Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Baptist Pastor Ken Temple's Recent Adoption of Anti-Catholicism

Please pray for those who are caught in this blindness of not even recognizing Catholicism as a truly Christian system (let alone the One True Church and fullness of the faith). Ken's words will be in blue.

* * * * *

RCC arguments against Sola Scriptura have failed completely.

* * *

You make a big stretch from those Protestant quotes about Peter and authority to "infallibity of the Pope". [see my comment he refers to]

You did not show that at all; and it is completely unbiblical; and the easiest of all RCC dogma that proves the whole thing is false.

* * *

I already annihilated your argument, Ken, in my last post.

You've also proven you are mentally ill (as well as intellectually suicidal) [see his citation in an earlier post, that provoked this counter-comparison] , since every Protestant (indeed every true Christian) "requires infallible certainty about everything" in the Bible itself, which is far more than infallible. It's God-breathed and inspired.

So you are clearly mentally ill, to need so much certainty. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I always had a sneaking suspicion about your mental health. Now the cat's out of the bag. You yourself removed from the suspicion all doubt. And you didn't even know that you did, which is the funniest and funnest part of all.



* * *

You did not annihilate any argument or do anything new -- you have not interacted at all with Patton or Triablogue or Waltz.

You just rehashed your old papers.

We don't require the Bible to be infallible, it already is.

The RCC is "mentally ill" because that is not good enough for him; the Bible is not good enough for him -- he requires another human authority to come along and give him infallible certainty about the interpretations of the Bible, a supposed umpire who can walk into the room and settle all interpretation disputes and give the sensitive soul a feeling of security and certainty. (which has never happened anyway.)

Your position is the "mentally ill" one, because it requires you to be infallibly certain about something. God never puts that burden on us. You use epistemology and philosophical arguments to put doubts about the Bible into the minds of evangelicals and protestants. (The whole Scott Hahn, Newman, Sungenis, Matatics movement)

The Protestant position is only that the Bible is infallible, it had nothing to do with our subjective understanding of the Bible being infallible. God does not require the burden to be put on us humans, that you RCs and RC apologists put on people in trying to get protestants to doubt things and their need for an alleged "infallible interpreter".

* * *

church authority and church discipline is one thing, which Protestants agree on; papal infallibility is a stretch.

* * *

One day you'll get it, Ken. We're all praying for ya (asking the blessed Virgin Mary, especially, to intercede).

And please, read my arguments carefully, so you don't misrepresent them. Thanks!

I'll check out Patton, with whom I have interacted in the past.

* * *
Very few Christians of any stripe are confident enough in their views to want to ever defend them.
Except the ones that are confident enough and have defended their views are what you call "anti-Catholics". One of them is still waiting for you to debate formally, in person, orally with cross - examination, etc.

And people like me believe you have been answered and refuted and that it is the RC position that is not Biblical; and not early in history either. It was slowly added later over the centuries culminating in the 1870 dogma.

Your syllogism was pretty good; we both see each other as unreasonable (the assumption of an infallible human ruler (Pontiff, Pope, "Holy Father" - only God is Holy Father - John 17) on this earth is a false assumption and completely un-Biblical and an unreasonable demand - "infallible certainty"; and wrong.

I look forward to see how you and Michael Patton carry on. Thanks for interacting with his work.

* * *

It's true that anti-Catholics are more zealous in at least having a notion that something ought to be vigorously defended. That is one of their few admirable traits.

Their problem is the false premise that Catholics aren't Christians, and the attitudes in debate and in general that flow therefrom. Because of that, I have (finally!) stopped interacting with them. It's a complete waste of time.

As for debate, seven anti-Catholics turned down my challenge to do a live chat debate on this very fundamental question of definition of Christianity. That was the final straw, I shook the dust off of my feet and left them to their devices after that. "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

Michael Patton (like Keith Mathison and lots of other folks I have debated with in the past regarding authority issues) is not an anti-Catholic, which is why gentlemanly, constructive debate is possible with him.

* * *
Their problem is the false premise that Catholics aren't Christians,
It is possible, just as in your above syllogism; (A cannot be non-A and B cannot be non-B) that they sincerely believe that justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel; and since the RCC officially condemns that doctrine (Trent and beyond); a RC who knowingly with full understanding rejects that, is rejecting the gospel, and therefore, as a doctrinal issue is not regenerate -- is it possible to sincerely believe that and not be "anti-Catholic" ? Because you have assumed their premise is false; and therefore condemn the argument based on it; it seems, because you are feeling "hurt" by being considered "not truly regenerate".

According to your logic in the syllogism you used above; they are following the same king of logic; given that they sincerely believe that knowingly rejecting justification by faith alone is a rejection of the heart of the gospel; and one cannot be saved or a regenerate (born -again ) Christian without embracing the gospel.

* * *

I reject justification by faith alone. I believe in justification by faith through grace alone, by means of our Lord Jesus' redeeming death on the cross, and that alone; not by our own works.

So then, I am not regenerate, not a Christian; don't understand the gospel, and cannot only not understand Christian things, but also cannot possibly do ANY good thing, according to total depravity?

Anti-Catholicism is completely self-defeating. It is intellectual suicide. I've tried to debate this very issue with seven of your comrades, Ken, but they all refused. That's their problem, not mine. I am enjoying dialoguing with ecumenical folks like Worm and Michael Patton. They don't come into the discussion with some ludicrous notion that I am not a Christian and that no obedient, faithful orthodox Catholic can be one, either.

You can travel out to that fringe wasteland if you want, but just don't expect that you'll be able to get into many constructive, enjoyable dialogues, because people don't have time for absurd, nonsensical positions. I did my duty in refuting these positions for years, but having done that, I don't have time for it anymore. I never had patience with it at any time.

* * *

You did not really answer the issue/question of, given the syllogism and law of non-contradiction; can a Protestant hold to believing in “A is not non-A” (justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel; so full knowledge of it and rejection of it means one is not justified) and be consistent, but be freed from the wrong label of “anti-Catholic” you give?
I reject justification by faith alone.
ok. That is your position.

* * *
I believe in justification by faith through grace alone, by means of our Lord Jesus' redeeming death on the cross, and that alone; not by our own works.
Left to itself, those bare words with no more explanation do not necessarily contradict the Evangelical doctrine of Justification by faith alone. (Luther and Calvin and Reformed traditions)

But the fleshing out of it further; that is, the reality of what RC justification doctrine is; (according to official RCC documents and Catechism) is a contradiction of what you wrote; because you must do good works all through your life to gain back your justification, started with baptism (either infant or conversion baptism); but which you lost by the commission of mortal sin. So, you may say, “by faith through grace alone”, but you mean that there are works one must do in order keep getting grace until final perseverance and getting scrubbed clean in purgatory and passing through it, and in order to stay in a state of grace. (baptism, partaking of the Lord’s supper, obeying the Ten Commandments, confession to the priest, prayers to Mary for dispensing of grace from the treasury of merit; or some other saint; visiting saints graves, etc. fasting, extended times of more prayer, meditation, giving to the poor; doing what the priest says as the satisfaction aspect of penance, etc.) These things are contradictions to “by grace alone” (hence they contradict faith alone – Romans 4:16) and they contradict “not by our own works”. You don’t get grace dispensed to you from the treasury of merit, unless you do the works; and that only comes to you after you do those things; those good works, ceremonies, communion (partaking of the Lord’s Supper), hail Marys, prayers, fastings, almsgiving, and obeying the Ten Commandments, etc.

No. 2068 in the RCC Catechism says, “The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians . . . so that all men may obtain salvation through faith, Baptism, and the observance of the Commandments.” ( p. 502, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liberia Editrice Vatinaa, Imprimi Potest, Cardinal Ratzinger, 1994.

This is contradictory to the end of the your statement, “not by our own works” and contradictory to “by grace alone”.

Also, the Catechism says:

No. 2010 “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.” ( Ibid, p. 487)

* * *

Right, Ken. You know more about the Catholic teachings than I do.

1) Am I a Christian or not?

2) Am I saved or not, according to you?

3) Do I reject the gospel?

4) Am I unregenerate?

5) Is everything I do evil through and through because I am unregenerate?

6) Am I incapable of understanding spiritual things because I am unregenerate, according to you?

7) Will I likely be damned to hell if I don't change my way of thinking?

8 ) Do I have to reject Catholic dogmas (that Catholics are required to believe) in order to be a good Christian like you and save my eternal soul?

I want simple yes or no answers to my eight questions, without all the gobbledygook and obscurantism and obfuscation (if indeed it is even possible for you to do). Here's another one (please answer yes or no):

Can even Arminians or Wesleyans or any other non-Calvinist Protestants be saved, if the possibility of falling away means that they could never have been saved in the first place?

You get more and more like a clone of the good bishop everyday. It's getting quite wearisome, reading your pontifications on this board. Now you've taken to preaching to me about my own faith, as if I don't even know what it is, or understand it less than you do. That's right out of the Anti-Catholic Playbook (Rule #462, section II: "we anti-Catholics always know more about Romish jesuitical popery than the papists themselves know, and so it is our duty to inform them of what they really believe").

Give me a break, huh? Your positions are absurd enough without the sanctimonious preaching and lecturing.

* * *

You didn't answer my questions, now you demand little sound bite "yes or no" type stuff?

The Catechism says you must have faith, and be baptized, and obey the Ten Commandments.

That is a clear contradiction of "by grace alone" and "apart from works".

* * *

Yes I do demand that, Ken, or you can make yourself scarce from this blog (or be helped by yours truly to do so, without your cooperation). We're not here to be continually preached at by someone who has only a very dim understanding of that which he deigns to lecture informed proponents about.

The least you can do is answer my questions honestly and directly. If you can't, then I've had it with your manifest arrogance and refusal to carry on a normal dialogue without all the histrionics and rabbit trails. You seem to have gotten more hysterical and anti-Catholic as time goes on, so you must have known that it wouldn't be tolerated indefinitely here. I'm a very patient man, all in all (even with anti-Catholic rotgut notions), but not infinitely so.

* * *

Right, Ken. You know more about the Catholic teachings than I do.

I gave you quotes from the Catechism. Was I wrong in that you must do those good works in order to gain back the grace of justification, when it is lost by mortal sin?

Isn’t that what your RCC teaches?
Yes or no

I have answered your questions in pretty short answers. Please remember that this is doctrinal and not personal, even though you seem to be getting angry.

1) Am I a Christian or not?

No; since you reject justification by faith alone; and knowingly reject it; and, if you follow the Catechism, it says you must do works added to faith, in order to be finally saved, --obey the commandments.

2) Am I saved or not, according to you?

No, since you reject justification by faith alone, which is rejecting the heart of the gospel.

3) Do I reject the gospel?

You cut the heart of it out, the part that says it is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from the merit of works.

4) Am I unregenerate?

Apparently so, since you don’t even believe you can know if you are regenerate – you loose justifying grace every time you commit a mortal sin. You have to live under “on and off” mentality your whole life.

5) Is everything I do evil through and through because I am unregenerate?

Yes, but "through and through" is probably not the right understanding - it does not mean everyone is as bad as you could be or like a Jeffery Dahmer, Hitler, or Osama Ben Laden, etc. (there are degrees of sinfulness) It only means that everything we do is tainted by sin, as a wrong motive, but it can appear to be very good deed and loving attitude. Only God knows the heart "through and through".

yes, in the sense that everyone is sinful and totally depraved until they are regenerated. “If you being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to you? Matthew 7:11

6) Am I incapable of understanding spiritual things because I am unregenerate, according to you? No.

You understand some things, many things; yes; you have great intellectual capacities. You are a very smart person.

7) Will I likely be damned to hell if I don't change my way of thinking?

Yes. Repent.

8 ) Do I have to reject Catholic dogmas (that Catholics are required to believe) in order to be a good Christian like you and save my eternal soul?

Better:

Do I have to reject Catholic dogmas (that Catholics are required to believe) in order to be a Christian and save my eternal soul?

Yes.

I never claimed to be “good” and "I sense much anger in you” (as Yoda would say)

I want simple yes or no answers to my eight questions, without all the gobbledygook and obscurantism and obfuscation (if indeed it is even possible for you to do). Here's another one (please answer yes or no):

Were those answers short enough for you?

Can even Arminians or Wesleyans or any other non-Calvinist Protestants be saved, if the possibility of falling away means that they could never have been saved in the first place?

Of course they can be saved and have a wrong understanding of what sound doctrine is. Many of them are truly saved. Some " Reformed folks" (that go to a Reformed church and intellectually only understand some of the doctrines. Intellectual assent is not faith. So, some of them are not truly regenerated, they think they are. There is always the possibility that someone claims to believe, but they really don’t. ( James 2:14-26)

Some Catholics are truly saved; they just don't know what the doctrines are; they just have simple faith in Christ and His work alone, and not trusting in their baptism and hail Mary's to finally get them in.

Now, Dave, I demand you answer my questions on the law of non-contradiction, using your logic about two mutually contradictory things.

I answered you honestly; and it is doctrine, not personal or ad hominem.

and you are very smart.

* * *

Great, thanks for the clarifications, and this was pretty much as expected, given the recent flow of your rhetoric.

My answers are all over my papers. Go read them. It's not like I don't have a detailed record out there of what I believe and why.

Since you are clearly an anti-Catholic (which was not always so clear), then you are one of the group that I no longer bother trying to argue with, after some 16 years of trying until giving up last year, as a completely futile effort.

Nothing personal at all (i.e., the decision to not argue with you) . . . You do correctly perceive that I am fed up with your sanctimonious preachiness, as of late. To me that is utterly justified exasperation, not sinful in the slightest.

* * *

Blog regular Nick: I personally have nothing against Protestants who say Catholics are not Christian.

Me, neither. I simply have the utmost intellectual derision towards their ludicrous ideas.

* * *

[responding to someone else's observation]

Ken is a Christian because the Catholic Church recognizes that trinitarian baptism admits one into regeneration, as a Christian.

Your position on this is about as extreme as Ken's. It is certainly utterly contrary to Vatican II and recent ecumenical documents.

* * *

I think that there is probably a good number of RCs who don't know the details of the doctrinal accuracy but they have child-like faith in Christ alone for their salvation and justification.

That is what I meant.

But even those that understand the issues of justification by faith and Trent and the Reformation, etc. -- should have enough brains in the moral area to not vote for anyone like a pro-abortion/pro-gay/pro-pornography kinds of politians like Obama, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, etc.

That was my point about that. Again, I really like Roman Catholics like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, and Bill Bennett and Laura Ingraham. I would expect other Roman Catholics to be like them in their moral issues stances and politics; but many are not - that is what I meant.

Also, I need to say to you and others and Dave A. that when I first came into the blog years ago; what you guys call "anti-Catholic" (what I laid out in the open in an earlier post); was not my position.

I emotionally have wanted to not answer those questions that Dave gave, because, really, I don't know -- that is, I should not judge that/those issues.

But doctrinally, he is the one who forces it always, and it caused me to study more and think about it and I realized that in some sense I was not being consistent all the way with the implications of justification by faith alone; and since I believe it is truth and the heart of the gospel, if it is true, then the opposite has to be false. Therefore, the RC doctrinal position is a false gospel.

Also, the word "Christian" can mean a cultural Christian or nominal Christian, and since infant baptism and our history of Europe and USA and the west reflects that culture; in that sense I had no problem with seeing all Roman Catholics as Christians, in the cultural nominal sense.

But if we are talking about doctrinal accuracy, then a Christian is one is who regenerated, born again, adopted, elect, trusts in Christ alone; justified by faith alone; etc.

So I have slowly come to that conclusion; mostly because Dave's style is to try to force the issue.

Those are the first questions he fires off at Evangelicals who come into the blog and want to discuss and debate; those that have a clear position for what he calls "anti - Catholic", he writes them off as mean and idiots, etc.

* * *

that is exactly why I was very slow about it; and still am about any judgment -- But Dave will not let it lie in mystery - his style is "pugnacious" and angry, while intellectually hiding behind the label of "a good Socratic method debater".

Sorry Dave, you are very smart; but once someone gets on your "bad side"; you are very something. (pugnacious, angry, mean, ad hominem, condescending, sarcastic, caustic, etc.)

I was trying to be kind and gracious; but Dave (and some others will not have it)

I also think the same can be applied to you wanting to look kind and gracious by saying Protestants are Christians by their Trinitarian baptism; but really, with all the doctrines of mortal sin and penance and initial justification, etc. I don't see how you can believe that we are Christians, because we knowingly reject the RC dogmas and so we have committed mortal sin, therefore we are going to hell. That is the consistent position of the pre-Vatican 2 RCC. It is Vatican 2 that seems really deceptive to me and many others.

* * *

those that have a clear position for what he calls "anti - Catholic", he writes them off as mean and idiots, etc.

Not at all; I consider them well-meaning, sincere, brothers in Christ, who have many many admirable qualities and beliefs, but dead wrong in their assessment of Catholicism, and holders of a self-defeating, intellectually-suicidal position in that regard.

But Dave will not let it lie in mystery

In other words, I'm supposed to play the game that I'm a Christian but not at the same time, because you are too "nice" to come out openly and be frank and claim that I am not one at all. It's a pretense and a charade, but we are supposed to play it because of the ludicrous position you have adopted. Makes a lot of sense. But if I dare to be honest about the elephant in the room, I am a mean son of a gun. How dare I state the obvious about your position, and press you so that you will be honest and forthright about it and stop beating around the bush! How uncouth and brazen and ungrateful! It's not charitable to point out that a position is absurd and embarrassing. The person holding it will then have to be embarrassed about it too, and we can't have that in warm fuzzy postmodernist America!

- his style is "pugnacious" and angry,

I dare say that any outside observer who observed your rhetoric as of late, and my own, would consider it precisely the opposite. You're the one raving and ranting and lecturing everyone here, as if we are dumbbells and, as of late, lecturing me about my OWN beliefs, as if you know them better than I do myself. Now we have a much clearer understanding of why you do that. And it stinks to high heavens. You are the one being sanctimonious and condescending, flouting a stupid, unbiblical, ahistorical, illogical point of view that none of your comrades even have the courage to defend in an open debate situation in a chat room.

while intellectually hiding behind the label of "a good Socratic method debater".

I see. So now you have to even mock my methodology. It's not enough that you engage in a wholesale mockery and thumbing your nose at my deeply held Christian commitment as a disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You are a classic tragi-comic case in point. As soon as you adopted wholesale anti-Catholicism, at that very moment in time you became more obnoxious and condescending (as we have all observed before our eyes), and now have all these personal beefs against me. This wasn't the case before. Now it is because that follows so often as a result of the false belief of anti-Catholicism. Almost invariably it has to become personal. Since I'm not even a Christian and have done all this work posing as one, defending the Church I am not even part of and the Lord I don't even truly serve, then somehow there has to be something wrong with ME. And so now we see the insults coming out. The good bishop that you idolize openly states that I am self-consciously deceitful, as does Eric the Yellow, King David and several others of that stripe. I suspect that will be your next stage. Now I can be demonized and passed off as a lying, conniving devil. The position tends strongly to lead to that, by a certain diabolical logic.

I think it is very sad. You've been treated with nothing but respect on this blog for years, and allowed to preach ad nauseum. But because you choose to be swayed by the garbage you hear from the bishop and those like him, this is how you come out. It's truly a step backwards and downwards. You know better than this. And rest assured that God will hold you accountable after your years of interaction with us here, that you have rejected Catholics as your brethren in Christ and have chosen to teach falsely about the truth of the matter where we are concerned. You know too much to have an excuse. Bearing false witness is an extremely serious sin. It's on your head and your soul now. You're not invincibly ignorant if you've been reading my stuff for years.

Sorry Dave, you are very smart; but once someone gets on your "bad side"; you are very something. (pugnacious, angry, mean, ad hominem, condescending, sarcastic, caustic, etc.)

And you conduct yourself like a perfect gentleman at all times (just like the bishop that you idolize and lionize clearly does) . . . you're so far on my bad side that I just defended you as a Christian, over against a fellow Catholic, the day after you denied that I was one.

I was trying to be kind and gracious; but Dave (and some others will not have it)

Everyone knows how well-behaved and gracious and "southern gentlemanly" you've been. You're not fooling anyone. The obnoxious nature of your recent posts are just as annoying as the foolish theological position you now espouse.

* * *

I am amazed that you came out that way, after I explained my process and was very honest. Wow.

I wish you the best; I do think you are very pugnacious and angry and it shows. you proved it more by this reaction, and not acknowledging my explanation on my process and what I mean.

I sincerely believe my comments were doctrinal and not what you make them out to be.

You add fuel to the fire by comments about Southern gentleman, etc. -- you really show a lot of attempt on your part to read evil motives into someone. I never did that; I don't think.

You are a very angry person, it seems to me. You cannot even conduct yourself in a nice way with what you call the "anti-Catholic" consistent position when I kept it doctrinal and on the issues, as far as I can tell.
Not at all; I consider them well-meaning, sincere, brothers in Christ, who have many many admirable qualities and beliefs, but dead wrong in their assessment of Catholicism, and holders of a self-defeating, intellectually-suicidal position in that regard.
So, what does it take for you to calm down and not get angry and pugnacious with someone who seeks to hold a consistent position, but not go ad hominem?

I am amazed that you did not acknowledge any of this segment, which was honest and explains my journey and struggle with your "just answer me yes or no" style or "answer every point of my papers or nothing counts".

You did not acknowledge any of this segment:
That was my point about that. Again, I really like Roman Catholics like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, and Bill Bennett and Laura Ingraham. I would expect other Roman Catholics to be like them in their moral issues stances and politics; but many are not - that is what I meant.

Also, I need to say to you and others and Dave A. that when I first came into the blog years ago; what you guys call "anti-Catholic" (what I laid out in the open in an earlier post); was not my position.

I emotionally have wanted to not answer those questions that Dave gave, because, really, I don't know -- that is, I should not judge that/those issues.

But doctrinally, he is the one who forces it always, and it caused me to study more and think about it and I realized that in some sense I was not being consistent all the way with the implications of justification by faith alone; and since I believe it is truth and the heart of the gospel, if it is true, then the opposite has to be false. Therefore, the RC doctrinal position is a false gospel.

Also, the word "Christian" can mean a cultural Christian or nominal Christian, and since infant baptism and our history of Europe and USA and the west reflects that culture; in that sense I had no problem with seeing all Roman Catholics as Christians, in the cultural nominal sense.

But if we are talking about doctrinal accuracy, then a Christian is one is who regenerated, born again, adopted, elect, trusts in Christ alone; justified by faith alone; etc.

So I have slowly come to that conclusion; mostly because Dave's style is to try to force the issue.
Forcing the issue in debate: (Dave's own style of adding pugnaciousness and anger and sarcasm and reading evil motives into people's bare words on the screen; to the Socratic method, force, answer me yes or no and you must also answer every point I make). Even some other Catholics have admitted that your style and demeanor is irritating and caustic.

* * *

I'm not angry at all. Will you take my word on that or not? This is not a personal thing, but a doctrinal and intellectual one.

It is a fact that you tried to preach to me just yesterday and make out that you knew my Catholic beliefs and how they fit together better than I do myself.

I don't attribute evil motives to you or anyone else. I never have with the bishop. But he sure has with me: innumerable times. Eric the Red [Svendsen] claims I "engage regularly in a strategy of deceit." David T. King has stated similarly about Catholics en masse. It's a matter of record. I have it documented. Do you now believe that about me? I believe all these men are sincere, well-meaning, and serving Christ as they see fit. But they are burdened with false premises and ideas, and -- oftentimes -- prejudices, which lead them to conclude that Catholics are lying through their teeth.

I'm not angry at people. Life is too short. I'm not angry at you. I'm exasperated and disappointed and frustrated, but not angry. That's been a common theme in the "arguments" of anti-Catholic opponents against me. It has always been dead wrong and laughable from the beginning. These people don't know me from Adam. Not one of them has ever met me in person. They don't have the slightest idea what my actual personality is, or is like. Anyone who does know me and has met me would laugh such a notion to scorn: that I am somehow this boiling teapot, seething with anger and resentment. It's a myth and a joke.

Do you believe me or not?

* * *

It doesn't seem like it, honestly Dave. I will take your word, for your bare words on the screen; but you just don't come across that way.

But thanks for at least calming down some.

You didn't acknowledge what I wrote about my process, the moral political issues and context of the word "Christian", my admitted predicament of being consistent or "nice"; nor my desire to leave judging up to God alone; and at least some mystery involved in this thing. You seem to not think it possible for someone to hold that consistent position and be charitable and gracious and admit when he goes overboard and ad hominem.

* * *

[responding to someone else]

Not at all -- if you studied that issue completely, the doctrinal position is only that once the Roman Catholic came out and anathemitized justification by faith alone in the council of Trent ( 1540s-1564 ? ); it was only then that created a situation where people on the RC side were knowingly rejecting the truth of justification taught in the Scriptures.

So, NO! I do NOT say that people like Augustine were not Christians. Before Trent, the articulation of it was unclear; so people actually believed in Christ alone by faith alone, even if they didn't realize it or could not articulate it clearly. Adding Luther to that is just plain goofy and obviously I would not do that.

* * *

These are your statements that just seem very angry and sarcastic and caustic and strident and pugnacious and judging motives and hearts.
I suspect that will be your next stage. Now I can be demonized and passed off as a lying, conniving devil. The position tends strongly to lead to that, by a certain diabolical logic.

And you conduct yourself like a perfect gentleman at all times . . .

Everyone knows how well-behaved and gracious and "southern gentlemanly" you've been. You're not fooling anyone. The obnoxious nature of your recent posts are just as annoying as the foolish theological position you now espouse.
* * *

The anti-Catholic position Ken stakes out leads logically to Luther and St. Augustine not being Christians, as I proved years ago in reply to the good bishop that Ken follows (and, as always, he never refuted it; didn't even try at all to do so). It is one of the many absurdities inherent in the anti-Catholic position. Ken doesn't realize it yet; he just needs to get more consistent.

Ken,

As stated, I never was angry, so I don't need to calm down. I'll repeat it again: I was exasperated and frustrated. That's a different thing from anger.

I won't be answering your queries anymore, because my policy is to not interact with anti-Catholics, as a matter of principle, based on the utter futility of my years of trying to do so. It's a vain conversation. I know you'll take that personally, as every other anti-Catholic has done, but I can't do anything about that. I am the steward of my time under God.

It is now a question of what your purpose is to be here at all. With your newfound position, we are targets for your evangelization. I have very little patience for that, as we engage in dialogues here; we don't sit and listen to preaching that presupposes we are unregenerate heathen who don't have a clue about the true gospel.

I can only put up with so much tomfoolery. This blog will not become your platform for your inane, self-defeating, condescending anti-Catholic opinions. So I advise you to carefully consider what you post here, if you want to continue to be a presence in this venue.

* * *

It is playbook, standard anti-Catholic rhetoric, that the only Christian Catholic is the dumb Catholic who rejects dogmas of his own ostensible faith. But a "good Catholic" is not a Christian.

That's why he was honest enough to come right out and say that I am not a Christian, because he knows that I know my faith and what I believe.

I must be quite a fool and character, huh?: to not even be a Christian at all, yet devote my entire life's work to defending Catholicism and larger Christianity. If I ain't a Christian, God is sure getting His "money's worth" out of me, isn't He?

* * *

Ken is welcome to stay provided he doesn't go down to the condescending level of pretending that he knows our beliefs better than we do (a stunt he tried with me, above). I have very mixed feelings about his preaching at all, now that he is openly anti-Catholic, not at all because we can't answer him, but because of the principle of the thing, as a matter of good form and respect of one's surroundings, and as a function of my own lack of patience.

I want to come to my own blog to enjoy good discussions with fellow Christians, not this silly, asinine anti-Catholic nonsense. I don't dialogue, myself, with anti-Catholics any longer. I was happy to let others do so here if they wished, but there is a limit to my patience and toleration of something on my own blog, especially when there are a million other places someone can go to engage in such discussions.

* * *

Dave,

OK - that is your right and freedom; yet, it seems to me to be an excuse for not being able to deal with the issues.

Even your term "anti-Catholic" is not a proper term, which, I know you have a long boring article on that, calling it, a scholarly term.

It is not at all.

It is a purely emotionally label, designed to make the other side look bigoted and full of hatred.

There is no hatred here on my part. I think I have kept it to the issues; but it really seems you are the one who takes it personal. you use terms like "asinine" and "hiding under southern gentlemanly" phrases; and "that will be his next step"; etc. -- who is the one who seems to have anger and ad hominiem?

Also, I acknowledged that are you are very intelligent.

And you still made no acknowledgement of my explanation of
a. it was a process that I have slowly worked through
b. I cannot judge
c. there is mystery, subjectivism involved
d. cultural Christianity and nominal Christianity
e. moral issues that we agree on

* * *

Ken, you're not making a very compelling case for allowing you to be here. Can you do a little better?

1) You insult me again as supposedly not having answers, when I simply choose not to answer now, and appeal to my innumerable past answers.

2) You appeal to the same dumb, stupid, tired anti-Catholic objection to the descriptive term for what you are that is used by many many scholars of all stripes. Rather than accept the undeniable fact, you mock and dismiss it. That's good fundamentalist anti-intellectualism, but will not impress any non-fundamentalist, I can assure you.

3) "It is a purely emotionally label, designed to make the other side look bigoted and full of hatred."

I'll let this pass, knowing that you are upset at the moment, and not possibly this much of an imbecile, to not know what I have clarified some half a billion times by now.

4) I have now expressly denied two times that I have this anger, yet you keep talking about it. Do you not know that there is a difference between impatience and anger?

5) "Also, I acknowledged that are you are very intelligent."

Who gives a flying fig about how intelligent they are, if said person is damned and unregenerate and living an utterly ridiculous life of devoting himself to proclaiming and defending the things of God when he doesn't have an inkling as to what they are? I would say that is not intelligent at all. So you say the kind thing, yet your position requires the ultra-insulting, ridiculous implication. But, being anti-Catholic, of course you don't recognize the logical reduction of what you posit.

6) As I said, our dialogue (i.e., about any serious theological issues) is through, as long as you remain anti-Catholic. That is my policy. I'm only doing this now because I am trying to be courteous. But any chance of reasonable dialogue is now kaput.

As of this point, you are free to post here and others can interact with your arguments if they like, but my patience is razor-thin at your continuing obtuse density as to my positions and my state of mind and emotions, and your continuing misrepresentation of them.

It's all standard anti-Catholicism. How sad that you have chosen to adopt these methods in cookie-cutter fashion. It's extremely disappointing and disturbing to me to watch you go down this road. You know better than this.

I urge all to fervently pray for brother Ken: that God can open up his heart and his eyes, so he can get off this perilous road he has chosen to go down: believing that Catholics aren't Christians unless they are dumbbells about their own theology, etc. It's literally wicked; it divides Christians; it zaps energy; it keeps people preoccupied with nonsensical garbage rather than the important things we should all occupy ourselves with concerning the kingdom. It's a victory of the devil: more Christian division.

And that is more "ad hominem," of course (Ken will say). No it is not. It is the truth: calling a thing (not a person) what it is. The THING is wicked and false and bad. The PERSON is being duped and taken in by it. But you are sincere. You have the best of intentions, you don't hate. You love Jesus and serve Him (of that I have no doubt whatever; that's why this is so tragic). I don't hate you or any anti-Catholic or indeed any person that I am aware of. I'm not angry; I am extremely passionate at the moment. My blood pressure is fine; my heartbeat is fine.

I despise the IDEAS as wicked lies from the pit of hell. And that is not improper language towards it (if anything it is quite mild). St. Paul writes constantly about the wickedness of division and false-speaking, especially about fellow Christians. You need to be jolted to wake up. That's an act of love. I am begging and pleading with you to not adopt this viewpoint. It's spiritual poison and intellectual suicide.

Pray folks, pray. I certainly will.

* * *

Anyway, I will leave for a while until Dave calms down.

Anything I say now is interpreted wrong and with even more intensity and pugnaciousness and ad hominem, and ok, impatience. impatience is sin also - I Corinthians 13, Galatians 5:22-23

* * *

My views will be exactly the same on anti-Catholicism a week from now, a month, even 30 years from now. It has nothing to do with mere emotion. It's based on Scripture, history, and reason.

You say impatience is a sin? How about bearing false witness against brothers in Christ?

Or is it okay for the anti-Catholic to be passionate in his anti-Catholic preaching to lowly Catholics, so they can accept the gospel, come out of the Beast, and be saved, while the Catholic is never supposed to be passionate in his denunciations of anti-Catholicism, because that is too uppity and the unregenerate heathen papist has nothing to say to his Protestant overlords?

* * *

I know that Sean Hannity openly dissents on the issue of contraception, so he is not a faithful Catholic: that being a grave matter of sin.

* * *

you condemn Sean Hannity for that?

See, I was right about RCs who loose their justification through mortal sin -

[I didn't claim that; it would depend on the state of his knowledge and will. I simply claimed he wasn't a "faithful" Catholic: meaning that he doesn't accept all of the Church's teachings]

"Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God interceding for us." Romans 8:33-34

Your doctrine of justification contradicts the Bible, therefore is it wrong and heresy; a false doctrine.

Grace alone also means by the nature of it, that it is by faith alone - Romans 4:16

"For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those of who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of as all. " Romans 4:16

* * *
How about bearing false witness against brothers in Christ?
Obviously, if I sincerely believe that RC doctrine is wrong, then it is not bearing false witness. To defend against false doctrine is a noble thing, as you believe your RC apologetics is a noble thing.

* * *
My views will be exactly the same on anti-Catholicism a week from now, a month, even 30 years from now. It has nothing to do with mere emotion.
So, you have infallible certainty that you are right in your own mind and heart about this position you take and you can infallibly declare into the future that you will have infallible knowledge that it will not change in a week, a month, 5 years, 10 years, or 30 years?

You have a lot of infallible certainty and almost claiming perfect knowledge of the future in your own mind.

"don't lean on your own understanding" Proverbs 3:5-7

"Do not be wise in your own eyes"

* * *

Ken Temple is now banned. He insists on continuing his preaching, which I have urged him to be careful about, if he wishes to remain here. There is a big difference between respectful dialogue and sanctimonious, condescending preaching of the most ill-mannered sort.

Specifically I've had enough of two things (just for the record):
1) Ken claiming to know my own faith and motivations better than I do myself. For example, he keeps repeating over and over that I am supposedly "angry" in some kind of fuming, out of control sense. I've denied this over and over but he keeps saying it. He lectured me like a child about aspects of Catholicism that he pretends to know more about than I do.

2) Ken's blatant, hypocritical double standard insofar as he reserves the right to preach (now with his newly-found anti-Catholic mentality) against Catholic doctrine on a Catholic blog, whereas whenever I dare to object to anti-Catholicism on principle, it is immediately dismissed by Ken in a most derisive manner as "hatred" and "angry" and solely "ad hominem" and so forth.
In other words, when he does his thing, it proceeds from the noblest of motivations (our salvation and regeneration). For my part, I was happy to grant that Ken has good motives and is sincere. I did so not far above. But Ken cannot possibly grant the same back to me when it comes to my objections to anti-Catholicism.

Thus, these two particularly annoying and obnoxious manifest attitudes go beyond even being an anti-Catholic. Anti-Catholics have been free to come here and comment as they wish, for the entirety of the time that this blog has existed (4 1/2 years): though they usually don't hang around long. Ken could have stayed, too, even to spout anti-Catholic nonsense, but these two things (clearly unrepented of, with no immediate intention to change) are deal-breakers.

They put me "over the edge," in the context of my usual willingness to allow more or less complete "freedom of speech" on this blog. Certain things are insufferable. It's yet another sad case of a person adopting anti-Catholicism and immediately showing, in rudeness and being oblivious to repeated factual matters.

It's all the more pathetic in a man of the cloth and a missionary. God bless his zeal, but it has now exhausted its purpose and usefulness on this blog. There are plenty of anti-Catholic venues where Ken can express it (places where I have long since been banned; e.g., the chat room of a certain notorious Baptist bishop).

* * *

If Ken now complains about being banned (which is the usual procedure), and follows the long-established anti-Catholic template and makes out that the reason was simply because he is a proclaimed anti-Catholic, and that I am scared of his arguments and now against free speech, he will not be telling the truth. None of those things are in the least true (let it be made plain for the record). The REAL reason is exactly as I explained in my post above.

Ken was allowed to preach and express himself freely here for some three years or so, maybe even longer. He was right on the edge of being an anti-Catholic the whole time. He was always appealing to the bigshot anti-Catholic apologists, and arguing almost exactly like them. So no one can say that he hasn't had extraordinary free speech here, whereas I was always summarily banned from anti-Catholic boards and chat rooms (back when I still tried to enter them at all).

* * * * *

Ken wrote to me and I wrote back. Here are those exchanges (his are posted with his permission):

Hi Dave,

I did not expect that from you – being banned. I was indeed surprised!

I am being upfront and honest that this is me, Ken Temple.

Being “preachy” and “sanctimonious” are quite subjective judgments. I may see it as only “thinking one is right and the other is wrong”; you may interpret it as a "holier than thou" attitude", which I reject as my attitude. Anyway those are very subjective opinions; and you have the right to hold that opinion; but I don’t see those as valid reasons to ban me.

The others have commented that I did just said [sic] my opinions and sometimes did not really interact with what they were saying. I have not been able to interact with every detail nor every point that everyone makes; that is true. I don’t see how you or any others can expect one person who holds the Protestant position to be able to possibly respond to every point that 10-15 other Roman Catholics throw at him. That is an unacceptable standard and the only real complaints that you all can reasonable hold; and it is unreasonable because it is unrealistic.

Since your last comment to me about Sean Hannity and his dissent from RCC position on contraception; I don’t see anywhere where I did what you are accusing me of :

1. repeating again that you are angry.. I did not do that after your last post about Sean Hannity and contraception.

2. Hypocrisy and “false witness” against a Christian brother. If you think my holding a doctrinal position that disagrees with yours is hypocrisy, or bearing false witness, you know that is just wrong; you are very smart and much of the time objective; but on this you don’t seem to be being objective. I have never accused you of lying, deliberately or unknowingly.

3. claiming to know more about RC than you do. I don't claim that; and never did. Go back and read what I wrote on justification and mortal sin and quoting from the Catechism. You did not interact with it at all. I was interacting with the Catechism, quoted from it; yet you seemed to dismiss by this and you did not deal with the issues of it that I raised. It is almost like you said, “You have no right to even have an opinion on RC and those statements. " Furthermore, you made no intereaction [sic] with the issues or details or doctrines or principles, you just seem to say, "how dare you think you can comment on the RCC Catechism and quote it and use it", etc. You do that all the time in your analysis of Protestant materials, ie, quote them, use them, and analyze them from your point of view.

My answers in that combox since that time that caused you to ban me:

Three were directed to Adoman, and were answering him; about Isaiah 53 and penal substitutionary atonement, and infallible certainty and a quote from a Roman Catholic about Matthew’s Gospel. They are all issues oriented, no ad homimen -where is it? Where is a sanctimonious attitude in my answers to Adoman?

“preachy” - ?? really – all of your articles against Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, etc. can all be labeled as “preachy” from all the Evangelical Protestants who would read your materials. That really is no reason to ban someone.

Three were directed to you; but nothing in them about anger. And they were all issue oriented.
The issue was about mortal sin, loosing one’s justification, and contraception (Sean Hannity’s dissent from RCC position) bearing false witness cannot be applied to a doctrinal position over which two groups or sides disagree with other or doctrinal position. Otherwise you could never talk to another Protestant or Muslim or Hindu or Mormon, etc. by your standard there.
the other issue was testing your epistemology and infallible certainty about things; which is the method you and other RCs use against Protestants in claiming that they need an infallible interpreter to help them understand the Bible. I see nothing hypocritical or ad hominem about raising these three issues. And I did not repeat that you were angry since your comment about Sean Hannity. I can see why you would not like that last one, because the tone may be sharp, (about knowing infallibly into the future 30 years if you will hold your same opinions); but it is a real honest question that exposes the subjective nature of the whole, “how do you know for sure” (which books belong in the canon, and which interpretation is right, etc.) epistemological basis for the whole RCC movement of former Protestants. ( Newman, You and Scott Hahn and my friend, Rod Bennett, Mattatics, Sungenis – the whole thing is based on this skeptical philosophy; using philosophical epistemology to cause sincere Evangelicals to doubt.)

I wish you no harm; I am sorry I hurt your feelings; and I was sincerely trying to communicate my process of how I came to the conclusions I have (which you did not acknowledge); and to the best of my knowledge, I was not trying to be hurtful or ad hominem or attack you personally.
I don’t understand what happened to you here, honestly.

Sincerely,

Ken Temple

* * *

Hi Ken,

Thanks for your letter.

My reasoning was completely laid out in the combox, and now organized into a new post. I have nothing to add to that. It just goes round and round. You understand my distaste for the anti-Catholic position. That alone wasn't grounds for banning, but rather, your continuing accusations and methods (what I hold to be blatant double standards), that weren't necessary. I have the perfect right (as you acknowledged) to create the atmosphere on my blog that I desire to foster. We're going to disagree on these additional elements that made me decide to ban you, just as we will on the theology. What can I say?

If you like, I can add this letter of yours to the new post about the whole incident, so you can have your "final say." You can have the last word.

May God abundantly bless you and yours, your ministry, and all your endeavors.

Your brother in Christ & His Church,

Dave

* * *

Thanks Dave,

I appreciate you answering my email.

That would be good if you post my email. Thanks for that gesture – that’s great and fair.

I guess, it honestly seems to me that, according to you, there is no way for anyone to hold that doctrinal position that I do; and be considered a peaceful person, or allowed to talk anymore,
[Dave: note that this claim fulfills the prediction that I twice made:
If Ken . . . makes out that the reason was simply because he is a proclaimed anti-Catholic, and that I am scared of his arguments and now against free speech, he will not be telling the truth.

You understand my distaste for the anti-Catholic position. That alone wasn't grounds for banning, . . . ]
(yes you allowed me to participate for a long time, true) as one who disagrees with the doctrine of RC, and seeks to keep it is all doctrinal; even if it seems “preachy” or “sanctimonious”, which are the other side’s subjective opinion.

The position: that a RC who knowingly rejects justification by faith alone indicates that person is not justified by Christ’s righteousness; because there is, in the RC penance system, an adding of good works of things like prayers to Mary, penance, obeying the commandments, that is a process that goes all the way to the end of purgatory, etc.

That would be cool if you add it, and even this part also.

Sincerely and Peace,

Ken Temple

No comments: