|
11/19/96
TO: Tim Staples, St. Joseph
Catholic Radio
FROM: James White, Alpha and
Omega Ministries
RE: The Debate in Review: An
Open Letter to Tim Staples
Dear Tim:
It's truly amazing what a
good 40+ mile bike ride will do for you. It was great to get back
home, see my wife and kids, pick up my bike from the shop
(replete with a new frame, no less!), and head out on the road.
This time, though, I wasn't listening to tapes of you speaking, I
was recalling specifics of a most memorable evening in Fullerton.
Now I note right off that I
don't have the tapes of our debate as yet. I assume
they will arrive in a few days. So, I'm going from memory, and
from my notes. Hence, some things I will leave for later
refutation, as I will want to double-check the specific citations
with the tapes. But a number of specific statements have stuck in
my mind, and I wish to bring them to your attention. Let me also
note that this is an open letter. It is being uploaded to
Internet mailing lists, and will be posted on our web page. If
you would like to write a response, we could post it as well [ as
of 2/25/97, no response, public or private, has been received].
Allow me first to say that I
felt things went quite well Saturday night, at least as far as
the facilities and organization went. Plummer Auditorium is a
fine facility, and though I think we got kicked out a tad bit
early, in general it was a good location for the debate.
I was much less excited,
however, by a number of things that detracted a good bit from the
debate, at least from
a professional viewpoint. While the moderator took great pains to
be fair, you took advantage of him many times, and went over your
time limit again and again and again. I have found this a common
thing amongst Roman Catholic apologists: Gerry Matatics can't
restrain himself, either. I hope in the future you will show more
respect for your opponent, and the audience, by paying attention
to that issue.
On a personal level, I was
quite simply shocked at the amount of ad-hominem
argumentation you utilized in our debate.
Of course, I find such tactics indicative of a lost cause, Tim,
but I also get the feeling that you were doing what you had been
instructed to do by folks like Patrick Madrid, who likewise uses
the "insult, deprecate, and impugn your opponent" means
of debating. I had honestly hoped for something better.
Throughout the debate you accused me of
misrepresentation, out-of-context citation, and toward the end,
direct "misquoting" of Augustine and Athanasius. Sadly,
you never proved those accusations, nor, as we both know, could
you. I saw what resources you had, and you did not have the
original contexts of any of the citations I gave. I saw your list
of short quotes from the Fathers-it was all you had with you. You
can't hardly prove I've been misquoting someone when you don't
even have the quotes I've been given! I, on the other hand, had
the entire Eerdman's set on my hard-drive, the volume of
Athanasius sitting on my desk, and a good ten times the amount of
cited material in your packet in my own notes. I'm sure your
followers will accept your claims without question, and will
never bother to look up what Athanasius actually said. However,
what of those who are not your followers, Tim? What of the person
who is simply seeking the truth? Will they not notice that it
makes no sense to accuse me of misrepresenting someone on the
basis of citations from Athanasius' words to Serapion since I was
not citing that material? You see, the fair and scholarly thing
to say would be, "I believe you are misrepresenting Athanasius' entire doctrine of authority and tradition, and here
is a citation that supports my assertion." But, of course,
your citation didn't provide that kind of basis, so it seems
better to simply cloud the emotions with strong assertions that
do not accurately reflect the reality. I simply point out, Tim,
that you did not respond to a single reference I gave to Athanasius, Augustine,
Theodoret, Basil, or anyone else, in
the context in which it was given. You did not even attempt
to deal with the extensive material I provided, based
upon the original writings of Athanasius in the Greek language,
in my article in the book, Sola Scriptura! The Protestant
Position on the Bible (pages 27-62, specifically, endnotes 41
through 46). What makes this even more important is that I cited
from Athanasius' letter to Serapion in that article, and provided
a strong passage indicating his assertion of the self-sufficiency
of Scripture, and the passage you cited did not in any
meaningful way contradict that. Tragically, you continue to
ignore the corrections offered on your misunderstanding of sola
scriptura, and on the basis of that, think you have found
contradictions to it in patristic sources. Your unwillingness to
stand corrected, Tim, is loud testimony to the correctness of my
charge: you believe in sola ecclesia.
I give you the opportunity
now, Mr. Staples, to document and substantiate your accusations
that any passage I cited in our debate, or in my written
works, is "mis-cited" or is in fact "out of
context" in any way, shape, or form. In fact, allow me to be
of assistance to you in your attempt to substantiate the
accusations you made so easily Saturday evening, and that were so
readily accepted by your devoted followers. I quoted four
passages from Athanasius. I here provide you not only with the
passages themselves, but with the immediate context, in Greek, of
each one. I look forward to the demonstration on your part, Tim,
of how any of these passages is "out of context." I
will use the standard source here: Migne, volume and page. First,
Migne 25:196:
De incarnatione verbi 56.1.1 to De incarnatione verbi
56.2.5
56.1 Tau=ta me/n soi par' h(mw½n di' o)li¿gwn, oÀson
pro\j stoixei¿wsin kaiì xarakth=ra th=j kata\ Xristo\n
pi¿stewj kaiì th=j qei¿aj au)tou= pro\j h(ma=j e)pifanei¿aj,
a)nateqei¿sqw, wÕ filo/xriste aÃnqrwpe, su\ de\ th\n pro/fasin
e)k tou/twn labw¯n, ei¹ e)ntugxa/noij toiÍj tw½n grafw½n
gra/mmasi, gnhsi¿wj au)toiÍj e)fista/nwn to\n nou=n, gnw¯sv
par' au)tw½n teleio/teron me\n kaiì trano/teron tw½n lexqe/ntwn th\n
a)kri¿beian. 56.2 ¹EkeiÍnai me\n ga\r dia\ qeolo/gwn
a)ndrw½n para\ Qeou= e)lalh/qhsan kaiì e)gra/fhsan. ¸HmeiÍj
de\ para\ tw½n au)taiÍj e)ntugxano/ntwn qeolo/gwn didaska/lwn,
oiá kaiì ma/rturej th=j Xristou= qeo/thtoj gego/nasi, maqo/ntej
metadi¿domen kaiì tv= sv= filomaqei¿#.
Next, Migne 25:476:
De decretis Nicaenae synodi 32.1.1 to De decretis
Nicaenae synodi 32.3.1
32.1 ¹All' iãswj kaiì dia\ to\ oÃnoma to\
a)ge/nhton e)legxqe/ntej ponhroiì to\n tro/pon oÃntej
e)qelh/sousi kaiì au)toiì le/gein: eÃdei kaiì periì tou=
kuri¿ou kaiì swth=roj h(mw½n ¹Ihsou= Xristou= e)k tw½n
grafw½n ta\ periì au)tou= gegramme/na le/gesqai kaiì mh\
a)gra/fouj e)peisa/gesqai le/ceij. naiì eÃdei, fai¿hn aÄn
kaiì eÃgwge, a)kribe/stera ga\r e)k tw½n grafw½n ma=llon hÄ
e)c e(te/rwn e)stiì ta\ th=j a)lhqei¿aj gnwri¿smata: a)ll' h(
kakoh/qeia kaiì meta\ panourgi¿aj pali¿mboloj a)se/beia tw½n
periì Eu)se/bion h)na/gkase, kaqa\ proeiÍpon, tou\j e)pisko/pouj leuko/teron 32.2 e)kqe/sqai ta\ th\n a)se/beian au)tw½n
a)natre/ponta r(h/mata. kaiì ta\ me\n para\ th=j suno/dou
grafe/nta dia/noian o)rqh\n eÃxonta de/deiktai, tw½n d'
¹Areianw½n kaiì ta\ loga/ria saqra\ kaiì o( tro/poj ponhro\j
e)fa/nh. kaiì ga\r kaiì to\ a)ge/nhton oÃnoma, i¹di¿an
eÃxon dia/noian kaiì duna/menon eu)sebw½j profe/resqai,
au)toiì pa/lin kata\ th\n i¹di¿an e)nqu/mhsin w¨j h)qe/lhsan
o)noma/zousin e)p' a)timi¿# tou= swth=roj, iàna mo/non w¨j
gi¿gantej qeomaxeiÍn filoneikw½sin.
Then, Migne 25:548:
Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae 25.548.17 to
Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae 25.548.26
Polla\ me\n ouÅn aÃn tij
gra/yeien, ei¹ bou/loito periì tou/twn e)pecerga/sasqai pollh\
ga\r kaiì poiki¿lh tw½n ai¸re/sewn h( a)se/beia kaiì h(
kakofrosu/nh fanh/setai, kaiì deinh\ li¿an h( tw½n
a)patw¯ntwn panourgi¿a. ¹Epeidh\ de\ h( qei¿a Grafh\ pa/ntwn
e)stiìn i¸kanwte/ra, tou/tou xa/rin toiÍj boulome/noij ta\
polla\ periì tou/twn ginw¯skein sumbouleu/saj e)ntugxa/nein
toiÍj qei¿oij lo/goij, au)to\j nu=n to\ katepeiÍgon
e)spou/dasa dhlw½sai, dio\ ma/lista kaiì ouÀtwj eÃgraya.
And finally, I quoted the
famous line from Contra Gentes, Migne 25:4:
Contra gentes 1.1 to Contra gentes 1.13 1
1 ¸H me\n periì th=j qeosebei¿aj kaiì th=j tw½n
oÀlwn a)lhqei¿aj gnw½sij ou) tosou=ton th=j para\ tw½n
a)nqrw¯pwn didaskali¿aj deiÍtai, oÀson a)f' e(auth=j eÃxei
to\ gnw¯rimon: mo/non ga\r ou)xiì kaq' h(me/ran toiÍj eÃrgoij
ke/krage, kaiì h(li¿ou lampro/teron e(auth\n dia\ th=j Xristou=
didaskali¿aj e)pidei¿knutai: poqou=nti de/ soi oÀmwj ta\
periì tau/thj a)kou=sai, fe/re, wÕ maka/rie, w¨j aÄn oiâoi¿
te wÕmen, o)li¿ga th=j kata\ Xristo\n pi¿stewj e)kqw¯meqa,
duname/n% me/n soi kaiì a)po\ tw½n qei¿wn logi¿wn tau/thn
eu(reiÍn, filoka/lwj de\ oÀmwj kaiì par' e(te/rwn a)kou/onti.
au)ta/rkeij me\n ga/r ei¹sin ai¸ aÀgiai kaiì qeo/pneustoi
grafaiì pro\j th\n th=j a)lhqei¿aj a)paggeli¿an: ei¹siì de\
kaiì polloiì tw½n makari¿wn h(mw½n didaska/lwn ei¹j tau=ta
suntaxqe/ntej lo/goi: oiâj e)a/n tij e)ntu/xoi, eiãsetai me/n
pwj th\n tw½n grafw½n e(rmhnei¿an, hÂj de\ o)re/getai
gnw¯sewj tuxeiÍn dunh/setai.
All of these citations are
found in my article, Mr. Staples, yet, I cannot escape the
feeling that you did not read or at least did not do any
serious work on, that article. In fact, throughout the debate, it was crystal
clear to me that you were debating the ghost of San Diego Past:
that is, you were responding to what I had said in my debate
against Patrick Madrid in 1993 in San Diego. You even used his
own words at times (indeed, I noted this during one of the
breaks, where I said to you, "I almost messed up and called
you Patrick a few times.") I find this fascinating, since in
1993 Patrick responded to what I said to Matatics in 1990! In
every instance, rather than responding to my current presentation
and emphasis, you respond instead to something from the past!
This was most notable (and others pointed it out to me as well)
when you said that I had pretty well "beat to death" 2
Timothy 3:16 in my opening comments, when in fact I had only
mentioned it briefly as an important passage! This reflected the
fact that in 1993 I debated
Patrick on whether the Bible taught the doctrine of sola
scriptura; hence, I emphasized the biblical data. I do not
know why Roman Catholic apologists refuse to respond to what I'm
saying in the present debate, but it is a most interesting
phenomenon.
I also note, Mr. Staples,
your citation of Basil and the interesting rendering of the last
line as a "mere term." I shouldn't be surprised: This
Rock cited the same passage (I'm sure Patrick was behind
that, too), and that is Jurgens' rendering. How good it would
have been, Tim, had you taken the high road and attempted a
meaningful critique of my own citation of this entire
passage as it is found in my chapter in the book on sola
scriptura-how much more meaningful that would have been! I
would truly have been impressed by someone who would have
attempted to deal with my citation of Jurgens' own words with
reference to "things written and things not written"
(p. 38, footnote 17). But instead we get a surface-level
dismissal of all of this (indeed, you didn't even acknowledge
that I had dealt with these passages in my published works!), and
a focus upon the phrase "a mere term." It almost seemed
as if you were trying to parallel "a mere term" with sola
scriptura-were you? Such would be an interesting, though
a-contextual, reading of that specific passage.
One of the most unfortunate
aspects of your "debating style" has to do with your
constant misrepresentation of what I've said. Sometimes this may
come from over-excitement, sometimes from ignorance of the
Protestant position. Case in point: my citation of Hebrews 4:12.
Of course the Lord Jesus is the "Word of God," Tim.
I've never denied that. But your view of Scripture is truly
sneaking through here, for the Scriptures are the very speaking
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and hence partake of the same
authority. Are you denying that Hebrews 4:12 can in any way
be applied to the Scriptures, especially in light of the
preceding verses, which quote the Scriptures as the speaking of
God? Have you ever considered why you have such a vested interest
in turning the Scriptures into a "dead letter" rather
than a living one? Is it not because you believe in sola
ecclesia, and hence must adopt this stance?
There are a few other things
that come to mind that I think you would need to deal with, Mr.
Staples. I would highly recommend, especially on canon issues,
that you read seriously Beckwith's work, The Old Testament
Canon of the New Testament Church. I had suggested this work
to you months ago, but it was evident, from your comments in the debate, that you have
yet to deal with that source of information on the OT canon.
Also, with reference to your statement, which truly caught me by
surprise, that despite the losing of the Scriptures and their
discovery under Josiah, "The Church went right along without
the Scriptures," I must admit I have to wonder what you were
talking about. Do you not recall that the people were wandering
in darkness, violating God's laws, and that they endured His
wrath as a result? The "oral traditions" and
"magisterium" of the day failed to lead the
people aright. The "Church" did not "go
along" without the Scriptures: she stumbled right into the
pit of wrath, in point of fact.
I also found it most
interesting that you did not realize how clearly you undercut
your own canon argument when you admitted that the Old Testament
people did not have, or need, an infallible authority for their
knowledge of the canon, yet, you insisted that I had to give you
such an infallible authority. I have to wonder if you would have
made those comments had you read R.C. Sproul's contribution to
the sola scriptura book.
I might note as well, Tim,
that when you spent half of your closing statement discussing
Papal infallibility, you made a few statements that were way out
of line. First, you discussed Vigilius, when I never mentioned
him. Next, you seemingly were trying to cast doubt upon my
honesty by constantly saying, "But what Mr. White didn't
mention was…." Yet, of course, all I did was mention a
few names-Honorius, Liberius, and Sixtus, specifically-and did
not even attempt to expand upon the errors made by the last two.
To accuse me of then not telling them what they needed to know is
disingenuous at best. By the way, a person came up to me
afterward and noted that you had erred even in your accusations:
if you will listen to the debate, you will see that even when I
did mention, earlier, Liberius' lapse, I mentioned he was forced
into the signing of the creed. You said I "forgot" to
mention that. Again, your ardent and excited followers won't
care, but those listening to the debate for truth value will.
Your attempt to turn me into
a horrible villain in the eyes of my fellow Protestants
backfired, and that badly. My volunteers mentioned that every
single person who asked, "Is James a Calvinist?" was overjoyed
to hear that in fact I am indeed Reformed. You need to realize,
Tim, that your deep-seated hatred of Calvinism (a hatred that
comes across on your program all the time) is not shared by all.
Finally, I would think that
you would be more than just a bit embarrassed by the behavior of
your more vocal supporters on Saturday night. Booing and the
like, if it were coming from my "friends" and
"students," would certainly bother me, anyway. Do you
recall when you decided you were going to break the rules and
give yourself a second opportunity to speak on the same question?
When I looked at the moderator and pointed this out, your
"students" went nuts. Obviously, you should not have
flaunted the rules in that way to begin with (your continued
going over-time likewise encouraged such behavior), but if I had
just erred in speaking out of turn, and my followers had reacted
in that way, I would have immediately spoken to the issue and
asked them to behave and to be fair. Yet you remained silent.
Again, Tim, perhaps you think this kind of behavior is fine.
Perhaps you don't realize how damaging it is to your credibility,
and the value of the debate. But please keep this one thing in
mind: I do not debate for "my side." I realize that
there will be "X" number of people at a debate who will
agree with me, and there will be "Y" number of people
who will agree with my opponent. Those folks are going to sit
there and listen, and hopefully be blessed, but their minds are
already made up. I debate for the person who is truly seeking
answers-the best possible answers. I seek to convince the person
who is going to check out everything I say, and critically
analyze my arguments. Hence, I would be mortified if my
"students" yelled out "the Eucharist!" or
booed when the other side scored a telling blow. You may well
wish to consider the impact such emotional outbursts had upon
your own speaking.
I look forward to future
opportunities of debate. Sola scriptura is, in the
thinking of most Roman Catholic apologists with whom I am
familiar, the "favorite" topic, the one that the Roman
Catholic feels most comfortable with. But the Papacy,
Infallibility, the Marian doctrines-those are all issues where
you will be called upon to not only present a solid case, but
defend that case against a knowledgeable opponent who will not be
relying upon Jack Chick tracts for his information. You claim to
have proven "without a doubt" that the Bible teaches
the Marian doctrines, and that the "answers" you
provide on Honorius or Liberius are, seemingly, infallible. I,
for one, look forward to the opportunity of seeing just how deep
your original research is into these topics. And when it comes to
justification-well, if your rapid-fire comments on the Greek
language regarding the tenses of dikaio/w
mean anything, I very much look forward to that discussion as
well. I would think that the most likely topic of the second
round would be the Papacy itself, as Papal Infallibility assumes
the existence of a Papacy to examine. Perhaps we could do a
Friday night/Saturday morning type debate, with the first night
examining the biblical evidence, the next morning the patristic,
much as I did with Gerry Matatics in Denver in 1993.
In the service of the Risen
Lord,
James
White
|
