. My own apostolate specializes in that. But I am only one of many Catholic apologists.

Cork, however, didn't do that. He simply concluded that the Catholic Church supposedly requires everyone to believe these things with no biblical rationale whatsoever, as if it is sheer blind faith.

For heaven's sake, just in my writing alone, he could have found dozens upon dozens of biblical arguments in favor of all these doctrines. I would have been happy to send him any of my books for free, if he would just read them with an open mind and see the arguments that a Catholic gives.

But if you "diss" apologetics, this is the sort of ludicrous, head-in-the-sand attitude that you develop. Far better to understand the apologetic / biblical arguments of your own communion and reject them; say they are woefully inadequate or inferior to alternatives (and hopefully understand those properly too), but to pretend they aren't even there is truly astounding.

And so we see that it took very little to send Cork back to his former allegiance. He had a loving wife who had always been SDA, and that is always a strong motivator to a man (I understand that), but it is no theological reason. It's not a rational basis for rejecting one belief-system and adopting another. And so, how does he become an Adventist again? By pure non-rational subjectivism:

Eventually the scales fell from my eyes and I asked, “How did I get here?”

Like the Prodigal Son, I looked up and realized, maybe I can go home.

And that’s when an old professor at AUC, Rick Trott, said, “Come home.”

That’s when I was here at this church, for a concert by my little brother, and Roy Chin stood in this spot and looked me in the eye and said, “Come home.”

How many times do we hear that invitation in Scripture? Come home. Turn around. Be converted.

I could just as well become a Hare Krishna or a Muslim with this amount of reasoning involved.

Cork then got "re-baptized." So an educated man like himself was somehow led to believe that Catholic baptism isn't valid anymore? On what basis does he do so? What did he teach about baptism all those years when he was involved in Catholic education? He must have taught his charges something about baptism and these other doctrines. What was it? Did he just tell them to "trust the Church"?

What few reasons Cork did offer for his change had to do with sin: as if it were monopolized by the Catholic Church (patristic anti-Semitism, the crusades, and the recent sexual scandal).

Jesus was already scathingly criticizing the young churches (see the book of Revelation). Does Cork think he has found the perfect church, where no sin can be found? This is no reason to leave one belief-system and join another (on the grounds that one is filled with sin and the other is supposedly completely different).

He objects to anti-Semitism from 1600 years ago in the Fathers, yet he can stomach the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry that is present in SDA? That's odd.

I could write more about it, but that is my general response. I contend that (at least from the data offered in this sermon) Bill Cork had insufficient reasons to leave SDA in the first place; had insufficient reasons to become a Catholic; had insufficient reasons to forsake the Catholic Church, and insufficient reasons to become SDA again. And this is a highly educated man.

In this age, folks can make such changes and not be expected to give any reasons at all (I am being general below; not implying that Bill Cork would necessarily say any of these things):

"hey, it just felt right"

"God told me to leave SDA/become Catholic / leave Catholicism / join SDA again"

"it's my personal business"

"I had no reason to be a Catholic, so why not rather be an SDA for no reason, since my wife is already there?"

None of this will do. This is more than just a Catholic apologist defending Catholic beliefs. This is a general principle of incorporating a rational understanding into religious belief; of loving God with our minds as well as with all our heart, soul, and strength. It's a matter of the biblical command to know what we believe (1 Peter 3:15) and to contend earnestly for it (Jude 3).

Now, again, it may be that there were some apologetic reasons in play in his journey, somewhere (I don't deny that any exist, period, and would be happy to interact with these, should Dr. Cork wish to do so). But I have seen none mentioned in this sermon / testimony. So why should anyone be surprised that the man has been tossed to and fro, and for no particular compelling reasons at each junction where he switched trains? This is to be fully expected. If he has no reason to be SDA this time around, then it is entirely possible that he could leave again for no reason and join something else for no reason because he has no reason to stay.

Four of My Books Make Amazon Top 100 (Catholic Theology Category)

Praise God that He has used this poor, unworthy vessel to share a bit about Catholic theology and truth. Thanks for reading! The rankings (the lower the better) change every hour, but this is what they are at 8 PM EST on Saturday, 16 June 2007. Blue numbers indicate number in the Top 100: Catholic Theology category, while green is for Top 100 Christian [not just Catholic] Apologetics:

The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) #8,381 / #12 / #20

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003) #17,015 / #25 / #34

The One-Minute Apologist (Sophia Institute Press, 2007) #38,254 / #72 /

[On Sunday, 6-17-07 at 6 PM EST the rankings were #17,438 and #32, so that three of my books were in the Top 50]

New Catholic Answer Bible (Our Sunday Visitor, 2005; co-author of notes with Dr. Paul Thigpen) #50,889 / #98

Does No Protestant Denomination Whatsoever Regard Deacons as the Equivalent of Pastors and Elders? (Reply to James White's Ad Hominem Extravaganza)

Who is this guy, and what has he to do with our subject? And could he be as ignorant as Dave Armstrong? Read below to find out!

The anti-Catholic Baptist apologist luminary Bishop James White, issued a "review" of my book, The One-Minute Apologist. It consisted of perhaps 50-60% personal attack and aspersions upon my general knowledge of theology and Protestantism, and exactly two actual arguments against some aspect of the book itself: one concerning my use of the word "deacon" in my book, and the other (rather astonishingly and desperately) maintaining that the future tense of Jesus' bestowing of the keys of the kingdom of heaven to St. Peter, somehow has some profound anti-papal significance.

I have already responded at length, defending my arguments and conceding one poor use of a word ("deacon"), while not the entire argument in which the word was used. I explained what I had in mind, and also that I was fully aware of the biblical distinctions of the office of deacon. All to no avail, of course (as always with the inimitable Mr. White) . . .

Instead, rather than seeking to understand and truly interact with an opinion different from his own, White launched into a highly polemically-charged, bombastic hit piece, clearly designed to destroy my credibility as a Catholic apologist -- particularly my ability to accurately represent Protestant beliefs, in so doing. I'm in good company: the man attempts this with virtually every Catholic apologist. He has now announced that he will also trash Scott Hahn's latest book, Reasons to Believe, in conjunction with his continuing "reviews" of mine. Thanks for the compliment, James! Here is White's first salvo against one word in my book, from his first "review" (bolding added):

Many of Armstrong's suggested objections and answers are either aimed at the most dismally ignorant of those who oppose Rome's claims (a common element of much of the literature produced by the wide spectrum of their apologists) or against people I honestly have never met or heard of. So a number of the sections really are not relevant to a serious non-Catholic reader. It is hard to decide which are which, because of some of the tremendously obvious errors Armstrong makes. For example, on page 17, Armstrong attempts to present a "Protestant" objection relating to the offices of the church:

The Bible teaches that bishops, elders, and deacons are all synonymous terms for the same office: roughly that of a pastor today. It doesn't indicate that bishops are higher than these other offices.

Just who believes this, I wonder? I have never read any work by any Protestant theologian of any note who has ever made this argument. So, is Armstrong just ignorant of Protestant ecclesiology, or, has he run into some tiny sect someplace that has come up with some new wacky viewpoint? Given that he was once non-Catholic, it is hard to believe he could be so ignorant of the reality regarding the fact that bishop and elder refer to the same office and are used interchangeably in the New Testament, but that this office is clearly distinguished from that of the deacon. But, he does not show any knowledge of the biblical arguments in his presentation in this book . . .

I replied to this, explaining what I had in mind, and how I could have phrased it better than I did, but White upped the ante considerably in his latest hit pi . . . , er, um [ahem] "review." Sensing blood in the water and the right timing to make the "kill" he has longed and yearned for these past twelve years, as he has continually dodged my refutations and arguments, he gave it all he had in his arsenal of sophistry and obfuscation and non sequitur. The only problem is that he has once again misrepresented my method and intent in the book (as he did to a notorious degree in his trashing of my last book, The Catholic Verses). And he has also exposed his own ignorance of his fellow Protestants. Here is what he wrote (with my interjections in black):

I recently pointed out a basic, simplistic error in Dave Armstrong's new book: he claims Protestants (he makes no distinctions) think elders, bishops, and deacons are all one office.

This is sophistry and misrepresentation of opponents at their "finest." First of all, I never claimed that all Protestants believed in such a thing in the first place, and it is ridiculous to contend that I did so in this book. The standard format in every two-page section has a second portion entitled "A Protestant Might Further Object". Now, obviously, anyone who has even a fleeting acquaintance with comparative theology (and presupposing that they have an IQ higher than a box of nails) understands that this is either a generalization, or (as here) a presentation of one strain of Protestant belief, and how it would object to some Catholic view.

Moreover, it is difficult in particulars to speak of beliefs that all Protestants share. Only White, apparently, could be so dense as to not grasp this. This is especially the case in the area of ecclesiology, which is what this section was about, since it is well-known that Protestants have great and serious disagreements in that area. So how would it be possible in a three-sentence hypothetical objection, to somehow represent all Protestant thought? It's not, and this is patently obvious. If it were not already plain, then it would be if White had troubled himself to read my Introduction, where I state:

It should be noted here that my use of the word “Protestant” is very broad. In most cases, I have in mind traditional, conservative, or evangelical Protestants, but in a few instances, the term applies (in context) to more "progressive" strains of the spectrum, encompassing an array of belief that includes theologically liberal denominations . . .

(p. xiv)

All of this being the case, much of White's derisive argumentation against me is entirely moot; irrelevant. I never claimed that Protestants en masse (with "no distinctions") believed such a thing. They obviously do not, and I know this full well, as I proved in my first reply. Therefore, my present burden is rather simple: all I have to do is show that any strain of Protestantism believes something along these lines.

If I can do that, White's objection utterly collapses, and he is shown to be ignorant of (at least some) fellow Protestants, which is far more scandalous than any shortcoming of knowledge he fancies that I suffer from, since he has made out that no Protestant sub-group believes this, or else that if anyone does, it must be a "tiny sect" with a "wacky viewpoint".

In any case, Armstrong made a mistake on the level of my saying Catholics think Cardinals and acolytes are the same office. It's just wrong. He can't blame it on a typo.

I didn't claim it was a typo, but rather (in retrospect), a poor choice of words.

He really believed that we make no distinction between the two offices despite the fact that there are two lists of qualifications for the two offices in Scripture! And this from a man who is a former Protestant. This speaks to how solid his "Protestant" credentials really were, and he knows it.

Nice try. Oh, he's trying so hard to decimate my reputation! But bad things happen when one sets out to do such unsavory things. What goes around comes around. You reap what you sow . . . White is going to take a considerable fall on this one. Who is the "we" here? White is pretending that I am somehow referring to all Protestants. But I was not; it is simply one hypothetical objection that might come from any number of different sects of Protestantism, as explained in the Introduction. Then he foolishly tried to make out that I don't have the slightest idea of what I am talking about, and was an imbecile when I was a Protestant too! How desperate and ridiculous can he get?!

Now, the proper way to respond to the error is to say, "I'm sorry, I should have been more careful. I confess I do not know nearly as much about what Protestants believe as I pretend to." Of course, that won't do, because Armstrong considers himself an expert in Protestant beliefs.

I explained myself quite adequately in my first reply, but because White wished to press the issue, I have done so in even greater detail now (thanks for the challenge, good bishop!), and it is only White's reputation for supposed invincibility in argument that will suffer, not mine. Just keep reading folks; the "bomb" will be dropped soon and, believe me, it won't be a pretty sight for fans and adorers of White.

You see, he may have made a "poor choice of one word" but you see, really, it's my fault anyway. Poor choice of one word? Poor choice of wording has to do with adjectives, not with completely blowing the Protestant view of the deaconate!

What "Protestant" view? I wasn't claiming to speak for all Protestant views; White is the only one doing that, and in so doing is merely setting himself up for a rather embarrassing fall and a serious case of log-in-the-eye deficiency.

When my point was that Armstrong's book includes misrepresentations of Protestant belief, how can a plain example of this be a "minor" point? By saying this was an "unwise" use of "deacon," would it follow that if I said "Catholics worship the Pope" I could excuse it later by saying "that was an unwise use of the word Pope"? It is this kind of refusal to simply admit, "OK, I was wrong," that leaves Armstrong without a shred of credibility. But it gets worse.

I see. Well, with such compelling testimony against me, I hereby resign as an apologist, effective immediately after I finish this paper!

If Armstrong would take the time to actually study the writings of those he critiques (rather than just proof-texting sources, often from secondary writings), he would know that Reformed Baptists have confessed the elder/bishop interchangeability since their inception; likewise, that we have always distinguished deacons from elders.

Here is another non sequitur. What makes White think I necessarily had only Reformed Baptists in mind in this instance? He doesn't know this; he simply assumes it. Now it is true that some of his own ludicrous statements in the past on ecclesiology probably influenced this entry of mine, but the hypothetical applies to any Protestant group who would believe something similar to what I wrote. I didn't mention Reformed Baptist or any other kind of Baptist in this hypothetical objection. In fact, I don't believe (I might be wrong) that I ever named a Protestant group in any of the objections.

And, he might actually have to deal with the reality that the Scriptures likewise use the terms interchangeably. This is not even a debatable topic, to be honest. It is a given, but, clearly, Armstrong is ignorant of the facts of the case. This is why he calls me "Bishop White," though, of course, no one else does.

Since the man called himself a bishop (and indeed this follows from the equation in his mind of elder and bishop: he being an "elder" at his church), then why should I not call him the same? Makes perfect sense to me . . .

He thinks it is funny, when all he is proving by using the phrase is that he is the one ignorant of the subjects he chooses to pontificate upon in his voluminous writings.

What does that say about him, then, since he was silly enough to call himself a bishop?

White goes on to wrangle about bishops. Let us now examine the question of whether any Protestant group regards deacons as similar or identical in status to elders or pastors. Can it be done? I think so. White stated: "I have never read any work by any Protestant theologian of any note who has ever made this argument." I don't doubt his word, but only the scope of his knowledge of Protestant ecclesiology (and he wrote about how he contributed to a book of comparative ecclesiology, so he ought to know a wee little bit about that -- one would hope, anyway).

For there is a little old "tiny sect" with a "wacky viewpoint" called Lutherans. Has White ever heard of those guys? You know: Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon and Martin Chemnitz et al? "Here I stand"? Augsburg Confession, etc.? I'll assume henceforth that White has heard of that group of Protestants, though judging by his above remarks and the smug dogmatism with which they were made, one might reasonably surmise that he hadn't.

Has Bishop White perchance heard of a man named C.F.W. Walther (1811-1887)? He was only the first president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod: one of the most traditional Lutheran bodies today (with 2.6 million members: just a "tiny sect"). What did Walther believe about deacons? Let's take a look-see (all emphases are my own):

Comments on the Expulsion of a Lutheran 'Deacon' [link]

by C.F.W. Walther

Translation and introduction by Mark Nispel

Translated from Der Lutheraner, Jan. 1, 1867, v. 23, n. 9, p. 65-68.

December 1993

As our readers know, Pastor Grabau shamefully dismissed and expelled his
former so-called 'Deacon' (Diakonus), Pastor Hochstetter, from his office when
he no longer wanted to allow himself merely to be Grabau's compliant slave. . . .

The facts of the matter are rather much more the following: When Christ
separated the holy apostles unto their office (Matt. 10:1 ff.; Mk. 6:7 ff.;
Luke 9:1 ff.) He established the church office (Kirchenamt) or ministry of the
Word or office of soul care (Seelsorgeramt) above all. Therefore in the
Smalcald articles it says: "We have a certain teaching, that the ministry of
the Word comes from the general call of the apostles." (See Tractate 1.) The
office he thereby established has many different functions (Verrichtungen):
to preach God's Word, to administer the holy Sacraments, to loose and bind, to
watch over discipline and order, for care for the poor, sick, widows, orphans,
to care for souls in the congregation etc. Yet, all these many functions are
the responsibilities of the one office which Christ established. Therefore
when the Papists speak of seven and the Episcopalians of three, and the
Presbyterians of two special offices established in the church, they have no ground for it in the holy Scriptures but rather it is purely human
imagination. . . .

It was an entirely different circumstance however when in a congregation more than one were installed who in every way (allerseits) had the office of the Word. In this instance they all had the same divine office established by Christ, the same spiritual and ecclesiastical authority. It was only a matter of human order (Ordnung), when they either divided certain functions of the office or the care for certain parts of the people among themselves. Likewise when they chose one from among themselves to whom the others submit themselves freely and according to human right or also when a whole group of ministers of the church (Kirchendiener) labor in the word in one congregation and continuously submit themselves one to another. The so-called system of bishops originally rested on this view of things in the times when the pure teaching still reined in the church. It was recognized that a Bishop set over the other ministers of the church was really nothing other than a presbyter (Elder), a pastor, who only for the sake of church order was set over the other ministers of the church and who had the additional authority given to him merely by human right.

. . . This also applies then to the distinction between a pastor and a Senior of Ministers (6), a president, a Superintendent, a Dean, a head pastor (Oberpfarrer), or whatever they may be called who are set over one or more preachers.

. . . But since there is no distinction between such offices according to divine right, so likewise between them and a Lutheran Deacon, to whom the office of the Word is commended. For the call to preach God's Word publicly is truly the essence of the preaching office. To preach is the highest office (function) in the church, alone on account of which all other functions are necessary. It is also the judge of all other offices. Therefore the office of Lutheran Deacon is no helping office as is, for example, the office of caring for alms, the office of Church Father or Lay Elder. Rather it is the one true office which is specially instituted and established by Christ Himself. Therefore it says then in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: "The greatest, most holy, most needful, highest service to God, which God has demanded in the first and second commandments as the highest, is to preach God's Word, for the office of PREACHING is the highest office in the church."
(Art. 15. fol. 94. a.) Luther writes:

"Whenever the office of the Word is conferred to someone, so also all other offices which are carried out through the word in the church are conferred to him. That is, the authority to baptize, to bless, to bind and to loose, to pray and to judge or give decisions. For that office of preaching the Gospel is the highest of them all, for it is the true apostolic office, which lays the ground for all other offices. These offices belong to all, first of all, to edify for which there are the offices of teachers, prophets, and rulers." (SL X:1592).

In another place Luther says:

"to whomever the preaching office is given, to him is given the highest office in Christendom. He may then afterwards baptize, administer the sacraments, and carry out all care for souls; or if he doesn't want to he may remain only with preaching and leave the other lower offices to others, as Christ did and Paul (John 4:2; 1 Cor. 1:17) and all the Apostles, Acts 6.)"

. . . A Deacon in the biblical sense is a man who only has a helping office to the ministry of the Word according to human arrangement. But a Deacon who is called to the preaching of the Word of God, as happens in the Lutheran Church, does not attend a helping office, but rather the highest office in Christendom. He is nothing else and nothing less than what the Scripture calls a pastor, Presbyter (elder), or Bishop. He has the same authority and rank of office and the same jurisdiction and the deacons in the biblical sense are also their servants.

. . . in the Lutheran Church the deacons who are called for the preaching of the Word of God and for the Administration of the Sacraments are seen as entirely equal to the pastors . . .

[he then cites four Lutheran theologians in his favor]

. . . No matter how much Pastor Grabau twists and turns he will never prove from God's Word that there is more than one office instituted by God and that there is a type of preacher which according to divine right is something other or something more or something less than another. This is indeed a doctrine which a lording preacher would love to smuggle into the Lutheran church from the Roman or Episcopal church.

Well! What have we here? Martin Luther himself appears to teach something very similar if not identical (which is why Walther cited him in favor of his own view) [bolding added]:

On this account I think it follows that we neither can nor
ought to give the name priest to those who are in charge of Word
and sacrament among the people. The reason they have been
called priests is either because of the custom of heathen people or
as a vestige of the Jewish nation. The result is greatly injurious to
the church. According to the New Testament Scriptures better 
names would be ministers, deacons, bishops, stewards, presbyters
(a name often used and indicating the older members). For thus
Paul writes in I Cor. 4 [:1], "This is how one should regard us, as
servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God." He does
not say, "as priests of Christ," because he knew that the name and
office of priest belonged to all. Paul's frequent use of the word
"stewardship" or "household," "ministry," "minister," "servant,"
"one serving the gospel," etc., emphasizes that it is not the estate,
or order, or any authority or dignity that he wants to uphold, but
only the office and the function. The authority and the dignity of
the priesthood resided in the community of believers. 

(Luther's Works, Vol. 40: Church and Minstry II, edited by Conrad Bergendoff, Philadephia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958, p. 35; primary work: Concerning the Ministry, 1523, translated by Conrad Bergendoff; available online)

St. Paul calls himself a "deacon" (i.e., Greek diakonos) in many places, as I noted in the book (RSV):

1 Corinthians 3:5: What then is Apol'los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.

2 Corinthians 3:5-6: Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.

2 Corinthians 6:3-4: We put no obstacle in any one's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry [diakonia], but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities,
2 Corinthians 11:22-23: Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one . . .

Ephesians 3:7: Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace which was given me by the working of his power.

Colossians 1:23,25: . . . the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. . . . of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, . . .

Compare Paul's similar use of diakonia as a description of what he does:

Acts 20:24: But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may accomplish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

Romans 11:13: Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry

Romans 15:31: . . . that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints,
2 Corinthians 4:1: Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.

1 Timothy 1:12: I thank him who has given me strength for this, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful by appointing me to his service,

And also diakoneo:

2 Corinthians 8:19-20: and not only that, but he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work which we are carrying on, for the glory of the Lord and to show our good will. We intend that no one should blame us about this liberal gift which we are administering,

So that is at least fifteen times (I may have missed some) that the Apostle Paul uses the term deacon or related term for himself (diakonos: 7; diakonia: 6; diakoneo: 2). Remember what White claimed:

. . . people I honestly have never met or heard of.

. . . not relevant to a serious non-Catholic reader.

. . . tremendously obvious errors Armstrong makes. For example, on page 17, Armstrong attempts to present a "Protestant" objection relating to the offices of the church:

Just who believes this, I wonder? I have never read any work by any Protestant theologian of any note who has ever made this argument.

So, is Armstrong just ignorant of Protestant ecclesiology, or, has he run into some tiny sect someplace that has come up with some new wacky viewpoint?

Armstrong made a mistake on the level of my saying Catholics think Cardinals and acolytes are the same office.

. . . completely blowing the Protestant view of the deaconate!

. . . misrepresentations of Protestant belief . . . leaves Armstrong without a shred of credibility.

Right. I suppose, then, it follows (by White's "reasoning") that Walther was either:

1) exceptionally ignorant, as White claims I am,

2) a wacko on the fringe of Protestantism, leading a tiny sect, or

3) not a Protestant.

In case White missed the direct comparison, let's do a side-by-side:

Ignoramus & Imbecile & Unregenerate Apostate "Wolf" Dave Armstrong:

"A Protestant might further object: . . . bishops, elders, and deacons are all synonymous terms for the same office: roughly that of a pastor today."

Lutheran (Protestant?) theologian C.F.W. Walther (undercover "Romanist" apologist):

"there is no distinction between such offices according to divine right, so likewise between them and a Lutheran Deacon"

"But a Deacon who is called to the preaching of the Word of God, as happens in the Lutheran Church, does not attend a helping office, but rather the highest office in Christendom. He is nothing else and nothing less than what the Scripture calls a pastor, Presbyter (elder), or Bishop. He has the same authority and rank of office and the same jurisdiction"

And old man Luther is right alongside Walther and yours truly, in the Hall of Shame and Ignorance of Protestant Ecclesiology:

Ignoramus & Imbecile & Unregenerate Apostate "Wolf" Dave Armstrong:

"A Protestant might further object: . . . bishops, elders, and deacons are all synonymous terms for the same office: roughly that of a pastor today."

Protestant Founder MARTIN LUTHER "completely blowing the Protestant view of the deaconate" and engaging in "misrepresentations of Protestant belief" -- thus leaving himself "without a shred of credibility":

"According to the New Testament Scriptures better names [for priests] would be ministers, deacons, bishops, stewards, presbyters . . ."

It follows (by White's peculiar "reasoning") that Martin Luther was either:

1) exceptionally ignorant, as White claims I am,

2) a wacko on the fringe of Protestantism, leading a tiny sect, or

3) not a Protestant.

4) not a theologian (etc., etc.).

Take your pick (or throw out White's ludicrous argument) . . .

Dialogue With a Reformed Baptist Presuppositionalist, Round Two (vs. John Knight)

John Frame (b. 1939): leading Reformed presuppositionalist
[source]


See Part One.

It is a pleasure to be welcomed into friendly disagreement.

Likewise; especially in light of certain criticisms from certain quarters that were not -- shall we say -- particularly gracious, to put it mildly . . .

As I pointed out in response to your analysis of an old article by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, “Bahnsen is not attacking the good intentions of classicists & evidentialists. He is instead pointing out the futile nature of trying to prove the truth of Christian theism from non-Christian presuppositions.”

That would have to be unpacked as to exactly what it means. I suspect that I could agree with it entirely or in large part, once it was elaborated upon in greater specificity.

Whatever other mistakes we may make, I hope we can all avoid attacking the good intentions of our brothers in Christ.

I don't attack anyone's good intentions or sincerity (and that applies to even my severest critics). It must be noted, however, that since Bahnsen was an anti-Catholic, he would not consider a fully observant, orthodox Catholic (such as myself) as his "brother in Christ" in the first place. And when that is done, it is very difficult for human beings to avoid being condescending, with such a huge category mistake in place.

I look forward to better understanding your apologetic outlook while helping you better understand my perspective & the outlook of my fellow presuppositionalists.

Yes; same here. How refreshing.

I think that the difference between us is, in some ways, probably much smaller than conventionally thought. In other ways, it is very large, but perhaps we can begin to bridge that gap.

I think so.

In my understanding, the key difference between the archetypal Presuppositionalist & the Evidentialist counterpart is not any particular argument. Evidentialists often use arguments that attack the presuppositions of the unbeliever.

I certainly do all the time, because that is what socratics do.

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


As noted above, C.S. Lewis used an Argument from Moral Law of that type in Mere Christianity & an Argument from Reason of that type in Miracles. (Whether or not Lewis deserves to be called an evidentialist, most evidentialists claim him as one of their own.) Likewise, I personally use a version of the Argument from the Resurrection, usually considered the sine qua non of evidentialist apologetics. Presuppositionalist Thom Notaro has even written a short book on the use of evidence in Van Tillian apologetics.

Duly noted.

What then is the difference? The real difference, I think, is the question of epistemological neutrality. When evidentialists like John Warwick Montgomery try to provide a defense of the faith on empiricist grounds — on the idea that the facts speak for themselves — they violate the old proverb, Even unbelievers like Wittgenstein, Quine, Sellars, & Kuhn can see the failure of empiricism to overcome basic problems in the theory of knowledge. Why build your argument upon the sand of unbelief?

One can do this on probabilistic and plausibility grounds. There is wisdom in using the opponents' arguments and turning it against them. Paul urged us to do this and "become all things to all men." It is ultimately only a methodological adoption of the opponents' presuppositions (provisionally only), in order to show that they come to the end of thesmelves eventually, and that unbelieving views end in self-contradiction, utter incoherence, and despair.

The presuppositionalist rejects even the possibility of epistemological neutrality. Instead, he seeks to expose the necessary failure of all unbelieving philosophies & world-views.

I agree that they all fail. So I don;'t see any great difference here. It seems to me that it is largely one of method.

This approach follows his understanding of another proverb, “Argue with a fool according to his folly.” By accepting arguendo the presuppositions of the unbeliever, he works to show that they lead to complete futility, undermining their own claims at the very outset of the conversation.

That's exactly what I try to do with the atheist. But there are a lot of particulars to be dealt with in that overall endeavor. And to argue particulars there must be something held in common by both parties. Logic and widely-accepted scientific facts provide that common ground.

At the same time, the presuppositionalist offers the unbeliever the benefits which flow from acknowledging the fear of the Lord as the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, & understanding. He points to the riches of knowledge that are to be found in Jesus Christ. As Augustine put it, “Without belief there is no understanding.”

How does one have a discussion at all with someone, if one requires them to accept one's own conclusion in the first place? That would mean that there is no rational discussion to be had at all, because in effect one is required to say, "you have to be a Christian [my position] before we can even begin this discussion". So the situation reduces to blind faith from the outset, since the Christian cannot discuss anything with the atheist until the atheist first becomes a Christian (or, adopts Christian presuppositions, which amounts to the same thing, in terms of the discussion at hand).

Presuppositionalism reduces to, therefore, literally "anti-apologetics." It undermines from the outset the very goal of apologetics: convincing the unbeliever in terms that he can relate to in order to have the discussion at all. We have to defend our viewpoints with something outside of themselves (reason and fact and experience); otherwise, no discussion is possible, because no reason can be given for our belief; therefore it is blind faith, as far as the observing atheist is concerned. I'm not impressed by such a method in the slightest. It accomplishes nothing.

If there is no objection, I would like to present a few selections from a conversation with some atheist friends to illustrate the form that this kind of argument should take.

Sure.

* * *

1. In my haste, I misquoted part of the proverb. I should say that the presuppositionalist tries to follow the proverb, “Argue with a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

2. I’m still getting used to this format, so I missed the bulk of Dave’s very polite reply. But I am glad that we have as much common ground as we do.

3. Sometimes presuppositionalists do spend too much time proclaiming & too little time developing lines of argumentation. I have seen more examples than I care to admit: Such cases make me cringe. But bad examples of presuppositionalism should not blind us to good examples of that approach.

Fair enough. I would just add that if too many of these examples occur, I submit that perhaps it is because the premises of presuppositionalism inevitably lead to this sort of thing.

* * *

In fact, one might argue that [presuppositionalism] must [abandon argumentation for mere proclamation], insofar as it holds that believer and non-believer hold so little in common that they can scarcely communicate with each other (and incorporating the effect of Total Depravity or the unregenerate state).

I cannot, of course, speak for all presuppositionalists, but the teachers who have influenced me have taken a different approach. They instead emphasize the common ground that the believer has with the unbeliever owing to the unbeliever’s pre-existing knowledge of God as spelled out in Romans 1.

That is valid; however, the trick there is that your average atheist will not accept this, as it is already presupposing the truth of revelation, so it can be tried, but I am very dubious as to how successful it will be in convincing any atheist.

True, unbelievers have suppressed the truth of God in their rebellion against God, as a result of which their foolish hearts are darkened, and (though thinking themselves wise) they have become fools. We are even told that their speculations — their theories & philosophies — have become futile. The unbeliever is thus unable to justify his knowledge-claims. Hence, the unbeliever’s world-view is ripe for destruction.

The text doesn't require us to conclude that absolutely every unbeliever is in express rebellion against the truth. I have argued that the very next chapter (Romans 2) presents a picture that suggests a great deal of goodness (from God) in some nonbelievers. Romans 1 is typical proverbial-type language of "universality" that was not intended to be taken literally. So both forms of Hebrew / biblical expression and context mitigate against this use of Romans 1 as an ally for presuppositionalism.

But the unbeliever still has a knowledge of God: so much that he is “without excuse” in the face of God’s wrath.

I agree, but usually this knowledge is buried deep under many layers of rationalization and disinformation, by which the person is burdened. He is often not even consciously aware of it. Men have a high capacity for suppressing divine truths and knowledge.

The unbeliever secretly relies on the knowledge of God when using math, logic, science, language, moral claims, and so on. We have common ground, not neutral ground.

One can distinguish between these two propositions:

1) Whoever does math, logic, science, language, and makes moral claims is ultimately relying on the inherent knowledge and presuppositions that God gave them [ability to reason, senses, presupposing basic tenets of knowledge and existence of ourselves and the universe, assuming the general "uniformitarianism" and predictability of life and nature, etc.], whether aware of it or not.

2) Whoever does math, logic, science, language, and makes moral claims must deliberately, consciously adopt overtly Christian presuppositions before it is even possible to do these things.

I wholeheartedly accept #1 and with equal vigor reject #2. Perhaps this might explain some of the discrepancy between us and cast light on where some confusion might be present in understanding each other. I also accept the following notion:

3) Math, logic, science, and language can be done and made starting with "religiously neutral" premises. The truth of 2+2=4 or e=mc2 or "if a=b and b=c, then a=c" or linguistics and syntax do not require adopting Christian presuppositions in order to be understood or applied to real life analyses.

For morality, I would argue that it is a fundamentally different case (and we would likely agree much more here), and that morality without a God of some transcendent sort is difficult to achieve in theory or in practice.

Take courses on those subjects [logic, science, mathematics, & history] in some school. One doesn’t have to start with Christian presuppositions to learn any of those things.

And here is where we really disagree.

For the presuppositionalist, the fear of Lord is the beginning of wisdom, knowledge, & understanding. Unbelieving men are able to be very good scientists, logicians, mathematicians & historians only because they have an innate knowledge of God that they suppress & deny in self-deception.

I agree in the sense of #1 above, but not if by this you mean something akin to what I described in #2. I am most eager to hear your response to this.

Unbelieving world-views cannot justify knowledge claims: they are nothing more than “empty deception” & “futile speculations.”

Ultimately, but often not in their initial stages. I'd have to see more specific examples to really unpack this adequately. We can only argue in generalities for so long.

* * *

The unbeliever unconsciously relies on his knowledge of God, but he has already engaged in self-deception to suppress that knowledge.

Oftentimes; not always. In fact, I would say this is self-evident, because some atheists do , in fact, become believers. Everyone is at a certain point on the spectrum between total atheism and committed Christianity. If an atheist is to convert to Christianity, say, 13 years from now, then God has moved him further towards the Christian end of the spectrum in six of those 13 years, moving toward the goal (in God's Providence).

Therefore, such a person is relatively less hostile to Christianity and certain of its claims and assumptions after these six years, than he would have been before. God is moving him along, by His grace. Most conversions take place gradually, not suddenly. See, for example, C.S. Lewis's accounts of his journey from atheism to theism and Christianity. Process; grey areas. It's not a matter of his being totally wicked and then transformed into an angel of light when he talked to J.R.R. Tolkien and was convinced of the "true myth" of Christianity.

Now, if you accept this premise, then it means that many atheists (the ones who will eventually convert) are less hostile to Christianity than others, who are completely hostile and, indeed, examples of how you are applying Romans 1. Ergo: the passage cannot be applied with the absoluteness that you claim, by the fact of conversions alone.

By the same token, I have often made the same argument in reverse, against so-called Calvinist perseverance or Baptist eternal security. No one knows for certain who will fall away in the future, just as no one knows which atheists will convert to Christianity. We may claim that we know, but we really don't. Only God does. When the supposed "solid, godly" Calvinist falls away and becomes an atheist, the Calvinist quickly asserts that he never was a Calvinist or justified at all. But they didn't know that till it happened in practice. Their system then requires such a judgment because it doesn't allow for apostasy of a person truly justified.

Likewise, you don't know what atheist will convert. Until they do, you apply your absolutist reading of Romans 1 to them when it may not apply, if indeed the man or woman is on his way to conversion and has become less hostile to Christian assumptions and arguments, while not totally convinced. You could argue, I suppose, that all conversions are instantaneous (like St. Paul or someone like Ebeneezer Scrooge) and involve no process, but I would consider that extremely weak argumentation and difficult to establish on observational grounds.

He is like a man who lives in the penthouse of a 50 story building, while denying the first 49 floors. He could know an awful lot about the penthouse, and have a great view of the city, but could he explain how he came to have such a great view?

But the validity of many observations do not directly depend on presuppositions, except in the very basic sense of being able to reason and observe in the first place.

Since the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7) and of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10; Psalm 111:10),

Of course this is proverbial literature. The statements are true, but I don't believe they necessarily apply to atheists in the way presuppositionalists argue. This shows that:

"Christians are knowledgeable and wise because they are building on the solid foundation of belief in God and reverence towards Him."

It doesn't necessarily also mean:

"No atheist can be wise or knowledgeable in the slightest degree without belief in God."

those who deny their knowledge of God cannot give an intelligible account for the basis of their knowledge, just as I could not give an intelligible account of my birth if I denied the existence of my mother.

Ultimately, this is the case, but that is on the deep, presuppositional level, not the "everyday" one of observation and application of the basic building-blocks of reason and knowledge.

Paul even equates philosophy with “empty deception” when that philosophy is “according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Col 2:8,9) Their speculations “futile” — that is, their theories & philosophies are pointless, useless, ineffectual. (Romans 1:21)

Oftentimes, yes. But not always; else why would Paul bother to cite two pagans in his Sermon on Mars Hill?

Colossians 2:8-10 connects intellectual faithfulness to the deity & authority of Christ. Romans 1:18-23, in a dark reflection, connects the rejection of God’s authority with its replacement by idols and with hearts that are darkened, with futile speculations, and with men “professing to be wise” who become fools.

I responded to this above. It is a general truth, of course, but how to apply it to each individual non-believer is much more complex and tricky.

‘It is therefore important to discover whether there is any answer to Hume within a philosophy that is wholly or mainly empirical. If not, there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity. The lunatic who believes that he is a poached egg is to be condemned solely on the ground that he is in a minority…’

~Bertrand Russell

Russell claimed that St. Thomas Aquinas was not a philosopher, on the grounds that no Christian who incorporates revelation into philosophy can be one, by definition. So, for him, there are no true Christian philosophers. He's the opposite mirror image of the presuppositionalist, who thinks there can be no true atheist philosopher.

I wrote:

Bahnsen is not attacking the good intentions of classicists & evidentialists. He is instead pointing out the futile nature of trying to prove the truth of Christian theism from non-Christian presuppositions.

Dave replies:

This, of course, hinges on what one means by “prove.”

Oddly enough, no, I’m not sure it does. At any rate, I don’t think it is the real point of disagreement.

I have no idea what just happened there, but anyway, I continue . . .

I think there are relatively few things that one can absolutely prove. On the other hand, I believe in natural theology, which means that I think there are certain things that all men know intuitively or instinctively or with a properly formed intellect by virtue of logic, that Christians can then build upon in their apologetic.

For Bahnsen, Van Til, & Frame, the question is not whether we can prove anything with absolute certainty. For them, the question is whether unbelieving presuppositions permit one to rationally warrant any claim as even probably true. Their answer is, “No.”

This has to be unpacked and argued with reference to specific instances; otherwise we are just spinning our wheels and not moving the discussion along. I dealt with Bahnsen's particular arguments in my critique and showed, I think, how they fail, according to both reason and the data of revelation.

* * *

“Our knowledge forms an enormous system. And only within this system has a particular bit the value we give it.”

~Ludwig Wittgenstein

That's right.

My atheist friends have commented that there is no evidence for the existence of God. The example of Russell’s Teapot implies as much by comparing our knowledge of God to our knowledge of an invisible teapot orbiting another planet.

This claim is, of course, untrue. There is an abundance of evidence for the existence of God. The debate is not about the quantity of evidence, but rather concerns how that evidence should be handled & interpreted. A few examples are in order…

First example:

A century ago, most cosmologists believed that the universe was infinite in scope & eternal in duration. The universe, they believed, had no beginning & would have no end. Later, a new theory displaced the old model. The universe, most cosmologists now believe, came into existence through a Big Bang. The universe has a beginning … and it came from nothing. Nothing material, at any rate.

(The fact that the scientific community can change its position on a question is a good reason not to base either theism or atheism on “science.” The dominant explanation may change in surprising ways.)

I disagree. Science, as it increased in knowledge (hence truth in an empirical sense), has confirmed Christian beliefs all the more, because all truth is God's truth. We need not fear science. It bolsters Christian belief at every turn. The Big Bang is entirely consistent with creation, whereas an eternal universe would not be. Intelligent Design has made, I think, the traditional teleological argument stronger than ever. The inability of scientists to discover even the basic processes for the evolution of life, DNA, reproduction, consciousness, etc., only confirms that a Divine Hand must have been involved. It can't be "proven" but it is highly plausible.

When Copernicus established heliocentism, some folks were very upset, as if this supposedly overthrew biblical cosmology. But it turned out that the earth simply wasn't the center of the universe (i.e., in physical terms) and this was God's plan. Nothing in Christianity was overthrown. Upon reflection, Christians figured out that the truth of Christianity does not rise or fall on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa.

The same applied to the change from Newtonian to Einsteinian and quantum physics. What is threatened in Christianity by relativity? To the contrary, Einstein demonstrated that time is not an absolute. Christians already knew that because we believed that God was outside of time, that time began, and that eternity is to be distinguished from time (St. Augustine had already discussed this 1600 years ago). We have nothing whatsoever to fear from science. Modern science arose in a Christian milieu and it has not ever "disproven" Christianity. It has confirmed it.

However, it is philosophically problematic to think that the universe really came from nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit, according to the old dictum: Nothing comes from nothing. So, many have argued, the universe must have had a cause outside of itself, a Creator.

Does the origin of the universe count as evidence for God? From a Christian perspective, it obviously does. “Here,” says the Christian, “are facts that reflect what we have been saying all along.” And he is obviously correct — from his perspective.

But there are other perspectives, and those perspectives will interpret the evidence differently. The Muslim will see the Big Bang as evidence of the might of Allah. The atheist may very take the ex nihilo problem as evidence that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, or dismiss the question as an “unsolved problem,” — just one more research grant.

How do you resolve such a dilemma? “More evidence” is unlikely to resolve the matter, since the evidence is subject to different interpretations, each dependent on the presuppositions of the interpreter. Somehow, we must resolve the question of how to interpret the data.

I am not required to claim that science (and/or philosophy) is all the knowledge there is. Reason and revelation / faith have to be incorporated into an overall coherent epistemology or worldview. If the atheist relies on science alone, that is as foolish as a Christian relying on "faith alone" and refusing to incorporate reason into his overall belief-system.

Second example:

At the risk of letting this thread spin wildly out of control, let me raise another example: the question of design. Please, let’s not have an evolution-creation debate. I happen to believe in both — subject to definition of terms, of course — but I just want to provide a small example, not launch another flame war.

As it happens, I used to believe in the argument from design. During my college years, however, I realized there was a problem: Answering the question empirically was an exercise in circular reasoning — for both the atheist & the theist. If the universe is designed, then this is what a designed universe looks like. If the universe is not designed, then this is what a universe without design looks like.

If you believe the universe is designed, then the universe is full of evidence for design. If you do not believe the universe is designed, then the universe is full of evidence against design. Conclusions, once again, are a function of presuppositions. How to resolve the fundamental difference in presuppositions? How can we decide how to interpret the evidence?

I don't argue it in this fashion. What I do is say that there are all these marvelous processes (more discovered all the time) that don't seem to be able to be remotely explained (as to origin) by "random" or purely materialistic processes. If one believes that they can be explained by such natural processes, then presumably some explanation is (at least potentially or theoretically) to be had.

But failing that, one must admit that it is a view held with no direct empirical evidence. It is basically "blind faith" or materialistic presuppositionalism. Therefore, it is not a whit better than Christian (or otherwise theistic) metaphysical belief in a Designer. The Designer hypothesis is at least some internally-coherent attempt to explain how we got from Point A to Point B. It is as reasonable (if not far more so) than materialism. The same process of reasoning can be used for the Big Bang and related cosmological arguments.

Bottom line: both views require faith. Materialism is at the most no better than a theistic worldview, to explain these mysterious processes. We also attack the ridiculous notion that science is the sum of all knowledge, and methodological naturalism. Scientists are not required to give up religious belief in order to be scientists. I've written at great length on this. We can show the ludicrous nature of materialism and then -- quite rationally - suggest that some truths about nature and origins lie outside of science proper and far better explain the natural world than a ridiculous materialism that keeps firing epistemological and explanatory blanks.

Third example:

An even better example involves the Resurrection that we celebrate today. A scholar can point to literally thousands of manuscripts recounting the life, death & resurrection of Jesus. These ancient texts give strong evidence of multiple sources recounting first- and second-hand testimony of the miracles & resurrection of Jesus. Internal evidence suggests that these accounts were accurate. External evidence supports that conclusion.

In one sense then, the Resurrection has the best attestation of any event in ancient world. But is it true?

The atheist, of course, may answer that it is not true. Accounts of men rising from the dead are not to be believed. Why not? Well, because men do not rise from the dead. The argument is consistent. And circular.

Yes, of course at that point we have to argue that the miraculous is entirely possible and cannot be ruled out a priori.

Christians, OTOH, have no problem believing that God would raise His Son from the dead. The argument is circular — and consistent.

It's not circular if we can establish that miracles are possible, and that this one plausibly, very likely occurred, based on eyewitness testimony and behavior. And we believe it in faith, and have a certainty based on revelation, which is another form of knowledge.

How can atheists & Christians settle the debate when they have different presuppositions that lead to different conclusions? How do we decide how to interpret the data? How do we decide which epistemology is correct?

We have to go back to the prior argument for the supernatural and the miraculous. And epistemologically prior to that, we can easily demonstrate that science itself starts from metaphysical axioms that cannot themselves be proven, and that it is not the sum of all knowledge. Those fallacies are what cause the unbeliever (on a purely rational plane, which is not all the factors involved by any means) to deny it. They are slaves to their false presuppositions. But we can break those down by using reasoning and fact acknowledged by both parties.

Open Forum

"The Great Debate": G.K. Chesterton with George Bernard Shaw and Hilaire Belloc, 1927. Belloc was the sardonic but gentlemanly moderator for the amiable and jovial sparring partners (courtesy of UPI).

Link to previous one.

The Open Forum is designed to accommodate all topics not related to posts currently on the front page. Please try to restrict topics to the general subject of the posts under which you comment (and let's all try our best to be courteous and polite and charitable to all those of a different opinion, while maintaining passionate commitment to our own opinions unless we see fit to overthrow them). Thanks!

Reply to James White's So-Called "Review" of My Book, The One-Minute Apologist

William F. Albright (1891-1971), Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999), and Joachim Jeremias (1900-1982): closet papists all, due to their incomprehensible Armstrong-like tendencies to read anachronistic and groundless "Catholic" implications into Petrine texts?

Previously, I wished to press home a point of not responding to White's critique unless and until he was willing, for a change, to have a bone fide discussion about it (see my initial post on the topic). But since he has made it clear (I'm so surprised that I almost fainted) that he will not ("Armstrong . . . is beyond dialogue or discussion"), my gripe about rudimentary discussion method (understood by the overwhelming majority of sentient adults, let alone "thinkers") has been decisively illustrated. Congratulations to Mr. White for again showing his true stripes, as he invariably does.

I think it is also important, though, to highlight the ongoing double standard whereby James White (so he has proven by his actions -- or inactions -- 150 times), has no responsibility or "apologetic [intellectual] duty" to defend his own arguments and papers against critique. None of his adoring fan club seems to be willing to publicly urge him to do this. Ah, but for some strange reason, he and his sycophants assume that everyone whom he critiques, does have this burden, on pain of being mocked and accused of cowardice if they don't comply with the double standard demand.

Therefore, I will make my reply, in order to highlight the profound difference in method between myself and Bishop White. It never was (contrary to the anti-Catholic nattering nabobs) an issue of ability on my part. Of course I can respond. I routinely defend my points of view. White routinely fails to defend his own, unless he is dealing with folks who are exceptionally ignorant (such as Dave Hunt's pathetic critiques of Calvinism, which are as bad -- if that can be imagined -- as his critiques of Catholicism).

I will cite the actual arguments made by Bishop White, and edit out the potshots, low blows, and derogatory comments about my alleged profound stupidity in Matters Theological and Biblical, etc. Those can be found in my last post, for the record. It'll be tough (like trying to separate all the spices and pepper from a spicy salad), taking out insults from the veritable King of Internet Ad Hominem, but we'll do our best. White's words will be in blue.

* * * * *

For example, on page 17, Armstrong attempts to present a "Protestant" objection relating to the offices of the church:

The Bible teaches that bishops, elders, and deacons are all synonymous terms for the same office: roughly that of a pastor today. It doesn't indicate that bishops are higher than these other offices.

Just who believes this, I wonder? I have never read any work by any Protestant theologian of any note who has ever made this argument. So, is Armstrong just ignorant of Protestant ecclesiology, or, has he run into some tiny sect someplace that has come up with some new wacky viewpoint? Given that he was once non-Catholic, it is hard to believe he could be so ignorant of the reality regarding the fact that bishop and elder refer to the same office and are used interchangeably in the New Testament, but that this office is clearly distinguished from that of the deacon.

This is a case of a poor choice of one word (minor point) in the midst of a perfectly valid overall argument (major point); in other words, "majoring on the minors" (something White is extremely good at doing, as a first-rate sophist and obscurantist). It is true that this was an unwise use of "deacon". If I had left out that word, the argument, coming from the hypothetical Protestant, would have been virtually identical to White's own ecclesiology, since we see above that he equates elder and bishop (and has done so before, notably in this quote):

I am an elder in the church: hence, I am a bishop, overseer, pastor, of a local body of believers.

(10 January 2001)

In fact, this utterance is the reason why I have taken to calling White "Bishop White." He said it; I am simply following his own protocol. I believe what I had in mind was somewhat related to the thought that I have expressed in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

As is often the case in theology and practice among the earliest Christians, there is some fluidity and overlapping of these three vocations (for example, compare Acts 20:17 with 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:1-7 with Titus 1:5-9). But this does not prove that three offices of ministry did not exist. For instance, St. Paul often referred to himself as a deacon or minister (1 Cor. 3:5, 4:1; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23-25), yet no one would assert that he was merely a deacon, and nothing else.

(p. 252; this appendix on ecclesiology is also available online)

The argument in the present context would then be that some Protestants (I am not implying in any of my vaguely Summa-like "objections" in the book that all Protestants would believe what is portrayed; that is rarely the case with anything) adopt this more fluid and primitive New Testament ecclesiology and use the terms interchangeably, whereas Catholics follow a far more developed ecclesiology. But I concede that "deacons" should not have been in this statement of the "objection" because most, if not all Protestants, do distinguish their office, as Bishop White pointed out.

And I recognized the distinction myself (so much for the claims of my profound ignorance), in the same section of the above book (completed in 1996):

Bishops are always referred to in the singular, while elders are usually mentioned plurally. The primary controversy among Christians has to do with the nature and functions of both bishops and elders (deacons have largely the same duties among both Protestants and Catholics).

Some species of Baptists probably come the closest to using "deacon" interchangeably with "elder" or "pastor". For example, see the Wikipedia article on "Deacons"; section on Baptists (bolding added):

Baptists have traditionally followed the principle of the autonomy of the local church congregation, giving each church the ability to discern for themselves the interpretation of scripture. Thus, the views among Baptist churches as to who becomes a deacon and when, as well as what they do and how they go about doing it, varies greatly. Baptists recognize two ordained positions in the church as Elders (Pastors) and Deacons, as per 1 Timothy, third chapter.

There are Baptist churches where the deacons decide many of the church affairs. There are churches where deacons serve in a family ministry only. There are Baptist churches (especially in the United Kingdom, but also in the U.S. and elsewhere) where women are allowed to be deacons; while many Baptist churches would never consider allowing a woman.

Of course, the far greater burden lies on White, to establish his novel ecclesiology of bishops in the New Testament having no higher status than a mere elder or pastor of a local church (i.e., what he himself is). Hierarchical episcopacy is most apparent in the New Testament in the Council of Jerusalem. Again, I wrote in my first book, Appendix Two on ecclesiology:

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29) bears witness to a definite hierarchical, episcopal structure of government in the early Church. St. Peter, the chief elder (the office of Pope) of the entire Church (1 Peter 5:1; cf. John 21:15-17), presided and issued the authoritative pronouncement (15:7-11). Then James, Bishop of Jerusalem (rather like the host-mayor of a conference) gives a concurring (Acts 15:14), concluding statement (15:13-29). That James was the sole, "monarchical" bishop of Jerusalem is fairly apparent from Scripture (Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18, Gal. 1:19, 2:12). This fact is also attested by the first Christian historian, Eusebius (History of the Church, 7:19).

(pp. 254-255)

In a recent combox comment I also noted how this council provides explicit biblical evidence for infallibility of Church councils:

Infallibility is plainly taught in Acts 15:28-29. This was a council that was led by the Holy Spirit and therefore infallible. The Church was absolutely bound to it's decisions. Part of Paul's missionary preaching was to proclaim the infallible decisions of the council (Acts 16:4).

I wrote in another piece of freelance writing that I happened to be working on yesterday:

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was a meeting of “apostles and elders” (15:2,4,6,22) and “the whole church” (15:22). This council issued a proclamation binding on all Christians (16:4), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit:

Acts 15:28-29: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Paul and Silas even proclaimed this decision as part of their missionary activity (Acts 16:4). This, then, provides an explicit biblical model of how Church government and authority ought to function.

The Jerusalem Council was quite contrary to the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura, or “Bible Alone” [as the only infallible authority] because it involved human cooperation in interpreting the Bible, and this group effort was indeed infallible (Acts 15:28) and binding (according to the Apostle Paul himself) upon all Christian believers (Acts 16:4). This historical fact alone (part of inspired revelation) is quite sufficient to refute sola Scriptura. Interpretation of the Bible must occur within the Church, as a result of its deliberations in council (bishops and elders), not simply as a function of the “priesthood of scholars” or private interpretation (2 Peter 1:19-21) or denominational relativism.

I have written at length about this very topic of the Jerusalem Council, in reply to Bishop White in the past (ignored by him, of course). Protestant Bible scholar James D.G. Dunn sees more than a little bit of "catholicism" and bishops in Paul's Pastoral Epistles:

. . . Timothy and Titus . . . begin to assume something of the role of monarchichal bishops, with authority over the community . . . theirs is the responsibility to keep the faith pure (I Tim. 1.3f.; 4.6ff., 11-16; etc.), to order the life and relationships of the community (I Tim. 5.1-16 -- Timothy has the authority to enrol a widow or to refuse enrolment, apparently without reference to others; 6.2, 17; Titus 2.1-10,15 -- 'with all authority'), to exercise discipline and mete out justice not least in the case of elders (I Tim. 5.19ff. -- Timothy is the court of appeal, above the eldership), to lay on hands (I Tim. 5.22 -- a function already reserved to Timothy?), and to appoint elders (Titus 1.5). There is also a concept of 'apostolic succession' beginning to emerge -- Paul to Timothy to 'faithful men' to 'others' . . . With such evidence it would be difficult to deny that the Pastorals are already some way along the trajectory of early catholicism.

(Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 352)

For further related information, see:

The Biblical Evidence for Priests

Apostles Can Become Bishops (Apostolic Succession)

Dialogue on Protestant vs. Catholic Ecclesiologies (vs. Dr. EL Hamilton)

Bishops in the New Testament and the Early Church

And now back to White:

But, he does not show any knowledge of the biblical arguments in his presentation in this book (though any brief review of my debate with Mitch Pacwa on the subject of the priesthood would have provided him with a very useful outline).

And any brief review (and ultra-rare interaction) with the above papers would provide the good bishop with useful outlines for discussion as well. I provide my information for free.

I will demonstrate the circularity and failure of his arguments for the priesthood later.
But in the majority of presentations, Rome's position is assumed, not actually demonstrated. The circularity of Armstrong's writings is plain for all to see. He falls into the category of apologists who believe that arguing for the possibility of Rome's position is sufficient to establish her ultimate authority claims. But that kind of argumentation is only effective for those who already want to believe and are simply looking for a reason to continue to do so. It surely has no impact upon the one who continues to demand some kind of substantive response.
The One Minute Apologist illustrates the same problem I have documented in the majority of the rest of Rome's apologists: they do not have any desire to interact with the strongest criticisms of their position, but, for some reason, are more than content to repeat the same worn out arguments that have been offered, and refuted, over and over again in the past. And when they represent the "objections," they do not present the best, the strongest, but the most mundane, the least compelling, as normative for "the other side."

For example, Armstrong does not even seem to be aware of fundamental and fatal objections to his favorite arguments. He repeatedly asserts that Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone. On page 34 we read, "Peter alone is given the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'--a symbol of stewardship and supervisory capacity over the house of God, or the Church." A footnote is attached pointing us to Matthew 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." But there does not seem to be any recognition on his part of what I brought out over a decade ago in The Roman Catholic Controversy:

This statement is followed by the promise to, at some time in the future, give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, so that what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. I emphasize this is a promise, for the verb is future in tense.[1] Yet, when we see this authority given in Matthew 18:18, it is given not to Peter alone, or even primarily, but to all the apostles, and that using the exact same language,[2] regarding binding and loosing. If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other apostles, as their superior, they are also forced to admit that the giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture, a strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the constitution of the Church.

[1] Greek: dw,sw, future of di,dwmi
[2] Note a comparison of the words of the Lord Jesus in Mathew 16:19 and 18:18. The only differences are due to the use of the singular in 16:19 and the plural in 18:18; the root words are identical:

Matthew 16:19: o] eva.n dh,sh|j evpi. th/j gh/j e;stai dedeme,non evn toi/j ouvranoi/j( kai. o] eva.n lu,sh|j evpi. th/j gh/j e;stai lelume,non evn toi/j ouvranoi/jÅ
Matthew 18:18: o[sa eva.n dh,shte evpi. th/j gh/j e;stai dedeme,na evn ouvranw/|( kai. o[sa eva.n lu,shte evpi. th/j gh/j e;stai lelume,na evn ouvranw/|Å

So I took the time to scan Armstrong's materials to see if he had addressed this issue elsewhere. I checked his The Catholic Verses and found that the discussion of the Papacy (55-61) is almost identical to what is found in this new book, but there is no recognition, or discussion, of the fact that you cannot cite Matthew 16:19 as indicative of Peter alone receiving the keys, and that despite the fact that my book is cited in the bibliography.

. . . So I would ask Armstrong: where in Scripture do we see the giving of the keys to Peter alone, as he claims? We all know this is the Roman claim. Outside of the self-serving interpretations of the bishops of Rome, upon what basis are we to accept this claim? And if Armstrong wishes to be taken seriously as an apologist, why does he not write in such a way as to indicate a growing, deepening knowledge of the critics of the position he espouses?

The first (rather obvious) response to this is what Paul Hoffer wrote on my blog:

[A]t Matt. 16:18, Jesus says to Peter that He "will" give Peter the keys of the kingdom. Is he trying to say that Jesus is not a person that keeps His word because the Scriptures don't record the actual conveyance of keys later? If one reduces Mr. White's argument to its logical conclusion, it would suggest that Jesus is not "the Man of His Word (pun intended).

I added:

Yes, I thought this was rather bizarre and striking also. What does it matter what tense the statement was? Obviously Peter was singled out for an extraordinary position and we can assume from common sense that Jesus intended for this to be during his earthly lifetime.

So who cares whether it was a reference to the future? The fact remains that only Peter was promised the "keys of the kingdom." What God says will happen inevitably does happen. Another fallacy of White is to assume that "binding and loosing" represents the sum total of the responsibilities and prerogatives of the "keyholder." This is untrue. It involves much more than that.

Plenty of Protestant commentators agree that Peter was significantly unique and held considerable individual powers in the Church. See my paper:

The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant) (+ Part II)

Since Bishop White was apparently unable to locate this paper on my blog: the very one that already has the answers to his current arguments, I will cite a few of the things in it, all written by Protestant Bible scholars. I guess White can't be taken seriously now, seeing that he has ignored an important part of my apologetics for the Petrine papacy. His own criticism (as so often) rebounds upon his own head. If a Protestant doesn't care about my opinions regarding the keys, let him consider these scholars (after my own introductory portion):

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . (RSV)

Isaiah 22:20-22 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, . . . and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelation 3:7 [Christ describing Himself]:. . . the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

The power of the "keys," in the Hebrew mind, had to do with administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, and, in a broad sense, might be thought to encompass the use of excommunication, penitential decrees, a barring from the sacraments and lesser censures, and legislative and executive functions. Like the name Rock, this privilege was bestowed only upon St. Peter and no other disciple or Apostle. He was to become God's "vice-regent," so to speak. In the Old Testament, a steward was a man over a house (Genesis 43:19, 44:4, 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, 2 Kings 10:5 15:5 18:18, Isaiah 22:15). The steward was also called a "governor" in the Old Testament and has been described by commentators as a type of "prime minister."

In the New Testament, the two words often translated as "steward" are oikonomos (Luke 16:2-3, 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 4:10), and epitropos (Matthew 20:8, Galatians 4:2). Several Protestant commentaries and dictionaries take the position that Christ is clearly hearkening back to Isaiah 22:15-22 when He makes this pronouncement, and that it has something to do with delegated authority in the Church He is establishing (in the same context). He applies the same language to Himself in Revelation 3:7 (cf. Job 12:14), so that his commission to Peter may be interpreted as an assignment of powers to the recipient in His stead, as a sort of authoritative representative or ambassador.

The "opening" and "shutting" (in Isaiah 22:2) appear to refer to a jurisdictional power which no one but the king (in the ancient kingdom of Judah) could override. Literally, it refers to the prime minister's prerogative to deny or allow entry to the palace, and access to the king. In Isaiah's time, this office was over three hundred years old, and is thought to have been derived by Solomon from the Egyptian model of palace functionary, or the Pharaoh's "vizier," who was second in command after the Pharaoh. This was exactly the office granted to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:40-44, 45:8).

One can confidently conclude, therefore, that when Old Testament usage and the culture of the hearers is closely examined, the phrase keys of the kingdom of heaven must have great significance (for Peter and for the papacy) indeed, all the more so since Christ granted this honor only to St. Peter.

* * *

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God' (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, 205).

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In accordance with Matthew's understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church.

(Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grabd Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is 'over a house' (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: 'epitropos' (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and 'oikonomos' (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent -- from 'oikos' ('house') and 'nemo' ('to dispense' or 'to manage'). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility.

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

My interjection:

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are "over the house," "steward," or "governor." In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1) "Master of the palace" {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2) "In charge of the palace" {New International Version}
3) "Master of the household" {New Revised Standard Version}
4) "In charge of the royal household" {New American Standard Bible}
5) "Comptroller of the household" {Revised English Bible}
6) "Governor of the palace" {Moffatt}

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God's people.

(Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter.

(Joachim Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom.

(William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah.

(William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)

And what about the "keys of the kingdom"? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.

(F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

White then veers off into subject matter unrelated to the book, from old papers of mine. He wants to discuss Jesus as high priest and the sacrifice of the mass. But why should I bother with his reasoning now, seeing that I already made a lengthy reply on the same topic over three years ago that White ("surprise surprise surprise" -- as Gomer Pyle would say) ignored: Comparative Exegesis of Hebrews 8 / Sacrifice of the Mass. If White will reply to that point-by-point, then I'll spend valuable time dealing with his present objection.

I have replied to his criticism of my book, which was the purpose of this paper. All he could muster up was two objections: one on a pretty minor point that has now been clarified, and the other one virtually a non-argument, so silly and frivolous is it (as if the future tense makes any difference as to the essence of Jesus' commission to St. Peter).

White's additional; "no extra charge" argument is something different. Due to the rarity of such a momentous occasion (the great Bishop White deigning to consider any of my arguments at all, seeing what an utter ignoramus I am) I will reply to this.

The other reference to "future tense" was also interesting:

[ME, in an old paper] Then he goes on in 6:11 to teach that the way out of this is to be baptized ("washed"), justified, and sanctified (past tense, whereas Protestants believe it should be future tense only and - technically - not related to salvation at all). . . .

First, note the easy assumption that "washed" is "baptized."

Based on very extensive cross referencing [see section XI of this linked paper] . . .

Then, Armstrong shows how little he knows of the theology of those he critiques when he says that "sanctified" should be "future tense only and - technically - not related to salvation at all." This is simply ludicrous. I suppose one might dig up a Hodges/Wilkinite who might come up with something as odd as that, but "Protestants" have been very clear on defining sanctification, recognizing its multiple uses in the NT, and its intimate connection to salvation. One truly has to wonder at Armstrong's ability to claim to have read meaningful Protestant works of theology and yet remain so functionally illiterate in the subject.

Yes; then consider the following, that is posted on my site, and was compiled by 1994 for the original (later revised) longer edition of my book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

A. Augustus Strong [Baptist theologian]

Sanctification is that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit, by which the holy disposition imparted in regeneration is maintained and strengthened . . .

Regeneration is instantaneous, but sanctification takes time. The 'developing' of the photographer's picture may illustrate God's process of sanctifying the regenerate soul . . .

Salvation is something past, something present, and something future; a past fact, justification; a present process, sanctification; a future consummation, redemption and glory . . .

Sanctification is not a matter of course, which will go on whatever we do, or do not do. It requires a direct superintendence and surgery on the one hand, and, on the other hand a practical hatred of evil on our part that cooperates with the husbandry of God . . .

The Holy Spirit enables the Christian, through increasing faith, more fully and consciously to appropriate Christ, and thus progressively to make conquest of the remaining sinfulness of his nature . . .

The operation of God reveals itself in, and is accompanied by, intelligent and voluntary activity of the believer in the discovery and mortification of sinful desires, and in the bringing of the whole being into obedience to Christ and conformity to the standards of his word.

(Systematic Theology, Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1967 [orig. 1907], 869-871)

B. Charles Hodge [Presbyterian theologian]

Justification is a forensic act, God acting as judge, . . . whereas sanctification is an effect due to divine operation . . . Sanctification involves a change of character . . . Justification is complete and the same in all, while sanctification is progressive and is more complete in some than in others . . . . .

The cooperation of second causes is not excluded from the process of sanctification. When Christ opened the eyes of the blind, no second cause interposed between His volition and the effect. But men work out their own salvation, while God works in them to will and to do according to His own good pleasure. In the work of regeneration, the soul is passive. It cannot cooperate in the communication of spiritual life. But in conversion, repentance, faith, and growth in grace, all its powers are called into exercise. At the same time sanctification is supernatural or a work of grace, for the effects produced transcend the efficiency of our fallen nature and are due to the agency of the Spirit . . .

On the subject of the necessity of good works there has never been any real difference of opinion among Protestants. First, it is universally admitted that good works are not necessary to our justification; they are consequences and indirectly the fruits of justification and, therefore, cannot be its ground . . . It is agreed that it is only a living faith, i.e., a faith which works by love and purifies the heart, that unites the soul to Christ and secures our reconciliation with God . . . It is universally admitted that an immoral life is inconsistent with a state of grace, that those who willfully continue in the practice of sin shall not inherit the kingdom of God . . . For sanctification is inseparable from justification, and the one is just as essential as the other.

Although Protestants deny the merit of good works and teach that salvation is entirely gratuitous - . . . solely on the grounds of the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ - they nevertheless teach that God does reward His people for their works . . . The Scriptures also teach that the happiness or blessedness which believers will experience in a future life will be greater or less in proportion to their devotion to the service of Christ in this life."

(Systematic Theology, abridged one-volume edition by Edward N. Gross, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988 [orig. 1873, 3 vols.], 464-465, 471-472)

"Future tense only" was a poor choice of words (no writer who ever lived has ever used only the best words at all times, that would be perfectly understood, so this is a yawner). What would more accurately convey my meaning and understanding of Protestant theology would be "present and future, as opposed to past tense, as in justification." Speaking of sanctification in the past tense is foreign to Protestant theology, as these citations show (yet 1 Corinthians 6:11 puts it in the past tense). Justification is the past event. Hence, Charles Hodge:

Justification is an instantaneous act and not, like sanctification, a continued and progressive work.

(Ibid., 458)

Note that I stated that sanctification was "technically - not related to salvation at all". This is standard Protestant soteriology. Anyone who knows that theology would know exactly what I mean here (it's not a poor choice of words this time). But White, in his ongoing effort to "prove" that I am a clueless imbecile in biblical and Protestant theology (and Catholic, too, I imagine he probably thinks), uses a clever technique of sophistry by implying that by saying it is not "technically" (i.e., abstractly) related to salvation in Protestant thought is the equivalent of asserting that it has no relation (in practical terms) or "intimate connection" to justification and salvation at all.

I do not assert the latter. I've written many many times about how Protestantism -- at least the better forms of it -- stresses a close identification of faith and works, though technically separating sanctification from justification and salvation proper, in a way that Catholicism does not. As one example of many such statements in my writing, take, for example, my paper, Martin Luther's Doctrine Concerning Good Works: Have I Misrepresented It? I wrote:

"Luther thought that works were not technically part of justification by faith alone, which is what saves a person."

Or another way to rephrase it, following my original words more closely, would be:

"It is not necessary for true saving faith to manifest good works in order to be what it is (because it does not depend on works, but on faith alone)."

This is Luther's teaching. I did not (and do not) deny that he urges Christians to do good works. I was referring, rather, to the Lutheran distinction between justification and sanctification. Works are not (strictly speaking) necessary in the former category in Lutheran thought, but they ought to inevitably flow from the latter (as also in Reformed theology and thinking).

. . . Luther thinks a man is justified by faith alone. Therefore, by definition, works are not involved in that. But they are involved in the Christian life, as Luther most assuredly taught.

And from A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

Although classic “Reformational” Protestantism most certainly doesn't deny the importance of good works in the Christian life, it regards them as manifestations or results of the necessary imputed justification, rather than as necessities in their own right.

(pp. 28-29)

To back up my statement, I cited no less than four important Protestant sources, in footnote 32 on page 29 (and this material was researched prior to 1994; possibly as far back as 1991):

Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 869-871; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 464-465, 471-472; Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, ch. 16, sec. 1-4; Augsburg Confession (Lutheran, 1530), section 20.

I've cited Hodge and Strong already, so why don't we hear from James White's hero, John Calvin. Was I a stupid simpleton when I cited this portion of his work as the basis for how I understood the Protestant doctrines of justification and sanctification? Well, let's look at what he writes there (bolding added):

1. Our last sentence may refute the impudent calumny of certain ungodly men, who charge us, first, with destroying good works and leading men away from the study of them, when we say, that men are not justified, and do not merit salvation by works; and, secondly, with making the means of justification too easy, when we say that it consists in the free remission of sins, and thus alluring men to sin to which they are already too much inclined.. . . This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ.

Now, when I make a statement that sanctification in Protestant thought is "technically - not related to salvation at all" I am referring to exactly what Calvin expresses in the bolded sections. In so doing, however, I do not in the least deny the other sections where he holds them closely together. It's two different thoughts: apples and oranges. And this is proven in my citation of this very portion from Calvin in my first book.

Likewise, the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord makes a succinct statement of the Lutheran theology of sanctification in its section, "The Righteousness of Faith":

28] In like manner also renewal and sanctification, although it is also a benefit of the Mediator, Christ, and a work of the Holy Ghost, does not belong in the article or affair of justification before God, but follows the same since, on account of our corrupt flesh, it is not entirely perfect and complete in this life, as Dr. Luther writes well concerning this in his beautiful and large exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, . . .

29] We concede indeed that instruction should be given also concerning love and good works, yet in such a way that this be done when and where it is necessary, namely, when otherwise and outside of this matter of justification we have to do with works. But here the chief matter dealt with is the question, not whether we should also do good works and exercise love, but by what means we can be justified before God, and saved. And here we answer thus with St. Paul: that we are justified by faith in Christ alone, and not by the deeds of the Law or by love. Not that we hereby entirely reject works and love, as the adversaries falsely slander and accuse us, but that we do not allow ourselves to be led away, as Satan desires, from the chief matter with which we have to do here to another and foreign affair which does not at all belong to this matter. Therefore, whereas, and as long as we are occupied with this article of justification, we reject and condemn works, since this article is so constituted that it can admit of no disputation or treatment whatever regarding works; therefore in this matter we cut short all Law and works of the Law. So far Luther.

[ . . . ]

39] 3. That neither renewal, sanctification, virtues nor good works are tamquam forma aut pars aut causa iustificationis, that is, our righteousness before God, nor are they to be constituted and set up as a part or cause of our righteousness, or otherwise under any pretext, title, or name whatever to be mingled in the article of justification as necessary and belonging thereto; but that the righteousness of faith consists alone in the forgiveness of sins out of pure grace, for the sake of Christ's merit alone; which blessings are offered us in the promise of the Gospel, and are received, accepted, applied, and appropriated by faith alone.

40] In the same manner the order also between faith and good works must abide and be maintained, and likewise between justification and renewal, or sanctification.

41] For good works do not precede faith, neither does sanctification precede justification. But first faith is kindled in us in conversion by the Holy Ghost from the hearing of the Gospel. This lays hold of God's grace in Christ, by which the person is justified. Then, when the person is justified, he is also renewed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, from which renewal and sanctification the fruits of good works then follow. . . . This should not be understood as though justification and renewal were sundered from one another in such a manner that a genuine faith sometimes could exist and continue for a time together with a wicked intention, but hereby only the order [of causes and effects, of antecedents and consequents] is indicated, how one precedes or succeeds the other. For what Luther has correctly said remains true nevertheless: Faith and good works well agree and fit together [are inseparably connected]; but it is faith alone, without works, which lays hold of the blessing; and yet it is never and at no time alone. This has been set forth above.

Lastly, Protestant historian Alister McGrath gives a clear summary of he difference between justification and sanctification in Protestant thought:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, 'justifying righteousness' is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former 'justification' and the latter 'sanctification' or 'regeneration.' For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

(Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993, 108)

But the illustrious Bishop White, assuming as always that I don't know what I am talking about, and was never a true Protestant to begin with (a charge that he stated in our very first exchange by snail mail in 1995) always makes the judgment of cynicism, as if I am over my head and don't have a clue. I submit that when all the facts are in, White simply appears petty and small. I know my stuff. I know my opponents' views. And I can prove that I know it, and knew it years ago, and when I was a Protestant as well.

White, on the other hand, shows himself frequently in the dark concerning various Catholic doctrines, and when corrected by someone who knows more than he does about the topic, he simply ignores it, goes blithely on his merry way, only to repeat the same error in the future.

Bishop White is Buying and "Critiquing" My Books Again!

You'd think two Scots (that's my Armstrong Ancient Tartan) would be able to engage in a normal, back-and-forth discussion, wouldn't you? But we all know how stubborn Scots can be.

For a person who is on record again and again saying that my work is absolutely worthless and not worth anyone's time for even a minute, and that I am an ignoramus in theological matters, it is odd that James White has purchased my latest book, The One-Minute Apologist, and wishes to now "critique" it on his blog.

He did the same with The Catholic Verses in 2005, but it didn't take long for him to descend into almost purely personal attack, which caused me to abruptly cease "interaction" on that subject in disgust, in turn leading to utterly predictable charges that I was a coward and a (hilariously funny yet tragic) "feeding frenzy" of insult and calumny for about a month on several leading anti-Catholic blogs.

I've never purchased any of White's books at full price, nor will I (of course I buy almost all used books in the first place). I did, however, manage to find his Roman Catholic Controversy at a used book sale for a quarter or 50 cents. Even then I hesitated, but at length decided that I could part with that sum to see what one of the most influential anti-Catholics had to say in his magnum opus.

Be that as it may, the good bishop wants to review a book by someone he regards as a dishonest charlatan, that everyone supposedly thinks is a joke (though, strangely enough, I receive letters all the time telling me that my writing was a factor in the writer's conversion to the Catholic Church; this very day I received one such letter from a former anti-Catholic).

My instinct upon reading the piece was to respond to it and refute his arguments (per my standard modus operandi with any critique sent my way). But then I got to thinking, "why should I waste my time composing a detailed reply, when I have done so 15, 20 or more times in the past, only to have White utterly ignore my reply?" One tires of this. I'm interested in intelligent dialogue and discourse, not mud pie fights with slanderers or mutual monologues.

And so I hereby issue a public challenge to Mr. White: are you willing to have a conversation this time, or will it be the same old, same old: you write something, I refute it, then you ignore and run or merely mock? If you will publicly promise on your blog to engage in a normal conversation as polite adults do, and (particularly) as self-respecting, intellectually confident thinkers do, and actually make it to the second round of a discussion without resorting to ad hominem attack, for the first time in twelve years, then I will be glad to respond point-by-point to your critique.

But if not, then I won't spend any more time on it beyond documenting your potshots, which I shall do presently:

Armstrong is not an original thinker, he just collates what others say and repeats their arguments, normally in very inflated forms.

. . . someone like Armstrong, whose most effective weapon is verbal flooding. He is well known for doing text-based core dumps, filled with links to his own writings.

. . . if you might be better off working in another field, attempting this kind of project will illustrate that, too.

Many of Armstrong's suggested objections and answers are either aimed at the most dismally ignorant of those who oppose Rome's claims (a common element of much of the literature produced by the wide spectrum of their apologists) or against people I honestly have never met or heard of. So a number of the sections really are not relevant to a serious non-Catholic reader. It is hard to decide which are which, because of some of the tremendously obvious errors Armstrong makes.

So, is Armstrong just ignorant of Protestant ecclesiology, or, has he run into some tiny sect someplace that has come up with some new wacky viewpoint? Given that he was once non-Catholic, it is hard to believe he could be so ignorant . . .

. . . he does not show any knowledge of the biblical arguments in his presentation in this book . . .

But in the majority of presentations, Rome's position is assumed, not actually demonstrated. The circularity of Armstrong's writings is plain for all to see. He falls into the category of apologists who believe that arguing for the possibility of Rome's position is sufficient to establish her ultimate authority claims. But that kind of argumentation is only effective for those who already want to believe and are simply looking for a reason to continue to do so. It surely has no impact upon the one who continues to demand some kind of substantive response.

The One Minute Apologist illustrates the same problem I have documented in the majority of the rest of Rome's apologists: they do not have any desire to interact with the strongest criticisms of their position, but, for some reason, are more than content to repeat the same worn out arguments that have been offered, and refuted, over and over again in the past.

[man, is that projection or what!!? I thought I was reading White's curriculum vitae: methodology section for a second there . . . ]

And if Armstrong wishes to be taken seriously as an apologist [this is the latest fashionable playbook / "talking points" tactic of anti-Catholics towards me (e.g., John Q. Doe and Frank Turk): I'm not taken "seriously" anymore by anyone], why does he not write in such a way as to indicate a growing, deepening knowledge of the critics of the position he espouses?

. . . Armstrong shows how little he knows of the theology of those he critiques . . .

One truly has to wonder at Armstrong's ability to claim to have read meaningful Protestant works of theology and yet remain so functionally illiterate in the subject.

. . . I will try to find enough substantive material to make it worth the while of my readers to address.

I don't need to feel all that bad, though. After all, even former presidents of the Evangelical Theological Society are painted as idiots and dolts (regarding Protestant theology) by White. To the contrary, I am amused and entertained by the fact that White has said so many times that I should be ignored by everyone, including himself, because I am so stupid and deceitful, yet here he is again critiquing the worthless book of an imbecilic fool that no one (so he sez) takes seriously.

Could it be that this means I am possibly, just maybe, having a wee bit of an impact on some of the folks from his remote corner of the Christian world? Naw, couldn't possibly be . . .

Recommended Romantic and Post-Romantic Orchestral Music (Composers: Sibelius to Weber)

See:

Introduction and Composers A-D

Composers E-M

Composers N - Schumann.

JEAN SIBELIUS
(1865-1957)

Symphonic Poems and Various Orchestral Works

BPO/Karajan (80s) / 1984 "his greatest account [Tapiola]. Never has it sounded more mysterious . . . this Berlin/Karajan partnership has never been equalled . . . orchestral playing is, of course, really in a class of its own"
LSO/Davis 1999
BPO/Karajan (mid-60s) / 2000 "Finlandia is one of the finest accounts available, with eloquent playing"
BPO/Karajan [Pelleas et Melisande] 2003 "altogether magical . . . plenty of mystery . . . fervour and eloquence . . . great clarity and presence"
BPO/Karajan (1977) / 2005 "great performances and totally committed"
RSO/Gibson (late 70s) / 2005 "Gibson's affinity with the Sibelius idiom at its most convincing . . . much that is impressive . . . fine playing"
Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra/Jarvi 2005

Symphony No. 1

VPO/Maazel (mid-60s) / 1991
PHO/Ashkenazy 1998 "quite simply the best of all . . . superb detail and clarity of texture . . . finely shaped . . . playing . . . is of the very first order"
BPO/Karajan (1981) / 2002 "sense of grandeur and vision . . . heroic dimensions"
VPO/Bernstein 2004

Symphony No. 2

VPO/Maazel (mid-60s) / 1991
BSO/Davis 1995 "dignified and well-proportioned account . . . sensitivity and freshness"
PHO/Ashkenazy 1998 "superb sound . . . passionate, volatile reading . . . very Russian reading of Sibelius"
CON/Szell 2001 "marvellous . . . splendidly taut and well held together . . . great tension and power"
VPO/Bernstein 2004 "orchestral playing is impressive"
Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra/Jarvi 2005 "excellent-sounding . . . plenty of presence . . . powerful performance of much honesty and directness . . . thoroughly convincing"

Symphony No. 3

VPO/Maazel (mid-60s) / 1991
PHO/Ashkenazy 1998 "first-class account . . . warmth, colour and drama"
Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra/Jarvi 2005 "sense of the epic . . . very beautifully played and recorded . . . can hold its own with any in the catalogue"

Symphony No. 4

PHO/Ashkenazy 1998 "great concentration of feeling . . . terracing of dynamic contrasts . . . splendid drama and intensity throughout . . . very impressive performance"
BPO/Karajan (mid-60s) / 1999 "performance is of real stature . . . depth . . . sense of mystery . . . concentration and tension"
VPO/Maazel (1968) / 2000
Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra/Jarvi 2005 "recording is notably fresh and vivid . . . introspection"

Symphony No. 5

VPO/Maazel (mid-60s) / 1991
PHO/Ashkenazy 1998 "exceptionally well recorded . . . immediacy and warmth of atmosphere . . . the brass has bite as well as richness of sonority"
BPO/Karajan (1964) / 1999 "undoubtedly a great performance . . . orchestral playing throughout is glorious and the effect is spacious and atmospheric . . . jubilation in the finale . . . classic"
PHO/Rattle 2001 "scrupulous in observing every dynamic nuance to the letter and spirit . . . splendid sense of atmosphere in the development and power . . . the playing is superb, with the recording to match"
VPO/Bernstein 2004

Symphony No. 6

VPO/Maazel (mid-60s) / 1991
PHO/Ashkenazy 1998 "possibly the most successful and technically impressive in the Decca cycle"
BPO/Karajan (mid-60s) 1999 "glorious . . . remains almost unsurpassed"
Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra/Jarvi 2005 "well thought out and often impressive. It can hold its own with most competition."

Symphony No. 7

PHO/Ashkenazy 1998 "Magnificent sound and very impressive playing . . . nobility"
VPO/Maazel (1968) / 2000
VPO/Bernstein 2004
Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra/Jarvi 2005 "Jarvi is a sympathetic and authoritative guide in this terrain . . . fine performance"

BEDRICH SMETANA
(1824-1884)



Ma Vlast

VPO/Levine 1992 "clear first choice . . . quite splendid, full of momentum and thrust, aptly paced, with much imaginative detail . . . the sound is full-bodied and vivid"
DRE/Berglund 2000 "the playing of the Dresden orchestra is magnificent"
CON/Dorati 2001 "extremely fine account . . . vivid drama and orchestral playing of the finest quality . . . high adrenalin level throughout, yet points of detail are not missed"

Ma Vlast: Vltava (The Moldau)

BPO/Fricsay 2001 "inspired . . . irresistible. The river sounds as if it is in full flood . . . recording is very bright and vivid"
BPO/Karajan 2003 "vivid, sounding more robust in its digital remastering, but still expressively refined in detail and more spontaneous-sounding"

JOHANN STRAUSS, JR.
(1825-1899)



Waltzes

VPO/Boskovsky 2001 "vintage Boskovsky recordings . . . the sound is basically vivid, with a pleasing ambience"

RICHARD STRAUSS
(1864-1949)



SYMPHONIES

Alpine Symphony

RPO/Kempe (1967) /
LAP/Mehta (1976) / "among the best Strauss he has given us . . . outstandingly successful in combining range, atmosphere and body, with remarkable detail . . . the effect remains spectacular"
BAV/Solti (1980) / 1994 "could hardly sound more opulent, with brass of striking richness . . . warmth of sound . . . generally fast tempi . . . sympathetic and committed playing"
DRE/Kempe 1999 "breadth and majesty and atmosphere . . . richness of tone"
BPO/Karajan (1981) / 2003 "wonderfully spacious, beautifully shaped and played with the utmost virtuosity . . . certainly one of the finest accounts"
SNO/Jarvi 2004

Sinfonia Domestica

LAP/Mehta (1970) /
BAV/Maazel 1996
DRE/Kempe 1999
SNO/Jarvi 2004 "strongly characterized, good-natured account . . . gutsy . . . the epilogue exuberant"
BPO/Karajan (6-73) / 2005

TONE POEMS

Also sprach Zarathustra

BPO/Karajan (1984 DGG) / 1993 "very hard to beat and may well be first choice . . . sumptuous tonal refinement . . in Strauss, of course, Karajan has no peer . . . the playing . . . is in a totally different league"
CSO/Reiner (50s) / 1993
CSO/Solti (mid-70s) / 1994 "ripely expansive"
BSO/Ozawa 1995 "warmly persuasive . . . wonderfully warm and natural sound . . . seductive phrasing and warmth rather than high drama or nobility"
DRE/Kempe (1974) / 1999 "powerful in its emotional thrust . . . admirably paced . . . opulence . . . sound has both body and bloom"
VPO/Karajan (3-59) / 2000 "enormously wide dynamic range . . . a fine recommendation"
BPO/Karajan (1974 DGG) / 2003 "has long held sway and generally makes a strong recommendation"
BPO/Bohm 2004 [used for 2001: A Space Odyssey]
SNO/Jarvi 2004

Death and Transfiguration

DSO/Dorati "austere . . . plenty of atmosphere . . . climax has real splendour (and a magnificent breadth of sound)"
LSO/Abbado "plenty of dash . . . tempered with sensitivity . . . scarcely less impressive than Karajan's"
CLE/Maazel 1990 "extrovert view . . . opulent climax is endearingly rose-tinted"
VPO/Karajan (1959 or 1960) / 1990 "among the very finest . . . makes up in flair and warmth what [it] may slightly lack in polish compared with the later Berlin versions"
BPO/Karajan (80s) / 1996 "quite electrifying . . . no lack of vividness, and the playing of the Berliners is in itself thrilling"
BPO/Karajan (1973) / 1996 "superlative . . . showpiece . . . sound is both vivid and refined in its detail . . . Karajan reigns supreme in this work . . . orchestral playing in the highest class"
BAV/Maazel 1996
PHO/Klemperer 1998 "excites the greatest admiration . . . invested with a nobility too rarely heard in this work"
DRE/Kempe (1974) / 1999 "marvellously characterized"
CLE/Szell 2000 "tremendous vitality and electricity"
SNO/Jarvi 2004
LPO/Tennstedt 2005 "impressively spacious performance, very well played and recorded"

Don Juan

DSO/Dorati "heroic . . . brilliant rather than sumptuous"
LSO/Abbado 1990 "must be numbered among the best available"
CLE/Maazel 1990 "made totally sympathetic, with Maazel relishing every moment . . . final climax is ecstatic . . . the brass has telling bite and sonority"
BPO/Karajan (1984) / 1993 "exciting account"
CSO/Solti (mid-70s) / 1994 "glorious playing from the Chicago orchestra in peak form"
CSO/Reiner (50s) / 1996 "among the finest ever . . . superbly thrilling climax where the great horn theme leaps out unforgettably"
PHO/Klemperer 1998 "certainly not lacking in strength of characterization"
DRE/Kempe (1973) / 1999 "comparable with Karajan's reading and certainly does not come second best"
BPO/Bohm (1958?) / 2000
CLE/Szell 2000 "tremendous vitality and electricity"
VPO/Karajan (6-60) / 2000 "among the very finest . . . great zest and passion"
BPO/Karajan (1973) / 2003 "thrilling account . . . stunning virtuosity . . . sound of striking fidelity . . . excellent overall clarity within an ambience that seems near ideal . . . a degree of rapture not surpassed in the digital re-make"
SNO/Jarvi 2004

Don Quixote

CSO/Reiner 1996
BPO/Karajan (1963) / 1998 "handling of orchestral detail is splendid . . . sounds remarkably fresh and transparent"
DRE/Kempe (1973) / 1999 "one of the very finest available . . . combines warmth and body"
SNO/Jarvi 2004
BPO/Karajan (1-75) / 2005

Ein Heldenleben

DRE/Blomstedt "warm, with articulate detail, but great tonal homogeneity . . . genuine heroic stride and a sense of dramatic excitement . . . glorious Straussian textures . . . the most completely satisfying"
CSO/Reiner (50s) / 1993 "among the finest ever"
VPO/Solti 1994
BPO/Karajan (80s) / 1996 "tremendous sweep and all the authority and mastery that we have come to expect . . . in terms of sheer virtuosity the Berlin players have never surpassed this . . . also a dramatic fire . . . that [is] quite electrifying"
DRE/Kempe (1974) / 1999 "splendid orchestra . . . glowing with life"
BPO/Karajan (1959) / 2000
SNO/Jarvi 2004 "very strongly characterized, warmly sympathetic . . . powerfully thrustful playing . . . rich and brilliant recording"
BPO/Karajan (9-74) / 2005 "virtuosity of technique . . . outstanding"

Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks

LSO/Abbado "must be numbered among the best available"
DSO/Dorati "essentially a picaresque portrait, not without humour and well-paced . . . dazzling brilliance of detail and focus"
CLE/Maazel 1990 "warmly affectionate . . . exhilaratingly paced and has excellent detail"
CSO/Solti (mid-70s) / 1994 "This is Solti at his strongest"
PHO/Klemperer 1998 "marvellous Philharmonia playing . . . sounds sumptuous"
DRE/Kempe (1974) / 1999 "marvellously characterized . . . rather mellow portrayal of Till is particularly attractive"
BPO/Bohm (1958) / 2000
CLE/Szell 2000 "tremendous vitality and electricity"
VPO/Karajan (6-60) / 2000
BPO/Karajan (1974 DGG) / 2003 "vividly characterized performance . . . winningly characterized and exhilarating in impulse"
SNO/Jarvi 2004 "brings out the joy of the work"

IGOR STRAVINSKY
(1882-1971)



BALLETS

Firebird (1910 complete version)

OSM/Dutoit 1990 "characteristically colourful and atmospheric reading . . . brings out the light and shade"
NYP/Boulez (1975) / 1990 "highly coloured reading, and one which is very dramatic too . . . the playing is first class: the music making has considerable magnetism"
PHO/Ansermet (1968) / 1997 "polished playing . . . firmness and precision of sound . . . vividly realistic acoustic . . . sense of presence is startling"
DSO/Dorati (10-82) / 1999 "recording is consistently spectacular and realistic throughout . . . the clarity and definition of dark, hushed passages is amazing . . . performance is very precise . . . a strong and beautiful reading . . . impact of the sound [is] most impressive"
CON/Davis 2002 "superb analogue sound . . . magically evocative account"
COL/Stravinsky 2003 "the composer tellingly relates it to his later work, refusing to treat it as merely atmospheric. What he brings out more than others is the element of grotesque fantasy"

Petrouchka (1911 version)

LSO/Dutoit (1977) / "triumphantly spontaneous . . . rhythms that are incisive yet beautifully buoyant . . . expressiveness . . . magical . . . the recording is rich and atmospheric"
LPO/Haitink (1974) / 1990 "a very involving account, with detail imaginatively delineated. The rhythmic feeling is strong . . . wind playing is especially fine"
OSM/Dutoit 1990 "superb, atmospheric but well-detailed sound . . . sparkling performance that brings out the light and the shade . . . poetry and rhythmic effervescence . . . no lack of either power or bite"
LSO/Abbado 1997 "extremely spectacular digital sound . . . performance is strongly characterized, and the LSO play marvellously . . . refinement and a powerful sense of dramatic atmosphere . . . kaleidoscopic brilliance"

Petrouchka (1947 version)

COL [LA] /Stravinsky (1960) / 1990 "presents a very convincing case for a basically fierce approach, full of malevolent grotesquerie . . . the frenetic element is tellingly made"
DSO/Dorati 1990 "recording is consistently spectacular and realistic throughout . . . the sound is breathtakingly vivid and clean . . . immensely dramatic . . . Dorati is at his finest in the final tableau"
NYP/Bernstein 1990 "one of the most involved and warm-hearted ever recorded . . . goes to the emotional heart of the score . . . unrivaled intensity and splendidly vivid recording"
LPO/Haitink 1993
CON/Davis 2002 "brilliant and rich recording . . . Davis makes it clear that he regards this as fun music, drawing brilliantly precise playing . . . excitement"
CBO/Rattle 2004 "robust exuberance . . . full of fun, colourful and dramatic in its evocation of the fairground . . . full and brilliant recording"

The Rite of Spring (Le sacre du printemps)

LPO/Haitink 1993 "natural, unforced quality . . . brings real compulsion. More than most . . . he convincingly echoes the example of the composer himself . . . the bite and precision of the playing is most impressive"
LSO/Abbado 1997 "on points of detail it is meticulous . . . hypnotically atmospheric feeling . . . wide dynamic range"
DSO/Dorati (5-81) / 1999 "recording is consistently spectacular and realistic throughout . . . in terms of recorded sound . . . scores over almost all its rivals . . . It is a very good performance, too . . . generating plenty of excitement . . . belongs among the very best"
PHI/Muti 2002 "aggressively brutal yet presents this violence with red-blooded conviction . . . strikingly bold and dramatic, with brass and percussion exceptionally vividly caught. The effect is very exciting, without being fierce"
COL [NYP] /Stravinsky (1960) / 2003 "has never been surpassed as an interpretation . . . The whole performance is magnetic, with the argument and tension superbly held together . . . brass and percussion have thrilling impact"
CSO/Solti 2003 "powerful, unrelenting account . . . virtuoso playing . . . Solti at his most tautly dramatic. It is extremely vivid, and highly spectacular too"
NYP/Bernstein 2004 [Stravinsky himself stated "wow!"]

PETER ILYICH TCHAIKOVSKY
(1840-1893)



BALLETS

Nutcracker Suite

CSO/Solti 1998 "marvellously characterful solo playing and much subtle detail"
OSM/Dutoit 1999 "piquant sense of colour and delicacy of articulation"
VPO/Karajan (1962) / 1999 "offers fine playing"
LSO/Previn 2002 "at once vivid and elegant, warm and exciting"
CLE/Maazel 2004 "vivid orchestral playing and bright, crisply focused recording . . . enjoyably colorful"

Nutcracker (Complete)

RPO/Previn 1990 "superbly played . . . freshness . . . playing is elegant and polished"
LSO/Mackerras 1990 "richly expansive . . . sparkling vivacity . . . superb sonority from the brass"
BPO/Bychkov 1990 "superlative playing, of striking flair and character"
LSO/Previn 2002 "sophistication . . . orchestral playing throughout is of very high quality"

Sleeping Beauty Suite

BPO/Karajan (1972) / 1990 "electrifying . . . orchestral solos are wonderfully polished and beguiling"
BPO/Rostropovich 1997 "highly distinguished, as fine as any in the catalogue . . . admirably combine[s] Slavonic intensity with colour"
VPO/Karajan (1965) / 1999 "offers fine playing"
LSO/Previn 2002 "at once vivid and elegant, warm and exciting"

Sleeping Beauty (Complete)

BBC/Rozhdestvensky 2002 "superb in every way, marvellously played and very well recorded . . . trumpet and horn fanfares are splendid . . . the work could not be entrusted to more caring or sensitive direction . . . haunting sense of anticipation and fantasy . . . outstanding achievement in every way"
LSO/Previn 2002

Swan Lake Suite

CON/Fistoulari (1961) / "magnificent . . . certainly the finest in the catalogue and probably the most distinguished single set of highlights from any Tchaikovsky ballet"
BPO/Karajan (1972) / 1990 "outstanding musically"
CSO/Solti 1998
VPO/Karajan (1965) / 1999 "offers fine playing"
LSO/Previn 2002 "at once vivid and elegant, warm and exciting . . . superbly played . . . highly recommendable"
BSO/Ozawa 2003 "sophistication of playing and recording . . . final climax expands magnificently"

Swan Lake (Complete)

LSO/Previn (1976) / 2002 "extremely polished orchestral playing, with beautiful wind solos, helped by a full, resonant recording . . . much refined detail and no lack of drama"

MISC.

Capriccio Italien

OSM/Dutoit 1999 "particularly successful . . . high spirits and elegance"
BPO/Karajan 2000 "played with splendid panache and with exhilarating orchestral bravura at the close . . . brass fanfares are superbly telling"

1812 Overture

LSO/Previn (1973) / 1990 "undoubtedly among the finest available . . . exciting without getting out of hand at the end"
CSO/Solti 1998 "exciting and spectacular . . . bold immediacy of the Chicago sound . . . powerful, sonorous brass at climaxes . . . compulsive music-making throughout"
OSM/Dutoit 1999 "exciting . . . the sound is refined and luminous"
BPO/Karajan 2000 "very professional and quite exciting"
BSO/Davis 2006 "one of the most satisfying versions ever recorded . . . splendidly played and satisfyingly alert"

Marche Slave

LSO/Previn (1973) / 1997 "undoubtedly among the finest available . . . overall control of structure and tension is very impressive"
BPO/Karajan 2002 "fine combination of dignity and flair"
CSO/Reiner (3-59) / 2004

Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture

LSO/Previn (1973) / 1997 "undoubtedly among the finest available . . . vigor and spontaneity"
CSO/Solti 1998 "yearning passion without histrionics"
VPO/Karajan (early 60s) / 2001 "superb ardour and excitement . . . spontaneous freshness . . . sound is full, firm and clear"
CLE/Maazel 2002 "spaciously romantic performance, reaching a climax of considerable passion"
PHO/Muti 2003
BSO/Davis 2006 "consistently satisfying impact throughout"

SYMPHONIES

No. 4

PHO/Ashkenazy
BPO/Karajan (1977) / 1997 "vitality and drive . . . finale has tremendous force"
LSO/Szell 1999
CLE/Maazel 2002 "amplitude and breadth in preference to uninhibited extrovert excitement"
VPO/Gergiev (10-21-02) / 2005
LEN/Mravinsky (9-60) / 2006

No. 5

PHO/Ashkenazy
BPO/Karajan (1976) / 1997 "although the overall sound-picture is brilliantly lit, it has depth and weight too, besides strong projection and impact"
CSO/Abbado 2002 "fine . . . admirably fresh and superbly played . . . the finale has fine energy and momentum"
RPO/Previn 2003 "fine concern for detail . . . expressive style . . . drama . . . excitement . . . outsnadingly satisfying reading"
VPO/Gergiev 2005
CLE/Szell (10-23-59) / 2006
LEN/Mravinsky (11-60) / 2006

No. 6 ("Pathetique")

PHO/Ashkenazy 1990 "remarkably crisp articulation, producing an electrifying forward thrust . . . freshness and spontaneity . . . the finale combines passion with tenderness . . . a more poignant culmination than usual . . . among the finest ever recorded"
BPO/Karajan (1977) / 1997 "climactic peaks are created with fierce bursts of tension, and the effect on the listener is almost overwhelming . . . finale has great passion and eloquence"
Russian National Orchestra/Pletnev 2000
BPO/Karajan (1964) / 2003 "steady emotional thrust . . . deeply committed playing . . . the physical thrill of the closing pages is very gripping indeed . . . overall an engulfing experience"
VPO/Gergiev 2005
LEN/Mravinsky (11-60) / 2006

RICHARD WAGNER

(1813-1883)



OPERAS (COMPLETE)

The Flying Dutchman

BPO/Karajan 1993 "larger than life . . . relates this early work to later Wagner, Tristan above all"
PHO/Klemperer (1968) / 2000

Tannhauser

VPO/Solti (1970) / 2002 "electrifying experience . . . Solti gives one of his very finest Wagner performances to date, helped by superb playing . . . the sound is outstanding for its period . . . atmospheric quality"

Lohengrin

VPO/Solti (1986) / 2002 "incandescent performance . . . well-aerated sound that still has plenty of body . . . rare power and panache . . . bring[s] out the endless lyricism warmly and naturally . . . radiant playing . . . one of the crowning glories of Solti's long recording career"

Tristan und Isolde

BPO/Karajan (1972) / 1990 "sensual performance . . . caressingly beautiful and with superbly refined playing . . . crescendo[es] of supreme force . . . recording [is] warmly atmospheric . . . excellent first choice, with inspired conducting"
PHO/Furtwangler (1952 - mono) / 2001 "supreme triumph . . . incandescent intensity . . . spacious . . . but equally the bite and colour of the drama are vividly conveyed . . . recording was admirably balanced"
VPO/Solti 2003

Die Meistersinger

CSO/Solti (1995) / 2003
VPO/Solti (1976) / 2005 "bright and detailed sound . . . impressive achievement"

Der Ring des Nibelungen [4]

VPO/Solti (1959 / 1966 / 1963 / 1965) / 1997

Das Rheingold

"the first of Solti's cycle . . . remains in termas of engineering the most spectacular . . . the immediacy and precise placing of sound are thrilling . . . the sound remains of demonstration quality . . . Solti gives a magnificent reading of the score, crisp, dramatic, and direct . . . Much has been written on the quality of the recording, and without a shadow of a doubt it deserves the highest star rating . . . an outstanding achievement"

Die Walkure

"refined sound . . . lyrical"

Siegfried

"full brilliance and weight as well as extra clarity . . . buoyant performance . . . In the dramatic moments [Solti] could hardly be more impressive . . . a supreme achievement . . . masterly playing . . . likely to stand comparison with anything else the rest of the century may provide"

Gotterdammerung

"inspired to heights even beyond earlier achievements . . . weight of sound . . . no more magnificent set has appeared in the whole history of the gramophone . . . remarkably little background noise"

[second choice of Ring cycle: Bayreuth Festival Orchestra/Bohm (1967) / (Rheingold - 1990 / Walkure - 2002 / Siegfried - 1990 / Gotterdammerung - 1990) ]

Parsifal

BPO/Karajan (1980) / 1990 "Communion, musical and spiritual, is what this intensely beautiful Karajan set provides . . . playing . . . is consistently beautiful . . . the recording is near the atmospheric ideal, a superb achievement"
Bayreuth Festival Orchestra/Knappertsbusch (1962) / 2001 "expansive and dedicated reading . . . intense concentration . . . spiritual quality . . . overall sound [is] warmly atmospheric"
VPO/Solti 2003 "powerful . . . vividness of sound and the Vienna Philharmonic in radiant form . . . sustained intensity"

OVERTURES AND PRELUDES
(my favorite = *)

Rienzi Overture

VPO/Bohm (1979) / 1993* "striking life and vigour"
VPO/Solti (1962) / 1994
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002 "never any doubt that one is in the presence of a great conductor"

The Flying Dutchman Overture

VPO/Solti (1962) / 1994*
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002 "incandescent glow"
BPO/Karajan (1974) / 2005 "superbly played . . . urgency and edge"

Tannhauser Overture (original 1845 version)

VPO/Solti (1962) / 1994*
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002
BPO/Tennstedt (1983) / 2005 "broad and spacious . . . the voltage is consistently high . . . restrained nobility of feeling without any loss of power or impact"

Tannhauser: Prelude to Act III

PHO/Klemperer (1963) / 2002

Lohengrin: Prelude to Act I

VPO/Solti (1987) / 1994*
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002 "the Philharmonia plays immaculately"
BPO/Karajan (1974) / 2005

Lohengrin: Prelude to Act III

VPO/Bohm (1981) / 1993* "spacious"
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002 "no one could complain about the lack of zest"
BPO/Karajan (1974) / 2005

Tristan und Isolde: Prelude to Act I

Bayreuth Festival Orchestra/Bohm (1966) / 1993
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002
CSO/Solti (1978) / 2003* "very well played . . . warm . . . impressive ambience"

Tristan und Isolde: Prelude to Act III

Bayreuth Festival Orchestra/Bohm (1966) / 1993

Die Meistersinger: Prelude to Act I

VPO/Bohm (1979) / 1993* "the Vienna Philharmonic play beautifully . . . grandeur and detail . . . compulsive inevitability in forward flow"
VPO/Solti (1976) / 1994
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002 "full of German pudding"

Die Meistersinger: Prelude to Act III

VPO/Kempe (1972) / 1995*
RPO/Stokowski (1974) / 2004

Parsifal: Prelude to Act I

BAV/Jochum (1958) / 1993
VPO/Solti (1973) / 1994*
PHO/Klemperer (1963) / 2002 "superbly played"

ORCHESTRAL EXCERPTS FROM OPERAS
(my favorite = *)

Tannhauser: Bacchanale / Venusberg Music

VPO/Solti (1962) / 1994

Tannhauser: Fest March

PHI/Ormandy 1989

Lohengrin: Bridal Chorus ("Here comes the bride")

BAV/Kubelik + Bavarian Radio Chorus (1971) / 2003

Tristan und Isolde: Liebestod [Love-Death]

VPO/Bohm (1981) / 1993* "spacious, with speeds broad rather than urgent"
CSO/Solti (1978) / 2003 "very well played . . . warm . . . impressive ambience"

Die Meistersinger: Dance of the Apprentices

PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002 "spacious . . . solidly concentrated"

Die Meistersinger: Entrance of the Meistersingers

PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002 "spacious . . . solidly concentrated"

Das Rheingold: Entrance of the Gods into Valhalla

PHO/Klemperer (1963) / 2002 "spacious . . . playing is peerless"
VPO/Solti (1983) / 2003
LSO/Stokowski (1966) / 2005*

Die Walkure: Magic Fire Music

VPO/Solti (Hotter) (1966) / 2003
RPO/Stokowski (1974) / 2004
BPO/Tennstedt (1983) / 2005* "playing is of the finest quality"

Die Walkure: Ride of the Valkyries

BPO/Karajan (1967) / 1993
PHO/Klemperer (1963) / 2002 "spacious . . . playing is peerless"
LSO/Stokowski (1966) / 2005*

Die Walkure: Wotan's Farewell

BPO/Tennstedt (1983) / 2005* "the sense of spectacle is in no doubt"

Siegfried: Forest Murmurs

PHO/Klemperer (1963) / 2002 "no doubt that a great conductor is at the helm"
BPO/Tennstedt (1983) / 2005 "fine detail . . . atmospheric"
LSO/Stokowski (1966) / 2005*

Gotterdammerung: Siegfried's Rhine Journey

PHO/Klemperer (1963) / 2002 "spacious . . . solidly concentrated"
BPO/Tennstedt (1983) / 2005 "playing is of the highest quality . . . . high level of tension"
LSO/Stokowski (1966) / 2005*

Gotterdammerung: Siegfried's Death and Funeral Music

VPO/Solti (1965) / 1994
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 2002 "no doubt that a great conductor is at the helm"
BPO/Tennstedt (1983) / 2005 "weight . . . climax has massive penetration"
LSO/Stokowski (1966) / 2005*

Gotterdammerung: Finale/Immolation of the Gods

CLE/Szell 1992
BPO/Karajan 1998
VPO/Solti (1983) / 2003*

Parsifal: Good Friday Music

BAV/Jochum (1958) / 1993* "inspirational . . . sounds spacious and full"
VPO/Kempe (1958) / 1995
DRE/Sinopoli 1998

MISC.

Siegfried Idyll

BPO/Kubelik (1963) / 1993
VPO/Solti (1966) / 1994*
BPO/Karajan 1997 "unsurpassed"

CARL MARIA VON WEBER

(1786-1826)



OVERTURES

PHO/Jarvi 1992
BPO/Karajan (1973) / "self-recommending . . . great style and refinement . . . the Berlin horn playing is peerless

James White: Former President of the Evangelical Theological Society (Francis Beckwith) Was a Clueless Imbecile Regarding Evangelical Theology (!!!)

James White's alma mater: Columbia Evangelical Seminary, Buckley, Washington, where he received his "doctorate". This is it: the entire "campus"

One can't help but get a huge chuckle over such "arguments." What, for example, does it say about the profound biblical and theological acumen of the members of the ETS (over 4,000 in number), to have voted in (in November 2005) as President a guy (one who recently returned to the Catholic Church) who, according to Bishop White, was utterly ignorant of Protestant and "Reformation" theology? Yet this is the "argument" that White has been making lately [insert laugh track here].

Recently, I documented this overwhelming tendency of anti-Catholic apologists to engage in personal attack against Catholics (and above all, Catholic converts from Protestantism), in highlighting the insults made by Steve Hays against Scott Hahn. White (whose more or less continual folly in relation to Catholics and Catholicism makes it very difficult for me -- as an apologist -- to ignore him, as I have often done in the past) now provides another classic textbook example.

And he does so with his usual hypocrisy and blindness to his own faults, while scathingly criticizing the very same ones in others. So, for example, today on his blog, he criticizes Jehovah's Witness apologist Greg Stafford (with a potshot against yours truly thrown in for good measure):

Over the past two months folks have sent me notes indicating that Stafford was working on a reply. Given how long it was taking, I predicted, to those same folks, a lengthy tome filled with all sorts of irrelevant material (aka, dust and smoke) all designed to "solidify the base" in essence, but not to provide much in the way of substantive interaction. And glancing over what has been posted, I must say my predictions were spot-on.

I confess, replying to Stafford is becoming as unpleasant as dealing with anything said by Dave Armstrong. You know that no matter what you say, or how you say it, your words will be subject to interminable spinning and death by a thousand qualifications. The "cheap shot" quotient is high indeed, and every opportunity to impugn my intentions and character is taken in full.

(6-12-07)

Just for the sake of background information, Dr. Francis Beckwith (a philosopher by profession) also has had considerable formal theological training. I cite his Wikipedia entry:

. . . Beckwith is a graduate of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (B.A. in Philosophy), Simon Greenleaf School of Law, Anaheim (MA in apologetics), Fordham University (Ph.D. and M.A. in philosophy) and the Washington University School of Law, St. Louis (Master of Juridical Studies).

Beckwith began his training as an academic Christian apologist in the early 1980s as he commenced graduate studies in apologetics at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (later called Simon Greenleaf University and now merged with Trinity International University [Deerfield, Illinois], and operates under that name as its southern California campus). There he studied under noted Evangelicals such as John Warwick Montgomery and Charles Manske. He was also influenced by the writings of Francis Schaeffer.

. . . His doctoral studies in philosophy at Fordham University continued the pursuit of apologetic issues, though at Fordham his philosophical horizons were expanded by his study of Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and contemporary philosophy of science and his exposure to Reformed philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff. His Ph.D. dissertation comprised an analysis of the sceptical argument of the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume concerning miracles. Part of his criticism of Hume's position (chapter 5) involved a discussion of legal reasoning, using technical legal criteria of proof, testimony, documentary evidences and so on in examining the question of how to assess evidence for miracles.

All this, yet Bishop White, a man who has a bogus "doctorate" from a storefront, non-accredited diploma mill, has the gall to criticize the theological knowledge of Dr. Beckwith, simply because he returned to the Catholic Church, and therefore (in his mentality), simply must have been ignorant of true evangelical (read, Calvinist) theology.

In a series of articles on his blog (one / two / three / four), he has launched one salvo after another at Dr. Beckwith's knowledge and education and ability to correctly assess Protestant theology. Sure, he has made some real arguments in between the ubiquitous insults, but then, I would ask, "if he has actual arguments, then why the need to take so many personal, ad hominem shots?"

One might reply that I, too, have taken shots at "Dr." White by bringing up the issue of his "doctorate" degree. But that is an objective matter that is able to be verified by altogether objective criteria. The place where he got the degree is not an accredited educational institution. Furthermore, if one looks into (as I have) the nature of his "dissertation" one discovers that it makes a mockery out of those who have worked their tails off obtaining a real doctorate, by means of a real dissertation. What White did (I discovered, to my amazement) was no different than what I've done for twenty-five years, as a lay apologist, both Protestant and Catholic. If his "doctorate" is legitimate then I should go around calling myself "Dr." too. But since it is not, I don't.

"Dr." White Ad Hominem Flurry Contra Dr. Beckwith #1:

[all line breaks indicate breaks in the text; these are excerpts; all bolded emphases added]

I'm sure Rome's apologists have noted the lack of such an enthusiastic endorsement of their central authority claims as well, and may be hanging back, waiting to see if Beckwith will be just another of the legion of "sorta-Catholic" scholars that currently fill their educational institutions.

. . . one is left wondering just how much study went into this decision on Dr. Beckwith's part. He continually speaks of being "amazed" at reading patristic sources. This is a common element of what you hear from converts to Catholicism. But, you never get much in the way of critical thought as to what is so amazing about what they have read.

But that is where the wheels fall off, for any serious student of history who is not a dogged apologist for modern Rome knows the concept of purgatory took centuries to develop and did not in fact arrive at its modern form until the fifteenth century; . . .

We are also left wondering at what he means by "Real Presence". Does he recognize the difference between the spiritual presence of Christ with His people and the later scholastic development of transubstantiation, or has he bought into the same kind of historical anachronism that plagues almost all of modern Roman Catholic apologetics writings?

I wonder if Beckwith read Salmon's Infallibility of the Church during his studies? Whitaker? Goode? I'd be quite interested in seeing his reading list for "the other side," for surely he did, in fact, do that kind of study, did he not?

Ironically, one book he does mention, is that by Geisler and MacKenzie. . . . We shouldn't be too hard on Norm and Ralph: both Geisler and Beckwith graduated from Jesuit schools to begin with, and Geisler ran his book by Jimmy Akin for editing purposes, so there is little reason for feigning too much shock here.

"Dr." White Ad Hominem Flurry Contra Dr. Beckwith #2:

But I wonder what kind of "charitable" reading of Rome's teachings today allow Beckwith to insist he is still an "evangelical"?

It is hard for me to believe Beckwith was unaware of the fact that many would see his act as one of apostasy.

I truly wonder: given his background and education, was it a matter of assimilating this after a knowing, purposeful rejection of Rome, or did such a break with Rome's fundamental views of man and grace and knowledge ever actually take place at all? Is Beckwith a revert, or a life-long Catholic who took a hiatus in post-evangelicalism for a while?

Surely I realize that a large portion of post-evangelicalism would stutter at such a question, in any context, and sadly, most would only give an answer that boils down to taste, or their own traditions, not a knowing conviction based upon serious consideration of the facts. That is why post-evangelicalism is such a wonderfully easy field for the gleaning of Catholic converts...and Mormon converts, Jehovah's Witness converts, even Muslim converts. Given the truth of the statement, "What you win them with is what you win them too," the bubble-gum level gospel found in so many venues today is hardly going to ground believers so that they will not be blown about by every wind of doctrine.

Beckwith has bought into the "Rome is the church of the councils" argument that is simply not tenable in any meaningful manner. . . . I do not expect Roman Catholic reporters to ask tough questions, but I wonder if Beckwith is even aware of these issues? I have seen little evidence that he is.

"Dr." White Ad Hominem Flurry Contra Dr. Beckwith #3:

Yes, I'm sure Geisler's work has functioned that way for more than one person, as I warned when it first came out long ago. That's what happens when your primary author is Jesuit trained, and you run it by Jimmy Akin for editorial suggestions and corrections. Nothing shocking here, to be sure. In this long, in-depth and intensive study of patristic sources, Beckwith concludes, "Then when I read the Fathers, those closest to the Apostles, the Reformation doctrine was just not there." Really? Maybe it was next to the discussion of purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, Papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary, and the bodily assumption of Mary, which are all not to be found in any reading of the early writings of the Christian faith?

. . . they are only demonstrating that they, like Beckwith, have not done their homework on Rome's teachings.

Clearly, Beckwith is suffering from "recent conversion memory trauma syndrome," a very common ailment I have discovered. Either that, or he never read Calvin or Luther's polemic works from the time of the Reformation anyway (a very strong possibility as well).

. . . we recognize the whole spectrum of Roman teachings, not just the nuanced, modernized, Hahnitized ones.

. . . if your understanding of the biblical text turns the authors upon themselves, well, you've obviously gone astray.

"Dr." White Ad Hominem Flurry Contra Dr. Beckwith #4:

Of course, such an article cannot provide an exhaustive accounting, but so far we have seen indications that the foundations of this move were rather hastily constructed, or, more accurately, the actual foundations went back a long way (i.e., his non-Catholic standing had long been less than informed), and this reversion seems to have more to do with that long-standing consistency of theological and philosophical viewpoint than it does a brief four-month run through selected works of certain early Christian writers. What has become quite clear is that Dr. Beckwith was representative of a very large portion of what was once called evangelicalism: he was a non-Catholic who did not know why he was a non-Catholic, though, in his case, he was a former Catholic as well. His confusion in answering the question "Why are you not a Catholic" reveals a major problem with many "evangelical leaders" today who likewise can only give an answer to that question that is surface level at best.

Again, any "Protestant" leader . . .

[White is now mocking even the title of "Protestant" applied to Dr. Beckwith prior to his reversion to the Catholic Church]

How could anyone who has read even a smattering of Calvin or Luther or any of the relevant Reformation literature think that saying "none of these causes is the work of the individual Christian" is even slightly relevant? Once again, no one was arguing the necessity of grace. They were arguing the sufficiency of grace. As far as numbers go, Rome has won, since, obviously, the majority of "Protestants," in ignorance, agree with Rome on the matter.

I wonder why Beckwith, as a scholar, chooses to focus upon "anti-Catholic fundamentalist literature" rather than serious historical and theological works reflecting a Reformed critique of Roman Catholicism? Is it because all he is familiar with is, in fact, "fundamentalist" literature of the Jack Chick variety? I would truly like to ask Beckwith if he has seriously read and studied Calvin's Institutes, and if so, when?

Sure, you can always do the Newman thing, but if you do that, why bother with history at all? Why say, "Well, I can find part of these teachings in early writers, and for the rest, I can do the acorn/tree thing ala Newman"? How is this kind of argumentation compelling?

This again makes one wonder, very strongly, just what Beckwith's views were about church history as a "non-Catholic." Comments like these do not cause us to think his was a very deep-seated study of the Reformation and the literature produced therein.

More information will probably come out, slowly, over time. But so far, I, for one, am left wondering just how "non-Catholic" this Catholic revert ever was, and I am once again forced to recognize how many post-evangelicals are non-Catholic only by tradition or taste, not by conviction.