Today In TheologyRelating Theology To Our World Today! |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Cross Examination in the Great Debate XPosted by Pros Apologian - March 14, 2008 on 1:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White A while back I started to replace the files that I had posted on GodTube (my account was deleted without notice or explanation). So some of these were posted a while back (a year ago or so).
Today on The Dividing LinePosted by Pros Apologian - March 14, 2008 on 12:10 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Started with a discussion of Job and the problem of evil in reference to Bart Ehrman's new book. Then Manuel was given a shot at discussing Oneness theology, but...we had to move on to talk about a synoptic parallel issue, and then a little discussion of the Pope & Luther issue. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Cross Examination: Mormonism Debate, Salt Lake CityPosted by Pros Apologian - March 12, 2008 on 1:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Today on The Dividing LinePosted by Pros Apologian - March 11, 2008 on 6:35 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Started off with a few minutes on the topic of the deity of Christ and Victor Paul Wierwille, then moved on to F. LaGard Smith's closing statement in the ISI debate (wear asbestos gloves while listening to that part if you are Reformed), and finished up with a call on indulgences. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Steve Ray and Musical Apologetics…and Modalism, Just for the Fun of It!Posted by Pros Apologian - March 11, 2008 on 5:54 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Steve Ray blogged today about those nasty, "tedious" anti-Catholics and in doing so directed his readers to a music video "response." Great guitar work, catchy tune, the lyrics work...musically, anyway. Too bad the history, Bible, and Trinitarian theology are all messed up! Thanks again, Steve, for proving that there is no limit to how far you will go to avoid facing up to the truth! Then again, who has the time to back up their wild claims when they are running about Israel on a bus filled with pilgrims! Tough job, but someone has to wear the safari hat!
The Deity of Christ in the New Testament: the Evidence ReviewedPosted by Pros Apologian - March 10, 2008 on 1:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Yesterday on The Dividing LinePosted by Pros Apologian - March 7, 2008 on 2:37 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White After a brief call from a Oneness Pentecostal who seems to have some self-control/anger issues, I played the audio from a YouTube video of Muslim speaker Khalid Yasin as he leads a group of people through the shahada, the confession that makes one a Muslim. A very informative program! Here's the program (free/high quality).
William Albrecht and AugustinePosted by Pros Apologian - March 7, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Martin Luther: Ex-Heretic?Posted by Pros Apologian - March 6, 2008 on 10:50 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White For just one example of the articles on this particular topic today, see here.
The Five Worst Christian Books (Phoenix Preacher)Posted by Pros Apologian - March 6, 2008 on 1:52 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I broke out in hives as soon as I scanned the list. I became dizzy, and lost my appetite.OK, I'm making that up. But the list is very, very...familiar to me. For some odd reason. Maybe because I have debated most of the authors, or, tried? Been threatened with lawsuits by at least one of them (take a wild guess who!), and have in general provided a pretty full response to the whole lot of 'em. Thanks for the blog entry, PP!
Well Look at That….Posted by Pros Apologian - March 6, 2008 on 1:26 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White James Swan has noted a few times the speed with which Dave Armstrong can edit things on his blog when they are shown to be embarrassing. Evidently, Steve Ray is a quick study. When he first posted his blog article dishonestly accusing me of saying Ignatius was a Reformed Baptist (the very thing I had strenuously denied), the title contained the phrase, "Was St. Ignatius a Reformed Baptist?" Well, once I pointed out that one has to be very, very truth challenged to behave like Ray does with regularity, the title changed to "Was St. Ignatius a Protestant?" I suppose "Reformed Baptist" was too obvious in its referent? I mean, Ray tried to even keep my name out of his attack, though, he forgot the "well known theologian" he quoted mentioned it. I reminds folks that I have offered 20 free minutes on the DL for this "theologian" to make his case without interruption as long as he will then engage in 40 minutes of dialogue and cross-examination. So far, our offer has been met with silence, as one would expect. Given Ray's dishonesty, the possibility that he made the entire e-mail up cannot be dismissed. In any case, someone just pointed that out to me, so I thought I would make mention of it.Just a quick note again for our regular readers, or those new to the blog. I have moved to primarily posting video blogs (vlogs?). People enjoy especially the interaction with the proponents of other views that this allows that a text-oriented blog just can't provide on the same level. If you are like a lot of folks and only have a small amount of time each day for blog reading, then you will want to continue hitting the blog daily, as I am seeking to provide three videos per week (and, since YouTube limits the length to just under 11 minutes, that is about half an hour's worth of apologetic dialogue and discussion per week). As of today, every slot for a full month is already filled, and some series extend into the middle of May already. But for those who want "instant access," and want to see each of the videos as they are posted, you will want to subscribe to my YouTube page here. As of today just over 500 folks are doing that, and the number increases daily. In fact, just today the total video views topped one quarter of a million, and I only began to seriously use and promote the video aspect in mid-January. In fact, more than half the videos I have posted since then have yet to appear on the blog, and once they do, their views increase dramatically. So I am thankful that this venue is open to us, and I pray we will use it properly to God's glory and the honor of the name of Jesus Christ while we still have this freedom.
Gail Riplinger on KRDS Radio from 1993, Part IIIPosted by Pros Apologian - March 6, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White This was the most interesting of the two programs in my opinion. Riplinger shows her utter disregard for context, logic, rationality---anything.
The Carmen Christi and HarpagmosPosted by Pros Apologian - March 5, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Today on the Dividing Line: Calciumboy and KJVOnlyism; Islam and the Deity of Christ; Rome and Total DepravityPosted by Pros Apologian - March 4, 2008 on 9:15 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Another eclectic discussion today, starting with "calciumboy's" response to me on the Ankerberg stuff, then moving on to some comments by Jamal Badawi in his debate with Rittenhouse in Southern California last week, then going back to the Tim Staples/total depravity clip from last week. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Islamic Debates in VirginiaPosted by Pros Apologian - March 3, 2008 on 3:54 pm | In aomin.org | Comments Off James White For more information click here.
Conclusion of the Opening Statement from the Seattle Debate on the CrucifixionPosted by Pros Apologian - March 3, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Fast Apologetics #1Posted by Pros Apologian - March 2, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White For folks on the run!
The Abuse of Ignatius of Antioch by Roman Catholic Apologist Steve Ray (Final)Posted by Pros Apologian - February 29, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Sorry About the DL Today!Posted by Pros Apologian - February 28, 2008 on 7:05 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I did the DL today: but there is no recording of it. Sorry! Rich was sick, I had only a few minutes to try to set everything up and do it all myself, and I simply forgot to start the recording before the program began. I probably should have just used that hour for something more useful anyway, I guess! We live and learn! I will definitely do that in the future: no more solo DL's! But, Lord willing, we will be back next Tuesday.
“The Inspiration, Transmission & Reliability of the New Testament” This Weekend in Hemet, CAPosted by Pros Apologian - February 28, 2008 on 4:43 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I will be speaking Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at Bible Fellowship Church in Hemet, California. Here is a link. Hope to see some of our Southern California friends there!
Can Paul Be Trusted? Ali Ataie vs.Sound Christian Scholarship (#8)Posted by Pros Apologian - February 28, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White It has been over two months since my last installment in my series in response to Ali Ataie's attack onthe credibility of the Apostle Paul, found here. My last post can be found here. I played with the idea of moving to the video format for the continuation of these replies, but given that the original article is text only, I did not see that as a feasible option. To this point we have documented numerous examples of eisegesis on the part of Mr. Ataie. We continue with his discussion of Paul: Paul does eventually travel to the Holy Land but only meets with Cephas and James, the Lord's brother. Paul makes it very evident that the Jerusalem leadership not in any way influences his teaching and feels strong enough about his convictions to take an oath: What I write is plain truth; before God I am not lying (Galatians 1:16-20).Actually, we are left wondering how Mr. Ataie has determined that Paul only meets Cephas and James: surely he met all of the brethren who were still in Jerusalem at the moment. Obviously, there is a major leap involved in going from "these two men were named" to "these two men are the onlyof the leaders Paul met. Next, the substance of Paul's concern to demonstrate his independence from the Jerusalem leaders was in reference to the heart of the gospel itself, not "his teaching" in general. He frankly admits that he stands with all the rest of us as a recipient of much of his knowledge of the teachings of Jesus Himself, obviously, but his point is to insist that the heart of His gospel is directly revelatory in nature. After his meeting with Peter, Paul goes north into Syria and does not return to Jerusalem until fourteen years later accompanied by Titus and Barnabas for the church conference described in Acts 15.There are, of course, many discussions in scholarly literature concerning how to collate all the information available from Acts and the Epistles to create a chronology of Paul's life, not just this one outline offered by Ataie. Luke gives us a description of Paul's early career in Acts that is significantly different with respect to the extent of Paul's relationship to the Jerusalem apostles. According to Luke, shortly after his conversion Paul travels to Jerusalem to try to join the body of disciples but is rejected as a deceiver. It was only after the careful convincing of Barnabas that the disciples accepted Paul as a member of the church (Acts 9:27).Once again we are left wondering about Mr. Ataie's cavalier reading of the biblical text. Paul was not "rejected as a deceiver." In light of Ataie's grossly unfair attack so far, this is obviously just another attempt to garner evidence for his accusations. The disciples knew Saul of Tarsus, and they knew he had been active in seeking their deaths. It was natural for them to avoid him, as they would be avoiding anyone in Saul's party as well. The phraseology, καὶ πάντες ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτὸν μὴ πιστεύοντες ὅτι ἐστὶν μαθητής indicates they feared him because they felt his claim to being a disciple was a ruse to bring them out and expose them to arrest. That is rather obvious. Surely Paul could have fabricated his so-called vision of Jesus and it was very apparent that the disciples had serious reservations about his sincerity.How does this follow? How is there any logical connection whatsoever between the perfectly reasonable concern the disciples had that a man who had been instrumental in imprisoning Christians, and even putting some to death might be seeking to trick them, and the assertion of dishonesty on Paul's part regarding his encounter with the risen Jesus? Ataie makes the connection, but upon what basis? It is obvious the other disciples did accept Paul's claims, and this is the problem for Ataie's position, for modern Islam has to paint Paul as a usurper, yet, there simply is no basis for this in the Scriptures. Interestingly, scholars debate whether or not Paul would have ever been known to the world at large if it wasn't for the vouching of Barnabas. However Paul unabashedly mentions nothing of Baranabas' pledge for him but rather credits the three pillars for accepting as legitimate not only himself, but Barnabas as well!Note Ataie's deep and unfair bias: "unabashedly mentions nothing"? What is that supposed to mean? Paul and Barnabas were imprisoned together, preached together, and yet Ataie can conclude that Paul neverthanked him, never told others about his role? This is surely absurd. It is most likely that Luke himself knew of Barnabas' action from Paul, resulting in its recording in Acts! And even when Barnabas fell into error in the matter in Antioch, Paul can write, ὥστε καὶ Βαρναβᾶς συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει, "so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy." That little "even" points to Paul's recognition of how unusual it was that someone with as tender a heart as Barnabas' could be drawn away by the power of tradition so as to separate from the Gentile brethren. Barnabas' action in Jerusalem is clearly behind this amazement on Paul's part. But Ataie's prejudice against Paul knows no bounds: He tells us in Galatians 2:9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, PERCEIVED THE GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN UNTO ME, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.Is it Ataie's assertion that Paul is here even making reference to that initial encounter and how it was he was introduced to the believers in Jerusalem? This is absurd! He is so intent upon attacking Paul's character that he mixes contexts and makes connections where none exist. I have listened as Ali Ataie has made an appeal for a fair treatment of Muhammad in his historical context, yet, Ataie clearly is unwilling to do the same for Paul. Luke also tells us that Paul agrees with James' notion that Gentile Christians should follow at least four Torah prohibitions: that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.Given the amount of confusion on the part of many in evangelicalism on the issue of the relationship of the law and faith, we can at least understand Ataie's confusion as well, though, in the context of a non-stop attack on the character of Paul, we cannot excuse it. If Ataie were to even strive for a modicum of fairness, he would quote Paul's own words, "νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν," "Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom. 3:31). Obviously, the issue has to do with the nature of the law and its purposes, and Ataie is confusing categories just to score cheap debating points against the Apostle. But, despite the pages and pages of explanation found in Paul's own epistles, and the shelves of volumes written by scholars on the same subject down through the ages, Ataie is intent upon pressing home his crusade against Paul: Thus Paul's hypocrisy is manifested in his apparent allegiance to the Mosaic laws by action and subsequent renunciation of them by words.I can honestly before God say that I have exercised a thousand times the restraint and shown far more fairness in my study of Muhammad than Ataie has in his vociferous attacks upon a man clearly respected by the earliest Muslims, the Apostle Paul.
Gail Riplinger on KRDS Radio from 1993, Part IIPosted by Pros Apologian - February 27, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Today on the Dividing Line: Steve Ray Exposed, William Albrecht ReviewedPosted by Pros Apologian - February 26, 2008 on 3:43 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Went a little long today because I had a lot to cover. First, Neil from Toronto called to give us a quick review of the Hunt/Ally debate from last Friday. Then I launched into Steve Ray's now completely documented dishonesty, and his promotion of William Albrecht's video responses to my series on Ignatius. So I reviewed Ray's blog article (noted below), documented its obvious dishonesty, and then went to William Albrecht's video reviews, as recommended by Steve Ray, showing that if this is the best Rome has to offer, well, the battle is surely over. Another amazing display of just how far Rome's apologists will go in service to "Mother Church." Here's the program (free/high quality).
Apologetics for The MassesPosted by Pros Apologian - February 26, 2008 on 10:03 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames Swan I am subscribed to a number of Roman Catholic e-newsletters. One particular newsletter is Apologetics for The Masses by John Martignoni. The latest issue included some interesting comments on how to dialog with Protestants. John claims to have developed a line of questioning that is supposed to befuddle Protestants. When encountering "someone who has a problem with Catholic teaching and they seem to think their opinion is what the Scripture actually says," John suggests asking in response "are you an authentic interpreter of the Bible?" He explains:"If someone says they are an 'authentic interpreter' of the Bible, then that leads to the question of infallibility. If they are an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then they must be infallible. Yet, most Protestants... will never claim to be infallible. So, that puts them in a predicament. Plus, if they claim to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible, then the logical question is: Who appointed you to be an authentic interpreter of the Bible? If they say the Bible did, then you ask them for chapter and verse as to where their name appears so that you might believe them. If they say anyone else, then you ask by what authority that person or persons appointed them authentic interpreters of the Bible. If they don't claim to be an 'authentic interpreter' of the Bible, then that means their interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be fallible- in other words, they have to admit their interpretation could be wrong. And, if they could be wrong, then why should you, or anyone else, risk the salvation of your soul on what this person is saying?" Here we have an excellent example of obfuscation by Catholic rhetoric. This is a version of the typical, "You need an infallible authority to understand the Bible" argument. One must apply the claim being put forth to see if it works in practice. Catholic apologists use these tired arguments as if... they actually work. They do not. Rather than actually opening the Bible, looking at a passage and its context, Mr. Martignoni suggests questioning if any of us are infallible interpreters. For Martignoni, the Bible must be so cryptic, confusing, and difficult, that none of us could ever understand any of it without being infallible! Just think of how difficult it is to understand such verses like Acts 3:1, "One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer- at three in the afternoon." Imagine, for Martignoni, without an infallible understanding of this text, none of us could ever comprehend even this simple verse. Martignoni's argument actually insults the author of the Bible. Throughout the Scriptures, it is stated and implied that the Bible can be understood. Luke tells us the Bereans "were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11). How would Martignoni approach these people? Where was the Roman Catholic infallible interpreter guiding the Bereans to read their Bibles? To be consistent, Martignoni would have to conclude the Bereans were in quite a predicament! He would have to similarly ask, "Who appointed them to be an authentic interpreters of the Bible?" I would argue, even a non-believer could exegete a verse of Scripture and comprehend a passage in a context. Of course, that person would never savingly believe in the power of the text without the work of God's Spirit illuminating and giving understanding. The words of the Scripture would be nothing more than foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18). When the Lord chastised the Sadducees in Matthew 22, he stated they were in error because they did not know the Scriptures. He further states, "have you not read what God said to you?" (Mt. 22:31). The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures. Were the Sadducees supposed to respond, "How could we? We did not have an authentic interpreter of the Bible!" Martignoni's apologetic reminded me of a section from A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12. In speaking of the Reformation, the commentary states, "A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church, in order that each one should be able to make for himself the religion which suited his feelings." It is pointed out how positive it has been for the Roman Church to keep the Bible out of the hands of individuals: "We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted." The irony of course, is that Roman Catholics are forced to excessive amounts of private interpretation because their infallible interpreter rarely does what it says it can do. It rarely, if ever, infallibly interprets Scripture. Sure, Rome makes dogmatic pronouncements. Up until something is dogmatically defined, Roman Catholics are free to interpret Biblical passages. Also, what Roman apologists rarely tell you is that the Biblical texts used to support a dogma haven't been infallibly defined. That is, the dogma is infallible, but the proof texts supporting the dogma have not been infallibly interpreted. In essence, Martignoni's Church can't deliver the goods promised. Martignoni then suggests methods of doing apologetics, and it was simply too ironic not to mention: "What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you're discussing. Don't hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there. If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out- I don't see any problem, as long as you're doing it in private correspondence." Irony of ironies: Martignoni doesn't direct his readers to infallible Roman documents, he directs them to Catholic apologists and websites! He directs his readers to fallible interpreters of Roman Catholicism! He then states, "I don't know of any Catholic apologist who would mind if you quote them without citation- not for the purpose of self-aggrandizement or for profit- but for the purpose of saving a soul. After all, I don't know of any Catholic apologists who are coming up with original stuff. These arguments have been out there for hundreds of years. I always tell people that if there is anything original in any of my stuff, it's quite by accident." Well, he does have point. The new e-pologists have not reinvented the Catholic wheel. What should be obvious, is that Catholic apologists are not infallible, and they are interpreters of Roman Catholicism, and they are not always unified in their argumentation. The very avenue of certainty Martignoni directs his readers down is a dead end. Enough of these arguments that the Bible can't be understood without Rome. Rome hasn't really infallibly interpreted much of the Bible, and based on what it comes up with by dogmatic pronouncements, I'm going to stick with the work of exegesis and the Holy Spirit to confirm the message of Scripture.
Behold Modern Roman Catholic ApologeticsPosted by Pros Apologian - February 26, 2008 on 10:02 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White If you thought there was a "renaissance" of Roman Catholic apologetics a few decades ago, I believe you can see this entry by Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray as the tomb stone of any such renaissance. Recall that over the past few weeks a series of videos has appeared on my blog. The videos provide the broad context of Ignatius' letter to the Smyrneans. The audio came from a Dividing Line I did back in 2004 while teaching a class on patristics for Golden Gate. In the videos I went through the context and background of the letter, the theological issues at stake, etc.I noted recently one blog entry that simply mocked the series but that obviously failed to interact with the arguments at all. It was the literary equivalent of "nuh uh!" And so far, this is all that has been offered by anyone. William Albrecht's videos likewise illustrate the gross anachronism into which Roman apologists are forced by their own dogmatic definitions. In each case the serious thinker is left going, "Hey, why can't anyone actually let Ignatius speak as...Ignatius?" Given the string of apologetic blunders Steve Ray has committed of late (30,000 denominations, Jerome was alone in his view of the canon, etc.), I figured Ray would just keep busy riding around Israel on a bus and hope his constituency would not notice that once again he had been shown to be less than honest in his comments and publications. But that was way too high a hope: instead, Ray today posted the above linked blog articled titled, "Was the Anti-Catholic Correct on YouTube? Was St. Ignatius a Reformed Baptist?" Now note immediately: Ray has to keep beating the "anti-Catholic" drum, seeking to fire up the emotions of his readers through bigotry; and then he simply lies to his readers. Anyone who watched or listened to my series on Ignatius (found here) knows I specifically and clearly stated Ignatius was NOT a Reformed Baptist. So, either Ray is willing to lie through his teeth publicly, or, more likely, he has not even bothered to watch the videos, and is willing to lie out of his arrogance and ignorance, one of the two. Maybe this is the next step in the obvious attempt on the part of Rome's apologists, beginning with the Envoy hit piece years ago, to spread the lie amongst the faithful that I claim the early church was made up of Reformed Baptists? It is hard to say, but the facts are plain: Steve Ray is about as truth challenged as you can get. While he pretends expertise in the early church, he lacks the training and ability to respond in any coherent or meaningful fashion to the simple contextual reading of Ignatius' words. Instead, he is lining his pockets with the money of gullible people who follow him around Israel, hanging on his every word while letting Gary Michuta try to defend his indefensible Jerome comments, or, amazingly, referring to William Albrecht's videos for his defense in this instance! The noise you hear is Newman spinning in his grave. But it wasn't enough for Ray: take note of how many gratuitous, unfounded insults and ad-hominems Ray can pack into just a few sentences: An anti-Catholic recently put up a pathetic YouTube video criticizing my recent radio show where I talked about the Apostolic Fathers and how Catholic they really were. Some of these angry anti-Catholics try to twist the early Christians into pretzels — ridiculously trying recreate them into Reformed Baptists or other such nonsense. I recently wrote a blog quote quoting professor and a self-confessed “proud, dispensational, conservative, born-again fundie” from Moody Bible Institute that wrote a book entitled "Getting to Know the Church Fathers" who said the early Church Fathers "were not Evangelicals."Notice how Ray (like the Envoy hit piece years ago) refuses to use my name, but evidently forgets that the "quote" he provides does. But as a final outrage of dishonesty, Ray has the gall to quote an anonymous "theologian"! Think about it. Why would this "theologian" be anonymous? Why not use his name? The answer is simple: he knows he could never back up his words! If I am so wrong in reading Ignatius, wouldn't this be the greatest chance ever to prove it? So why are all these responses the schoolyard equivalent of "nuh uh"? Because Rome has no answers. I was simply reading the text for what it says. I don't have to twist Ignatius into a Reformed Baptist, but Steve Ray and his ilk line their pockets by turning Ignatius into a Roman Catholic. One side speaks the truth, the other side serves Mother Church with dishonesty and, in this case, simple cowardice. Now, if Ray is right, he would be wise to arrange a debate on this topic, wouldn't he? He could finish me off forever, right? Or maybe this anonymous theologian would like to step up to the plate? Well, don't hold your breath. Instead, one of the most promoted Roman Catholic "apologists" today, a regular guest on Catholic Answers Live, will be allowed to get away with documented, public dishonesty, and, in the place of substantive response, will be allowed to direct folks to the man whose only argument is "Hey, the early church believed everything I believe, and if you say otherwise, you are just wrong!" I am so thankful I do not have to resort to such behavior to defend my faith!
An Islamic Bible Quiz: Test Your Faith (#2) With an Explanation of the TrinityPosted by Pros Apologian - February 26, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Continuation of the Opening Statement from SeattlePosted by Pros Apologian - February 25, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
A Response to a Roman Catholic on IgnatiusPosted by Pros Apologian - February 24, 2008 on 10:22 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White A couple of points regarding your commentary on Ignatius. I find your arguments on Ignatius' conception of the Eucharist to be very poor and entirely unconvincing.I'm sorry to hear that, but, since I provided extensive background information, put his statement in the context provided by his own pen, and you refuse to allow for that, who is actually guilty of misrepresenting and abusing Ignatius' words? Ignatius clearly stated that, "they confess notthe Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ." He did not say symbol, image, or anything other than "the flesh."And he did so for a reason (anti-docetism) in reference to a particular group of people who denied Jesus ever had flesh. Your dogged refusal to admit the reality of Ignatius' context is troubling, and indicative of having a real "truth deficit" in your religion. When he stated "prayer" it was in clear referrence to the liturgical prayer of the Church. All reputable sources (read: scholarly journals) at test tothe fact that there were liturgies in the Church dating back to the beginning.Classic example of faulty logic: no one disputed the existence of liturgy in the ancient church. I am disputing the assertion that Ignatius' words indicate a belief in transubstantiation. Ironically, if you had read the article you positively referenced at the end of your e-mail, you would see that the person writing it agrees. To deny this fact would be equivalent to engaging in mental violence. It is an absurd argument, or distraction really, to ramble off on how the Church later defined transubstantiation...etc.More disconnection from clear thinking. It was "mental violence" to introduce a non-issue (liturgy in the early church). It is not relevant to pointing out the evolution of Roman doctrine, nor the fact that the concept of transubstantiation, dependent as it is upon Aristotelian philosophical categories, was not the faith of the early church. It is perfectly logical and valid to point out that the results of believing in transubstantiation, seen so clearly beginning in the 12th century in particular, were absent from the early church's discussions. The basic concept was well understood by Ignatius and those of his period. The reality of this is clearly and readily available by mearly observing how the ancient church practiced their faith within the liturgies...as well as the clear support Ignatius gives in his letters when read in context (the context of how he practiced his faith in the liturgy).This is called "wishful thinking." Having failed to provide a single error in my contextual reading of Ignatius' own words, based upon the original language in which he wrote, you do what all folks do who have lost the argument: you repeat your conclusion as if the repetition is itself evidence, and declare yourself the winner on that basis. You have provided no grounds for saying the "basic concept" was well understood by Ignatius; you have provided nothing from the liturgy to overthrow Ignatius' anti-docetic teaching; and you are simply flat out wrong in missing the fact that the early church did not treat the consecrated hosts the way they are treated today. A nice article about you: catholicvisions.blogspot.comYes, ad-hominem filled screeds that demonstrate the author hasn't the first concern for accuracy of representation do seem to be the modus operandi for many of Rome's defenders today. Thanks for writing!
Tertullian and “Pontifex Maximus”Posted by Pros Apologian - February 24, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
You’ve Got Mail!Posted by Pros Apologian - February 23, 2008 on 11:40 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
The Qur’an and the BiblePosted by Pros Apologian - February 23, 2008 on 6:44 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Right as I am typing this the debate in Toronto between Dave Hunt and Shabir Ally is getting ready to start. I can assure you: if you spend the time to read the following two articles by Sam Shamoun, you will know far more about the topic of the Bible and the Qur'an than anyone will learn during the course of that debate, to be certain. Pay particular attention to the first portion where Sam provides an excellent recitation of Qur'anic texts relating to the "Book of Allah," and how this relates to the Bible. First article / second article.
The Abuse of Ignatius of Antioch by Roman Catholic Apologist Steve Ray (#4)Posted by Pros Apologian - February 22, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Today on The Dividing Line: Texe Marrs and Revelation 1:1:1, and Other StuffPosted by Pros Apologian - February 21, 2008 on 10:58 pm | In aomin.org | Comments Off James White I'm putting together a video or two for YouTube documenting the amazing antics of one Texe Marrs. So today I played the recording of Marrs' call to KIXL Radio back in 1994 during my radio debate with D.A. Waite. Then we took a good call on the Book of Mormon, then I reviewed some Jimmy Akin comments on predestination. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Now, I mention a letter Marrs sent to me back then. I also mentioned that when I replied, he sent it back with red letters written across the fax saying he didn't want anymore of my "evil trash." And it was sent to me in a particular envelope that had written on it "Rev 1:1" next to "Alpha and Omega." In his initial letter Marrs had scribbled that I was "a sinner in need of redemption, so arrogant & uninformed you do not even know that the new versions take out the "Alpha + Omega" --the very name of your Fake "ministry" in one passage of Revelation." So in my response fax I provided him with the following information:
Secondly, you assert that I am "arrogant and uninformed" with reference to the phrase "Alpha and Omega" in the book of Revelation, and the fact that there is one place where the modern texts do not include the phrase. I can assure you, sir, that I am not in the least ignorant of the textual variation found at Revelation 1:11. We chose the name Alpha and Omega Ministries on the basis of Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, not 1:11.Keep this information in mind as you listen to today's DL and especially as you listen to Texe Marrs put on one of the most amazing displays of documented dishonesty I've seen.
Theology Matters #2: Theodicy and Bart EhrmanPosted by Pros Apologian - February 21, 2008 on 2:23 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I got Bart Ehrman's new book yesterday in the mail, and here are some initial thoughts that prove once again, "theology matters."
Dave Armstrong’s Short ResponsePosted by Pros Apologian - February 20, 2008 on 7:29 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Yesterday I reviewed some clips from an interview done by Dave Armstrong. I noted some of his amazing statements, and in particular, I found quite humorous his very inflated sense of importance in basically vanquishing the entire Protestant world from the field of battle. No one can respond to Dave Armstrong! Well, I knew Dave would respond, and respond he did. But he did so in typical Armstrongian fashion:Be sure to catch Bishop James White's mocking, ridiculous "commentary" on this very interview, on his Dividing Line webcast (2-19-08). It's quite entertaining. I'll give White that much. He even features (Rush Limbaugh-like) a portion of a Three Dog Night song. Guess which one?! Oh, and then (filled with ingenious satirical ideas) White plays a Billy Joel song that starts with "h". Just think of an accusation that anti-Catholics almost always make against Catholics (that I do not reciprocate). Whew . . . The good bishop ended his "rebuttal" with a flourish:But, as all of us who know Armstrong realize, there is no way he is going to limit himself to such a brief reply. His MO is to tell you on his blog that he going to take the "high road" and ignore such things, but, then, all you have to do is go to the combox, and you will find the real replies. And verily and forsooth, that's what we have: My own record with White is abundantly clear. Anyone can examine it for themselves. The man has been running, evading, mocking, and making a fool of himself for over twelve years. I should add that there is also a distinction between writing something about Catholics as a potshot and being willing to actually interact with them in a back-and-forth fashion (i.e., serious intellectual discussion, where someone is actually challenged and has to defend their POV). I was referring more so (though not totally) to the latter.Seems like the grand total there was not overly large, in DA terms: only 1300 words! Excuse me while I "flee" and "run" from DA's overwhelming argumentation. And in my absence, you might search the blog for the name "Armstrong" and see for yourself that DA lives in a fantasy world all his own.
Is it Ridiculous to Cite J.N.D. Kelly?Posted by Pros Apologian - February 20, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Today on the Dividing LinePosted by Pros Apologian - February 19, 2008 on 8:36 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White OK, I blame TQuid for sending me the Dave Armstrong clips, and Rich for pointing me to the Three Dog Night song (which I had never heard till today, honestly). But the result is...an unusual DL! Here's the program (free/high quality).
A Blast from the Past: White vs. Riplinger, 1993Posted by Pros Apologian - February 19, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I started working on this last evening and got at least the first portion done today. I will post the rest of this amazing encounter over the next few weeks. Enjoy!
My Opening Statement from Seattle Regarding the CrucifixionPosted by Pros Apologian - February 18, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I am posting my opening statement from the Seattle debate with Shabir Ally. It will be broken into three sections. It is my hope my fellow believers will be encouraged to speak about the cross to their Muslim friends by this presentation.
Closing Statement from Long Island (1998)Posted by Pros Apologian - February 17, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Next Page » |
|
© 2007 Learntheology.com © For Content Belongs To The Respective Authors. Quality Web Design |
The phrase is found in that passage only in the MA text type; it is not found in ? A C 1006. 1841. 2050. 2329. 2351. MK lat sy sa. Hence, the Nestle-Aland, UBS 4th, and Majority texts do not place this reading in the text, and rightfully so. Of course, this is in no way, shape, or form does damage to the plain identification of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. As I have shared this precious truth with many, many Jehovah's Witnesses over the years, I can assure you that they are hard pressed to explain this clear teaching of Scripture. And I am just as hard pressed to understand both the hard, mean-spiritedness in your letter, and your willingness to defend what is plainly a later addition to God's Holy Word. I despair of your providing a meaningful answer to this question, but why do you invest infallibility in Desiderius Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest, who made the choice of including this passage in his text? The inconsistency of this action, given your other statements, is exceptionally plain.