Islamic State Of Iraq: The Cross Worshippers And Their Henchmen Plans Have Collapsed
   As usual, this was followed by a swift visit by the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”
   Then came Bush’s stupid statement where he emphasized that his strategic goal in Iraq is more than a military victory but also to prevent the Mujahideen from benefiting from the fruits of the Jihad to ultimately achieve victory.
   This is how the cross worshipping occupiers and their henchmen live. Their morale continues to collapse as the result of the increasing strikes of the Mujahideen, carried out by the grace of Allah. From downing their aircraft to penetrating their fortified Green Zone and targeting the heads of apostasy and agents, all this has pushed the American army to repeat what it did in Vietnam. In a similar fashion, they are instigating the policy of isolating cites and regions by building a concrete roadblocks and walls as we see in al-Ghazaliyah, al-Ameriyah and others places in order to create a huge prison for the Sunnis. But none of this disappoints the Mujahideen; they have activated their sniper weapons against Allah’s enemies to fill their hearts with terror and death, by the grace of Allah.
...
   “O you who believe, if you revert from your religion, (Islam) then Allah will substitute in your place people whom He loves and who love Him. They will be kind with the believers, stern with the disbelievers, and will strive in the cause of Allah without fear of any blame. Such is Allah's blessing; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient, the All-Knower.” Qur’an 5: 54
   And Allah’s love is precious and Allah’s provision is paradise. The signs of victory can be seen and the cross worshipper’s defeat is obvious and progressive, all praise be to Allah.

   "It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527)

   "The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther's approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther's lifetime they disappear."

   "As Luther's intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works."

   "According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon.That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).

   "I pull no punches and make no apologies for opposing, and exposing, the novelties, oddities, heresies, and blasphemies promoted by what purports to be the "official" Catholic establishment, but in fact is nothing but a band of unauthorized apostates and usurpers who have been permitted by God's providence to commandeer the infrastructure of the previously Catholic institutions of our world since the death of Pius XII precisely in order to bring about the universal apostasy God has patiently and persistently repeatedly warned us, over the last 6000 years, must precede the return of His Son."

   "This message will likely get bleeped, but HEY! You can't blame a guy for trying! Envoy linking to Mr. White's material is like B'nai B'rith linking to the Aryan Nation website for an opposing view on the Holocaust and Nazi genocide. It is very obvious to us that Herr Weiss... I mean MR. White follows the doings on this board very closely and often überreagiert... uh, overrects to what we say here. But this does not mean that we have to provide a tyrannkanzel.... sounding board for all the sturm und drang ... controversial comments he makes."

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

   Note: I know we’re all trying to let this sort of stuff go, but it seems best to put it up here, where I know it will be seen. Comments on this post will remain closed, because there’s no sense in inviting another spontaneously-degenerating non-discussion with White’s followers
   In the name of accountability for myself, I want to modify one thing I recently said about White in a comment thread on Crimson Catholic’s blog. I said that White seems unacquainted with intellectual alternatives and gives very simplistic presentations that lead his puppy-dog like Internet followers astray. I even went so far as to say that in many ways White and his like-minded followers “are, as a general rule, a blot on the serious discipline of Christian theology and apologetics.”
   Instead, you will find 8 in 10 who appear to suck up every simplistic thing White says as if it’s gospel-truth itself–and then rush vigorously to his defense on message boards all over the Internet anytime anyone says something against him. Of course, it is the responsibility of these lemming-like people to do some serious work for themselves, but it’s exactly the point that they don’t do any serious work for themselves.

I listened in horror today to James White and Rich Pierce of Alpha and Omega "Ministries" cackling over an errant suicidal man who called their ministry offices ( you can listen here, the comments were made somewhere after 47min). I don't normally listen to this broadcast anymore but I caught someone linking to it in agreement about something else. After listening to the mocking tone and carelessness with which these guys talked about this suicidal institutionalized man that dared to try to reach out to these so-called apologists, I just sat dumbstruck wondering whether it would be better to describe these guys as the Beavis and Buttheads of the apologetic world or the sort of cackling witches mentioned in Macbeth I've mentioned elsewhere in noting what I considered to be ministerial abuse. The care of errant souls outside the purview of proper apologetic concerns. Hmmm.

What I find interesting is that in spite of its incredible distribution, no scholar to date has attempted to refute it or anything in it. As another who was impressed with the book said, "The reason no one has attempted to refute it is that they cannot." I would agree.

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Augustinian theology is an extreme extrapolation of the biblical data: it is not only risky but dangerous. Since the Old Testament says so little about God's decrees and the New even less (zero), the decrees of Calvinistic theology are pure speculation. All discussion about the logical or chronological order of God's decrees in eternity past is absolute nonsense. It is worse than the medieval theologians' discussions about the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.

NASB also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
ESV In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
NET In Christ we too have been claimed as God's own possession, since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will
ASV in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
CSB In Him we were also made His inheritance, predestined according to the purpose of the One who works out everything in agreement with the decision of His will,
ERV in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
KJV In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
NIV In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
NKJ In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
NRS In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will,
RSV In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will,
And let's throw Tyndale in for good measure:
that is to saye in him in whom we are made heyres and were therto predestinate accordynge to the purpose of him which worketh all thinges after the purpose of his awne will:

   "The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.... When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ" [Calvin's Commentary on Ephesians 2:8, bolded text by Olson).

   "Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished."

   "[Paul] exhorts the Ephesians to remember (Ephesians 2) that they were saved by grace, not by themselves nor by their own works.... Faith, moreover, precedes justification, but in such a sense, that in respect of God, it follows. What they [Roman Catholics] say of faith might perhaps hold true, were faith itself, which puts us in possession of righteousness, our own. But seeing that it too is the free gift of God, the exception which they introduce is superfluous. Scripture, indeed, removes all doubt on another ground, when it opposes faith to works, to prevent its being classed among merits. Faith brings nothing of our own to God, but receives what God spontaneously offers us. Hence it is that faith, however imperfect, nevertheless possesses a perfect righteousness, because it has respect to nothing but the gratuitous goodness of God" [John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent With its Antidote, (The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, Ages Digital Library, 1998), 110].

   "Now we understand that we are made partakers of all his blessings by means of faith; for this it is which brings us into communication with Christ, in order that he may dwell in us, that we may be ingrafted into him as our root, that we may be members of his body, that we may live in him, and he in us, and possess him, with all his benefits. And that it may not be thought strange that we attribute such virtue to faith, we do not take it fox a fleeting opinion, but for a certainty which we have of the promises of God, in which all these blessings are contained, and by which we embrace our Lord Jesus Christ as the surety of all our salvation, and apply to our own use what he has received of God his Father to impart unto us. This faith we likewise know that we cannot have if it be not given us from above, and as Scripture declares, (Ephesians 2:9; 1:18) till the Holy Spirit enlightens us to comprehend what is beyond all human sense, and seals in our hearts what we ought to believe" [John Calvin, Selected Works of Calvin Volume 2 (The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, Ages Digital Library, 1998), 138].

   "Since, therefore, Abraham is at this time the father of all the faithful, it, follows that our safety is not to be thought otherwise than in that covenant which God established with Abraham; but afterwards the same covenant was ratified by the hand of Moses. A difference must now be briefly remarked from a passage in Jeremiah, (Jeremiah 31:32) namely, because the ancient covenant was abolished through the fault of man, there was reed of a better remedy, which is there shown to be twofold, namely, that God should bury mens sins, and inscribe his law on their hearts: that also was done in Abraham's time. Abraham believed in God: faith was always the gift of the Holy Spirit; therefore God inscribed his covenant in Abraham's heart. (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Ephesians 2:8)" [John Calvin, Commentary on Ezekiel (The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, Ages Digital Library, 1998), 574].

   "Dearly beloved brethren we must not be amazed if the article of the everlasting predestination to God, be so assaulted and fought against by Satan's maintainers, seeing it is the foundation of our salvation, and also serveth for the better magnifying of the free goodness of God towards us. On the other side those Dogs which bark against it thinking to have a good and favorable cause are therein more hardy: as in very truth there is nothing more contrary to man's understanding, than to place the cause of our salvation in the good will of God, in saying, that it belongeth to him alone to choose us: without finding of anything in us wherefore he should choose us: and after he hath chosen us, to give us faith through which we should be justified" [ John Calvin, Sermon on Election and Reprobation, (The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, Ages Digital Library, 1998), 225].

   "James is now stuck with thousands of copies of his laborious prose sitting in boxes in his garage. So he naturally tries to make lemonade from lemons by turning his blunder into yet another proof of the heartlessness of the Romanist Deception. In his earnest, anything-for-a-rhetorical-point way, he asks (in a piece called "Apologetics Roman Style"): 'Let's say the scholarship in The Lost Tomb of Jesus is laughable. So what? Do you respond to laughable scholarship with...laughter?' Um, yes. You do.Or, at any rate, normal people do. See, it seemed pretty obvious to me that the Nine Day Wonderhood of this story was a given when the story broke, when I saw the lame nature of the "evidence" adduced, so I laughed it off as I generally laugh off news ofthe absurd. Life's too short."

   "There is an intellectual appeal of a difficult and labyrinthian system of theology which seems to be based upon the subtle nuancing of certain Scriptures not obvious to the simple reader and upon abstruse philosophical reasonings. This is a point which Dave Hunt makes repeatedly in his recent refutation of Calvinism, What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God. This is why Calvinism has attracted some of the most brilliant minds over the centuries and currently tends to be at the forefront of evangelical scholarship. Many of these subtleties are not accessible to the simple reader of Scripture, nor is their gospel the simple gospel accessible to the babes. Those of us who don't have that intellectual brilliance can take comfort in the prayer of the Lord Jesus: 'I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight' (Mt. 11:25-26). It is not mere fideism to give priority to biblical exegesis and leave the abstruse reasonings to the philosophers.It is being responsive to the warnings of Christ and His apostles" (p.520).

   "Calvinists also use Philippians 1:29 (For to you it has been granted for Christs sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake...) to prove their point, but it is clear that we are given faith only in the same sense in which we are given suffering, that is, mediately through circumstances. No one would argue that suffering is an immediate and irresistible work of grace. As in the two Acts passages above [Acts 5:31 and 11:18], Paul is referring to the privilege and opportunity given to the Philippian Christians to believe, while alerting them to the fact that suffering for Christ comes with that privilege (p. 222)."

Most extreme Calvinists base their view on the English of Romans 3:10-11: There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God." In Paul's paraphrase of the Septuagint of Psalm 14, he was careful to use the intensified verb ekzeteo, rather than the simple zeteo. From its usage in Acts 15:17; Heb. 11:6; 12:17; and 1 Pet. 1:10, it is clear that Paul is not referring to an indifferent seeking, but a 'diligently seeking' for God. (The verb has an even more intensified force in Luke 11:50, where it is rendered 'require.') So Paul was not affirming that no one ever seeks God at all, but rather that no one diligently seeks God. It might also be significant that this verb is a present participle, which could be either gnomic or customary. It it is customary, it would refer to a regularly recurring action, and thus, could be rendered, "no one customarily and diligently seeks God." Otherwise, if neither of the above were true, Scripture would be in contradiction with itself. I could only find about fifty verses which contradict a superficial reading of Romans 3:10-11! Why do extreme Calvinists ignore the fifty and focus on the one? William A. Butler, that "brilliant and profound thinker," probably got it right: "We hold a few texts so near the eyes that they hide the rest of the Bible." In this case, it is just one text! (Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, pp. 102-103.

I don't agree with "penal substitution" because God would simply not punish His Son for the sins of others. Christ was given up to evil men and the devil to suffer on the cross and to die to appease God's offended holiness, but He was not punished for the actual sins of the people. That post-Anselm view of the atonement is hogwash. You need to study harder...

In my opinion the problem with many of the Reformed orthodox (and Calvin too often speaks this way as well) is they took an unbiblical model of penal suffering which was derived from the medieval doctrine of the Mass and purgatory, and applied it rather uncriticially to the logic of the atonement. Anselm and the earlier church understood that satisfaction for sin was precisely a means of avoiding punishment. If God still demanded that Christ be punished in our stead on the cross, not only does this rob his obedient life of its compensatory value, but it makes meaningless the very idea of “satisfaction” itself. The reason a Judge or Monarch demands a punishment is precisely because he has not been satisfied by any compensatory gift. What I am arguing is that Christ’s obedience unto death was a pleasing gift to the Father which negated the necessity of punishment. It is “propitiatory” in the sense that the need for punishment was done away with, not propitiatory in the sense that the demand for punishment was fulfilled.

Nowhere does the Bible say that God sent his Son “to die,” as though God would be the one who would put Jesus to death as some sort of substitute punishment. Instead, the death of Jesus is put squarely on the shoulders of sinners (Acts 2:23b; 4:10-11) and the powers of darkness (1 Cor. 2:8). Rather than seeing the logic of the atonement in terms of a substitute punishment to satisfy the strict justice of God, it seems better to see Jesus’ death in terms of the hostility of sinful powers.

White mocks the notions of "preponderance of the evidence" and "greater probability" as antithetical to biblical Christianity and the proclamation of the gospel, yet this is precisely what the early Christians did: they proclaimed eyewitness testimony of what they had seen and heard. If they presented "legal"-type testimony, then why cannot an apologist use the same sort of argument today? No one alive was an eyewitness of these events, so it is necessarily the case that we have to make legal-historical arguments in order to do an intelligent rational apologetics.

   But how was this action of making Himself “nothing” accomplished? It is just here that we must listen to this hymn from the balcony of heaven itself. We must hear the words from a divine and heavenly perspective. The Son makes Himself “nothing” by taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man.[vii] From the human realm, “being made nothing” by taking does not seem right. But when we see the glory and majesty and power of the One who is here condescending to enter into creaturely existence when He Himself is the Creator, we can begin to appreciate how this act of being made nothing is properly described as taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man. Daniel B. Wallace, an eminent Greek scholar, sees both terms “taking” and “being made” as the means by which the “being made nothing” is accomplished.[viii]

   The biggest difficulty with seeing labwn (taking) as means is that emptying is normally an act of subtraction, not addition. But the imagery should not be made to walk on all fours. As an early hymn, it would be expected to have a certain poetic license….The Philippians were told not to puff themselves up with “empty glory,” because Christ was an example of one who emptied his glory. If this connection is intentional, then the Carmen Christi has the following force:

   Do not elevate yourselves on empty glory, but follow the example of Christ, who, though already elevated (on God’s level), emptied his glory by veiling it in humanity.[ix]

   So the means of the kenosis is the addition of a human nature, the veiling of the divine in the creaturely. This is important to understand, for many interpret Paul to mean that Christ abandons the “form of God” rather than seeing this as an addition of the human nature to the eternal divine nature that was Christ’s. It is this addition that “veils” the form of God. While there are certainly many who see this passage teaching that Christ did indeed lay aside the “form of God,” the words of Paul do not present such a concept.

   "My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else's interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact."

   "As Gary mentioned, Trent specifically discussed the status of 1 Esdras and decided to pass over the question of its canonicity. But anyone who is familiar with the state of the Biblical Canon in the late 4th Century knows that the term '2 books of Esdras' had been used for over 100 years by Origen and others to refer to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. And St. Jerome was well aware of the difference between 1Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah in the 390's. In the Vulgate translation he made, St. Jerome used the title 1Esdras to refer to Ezra, 2Esdras to refer to Nehemiah, and 3Esdras to refer to the apocryphal 1Esdras from the Septuagint."

   "IMHO the whole thesis is DOA. But White, Webster, Svendsen and the rest of the Kampus Krusade for Kthulhu keep beating this dead horse, so we need to keep dealing with it."

As many who have followed this Chat know, I have made myself available to Dr. White and to his ministry for debate at practically any time. I have not heard from him, or from his ministry, in some time, and my associate, Richard Rawe, was recently told by Rich Pierce of AOmin.org that I am "low on the priority list," and that it may be "two years" before Dr. White can make time to debate me. When asked by Mr. Rawe to set a date two years from now, Mr. Pierce declined.

Not only has White finally realized that the LXX of Isaiah, which John was quoting in John 12, references the glorification of Christ, the very same glory that Isaiah "saw" in Chapter 53 (Hebrew), but it is also the same glory that Isaiah "spoke about" clearly in that same Chapter, to which John refers in John 12:41. White had no answer for where Isaiah "spoke about him" in Isaiah 6 in our 2003 debate, and he has no answer now:

John 12:37-43 37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?" 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM." 41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. 42 Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.

But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED? For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM. These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. (John 12:37-41)

In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory. And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. (Isaiah 6:1-4)

He said, Go, and tell this people: Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand. Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed. Then I said, Lord, how long? And He answered, Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people And the land is utterly desolate (Isaiah 6:9-11)

I would like to request James White to use his knowledge to tame Islam - rather than wasting time on other christians like William Lane Craig, who frankly is doing a very good job. Let us focus on the MAIN doctrines like Divinity of Christ, his life and message, which we all accept cutting across different apologetic styles, cutting across denominations etc. So, instead of wasting time on minor issues of differences, it will be better to spend time on those who do not accept Christ at all. Today's challenge is Islam. I am from a place where I am seeing on TV, islamic channels that are talking more on christianity than Islam - they are using completely incorrect understanding of christian doctrines, attacking them and airing them on TV to audiene who do not know anything. If Islam is tamed at the level of best Islamic debaters, the well defined arguments can then be used by ordinary people in their conversations with muslims.

Dear Sir: This is in regard to your article on Gail Riplinger. Just over a year ago the leader of the church that I had been attending condemned the AVKJ! This was shocking so ASAP I went into prayer asking our Heavenly Father thru His only begotten Son Jesus Christ of Nazareth to please show me His truth, not the leader's truth,not my truth but only His. Also asking Him to give me the eyes to discern and recognize the truth as it came my way and then most importantly a willing heart to obey whatever He showed me. I got home that night and turned on the TV and a video that had been playing before came on right at the point of the AVKJ ONLY speaker was speaking. I slammed off the TV amd cried out to God, "I already know this, give me something else." Well, not a month later He showed me the truth by bringing me to see and hear a speaker at The Prophecy Club in Laurel MD. Not the speaker but a man. I have no idea how this stranger and I began speaking about the AVKJ but we did. Here we were perfect strangers yelling at each other. Don't know who was yelling the loudest! But then I shut up and decided that perhaps I should listen instead of being a Ms Know It All! By the time he finished and gave me a DVD that was about the AVKJ and then actually going to a church and hearing more I was utterly convinced. Please remember the prayer that I had prayed. Here we are,over a year has passed and many changes. No longer do I even possess any other Bible, nor will I. He showed me that only the TRANSPIRED WORD of GOD is His Word the AVKJ. My life has entirely changed due to this decision. Only those who have made this decision understand, you know like when we become born again? Our lives change! Well this is what happened to me. My deepest prayer is that you make the prayer that I did and truly seek to know the truth, He will show you. But remember to ask for a willing heart to listen to Him and then the willingness to obey! In the love of our Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazerath, TW.

   "Both White and Webster take the position that the absence of a book called Esdras in the Council of Trent's definition of the canon constitutes, not mere silence on the issue, but a clear and explicit rejection of the book without the slightest ambiguity.This is a big deal for them because, if it is true, then a case could be made that Trent contradicted the Councils of Carthage and Hippo which they understand to have explicitly included Esdras (no doubt without the slightest possible ambiguity there either). My position is that, whatever we want to make of the status of Esdras, the question of a contradiction between Trent and Carthage cannot arise because the bishops at Trent explicitly avoided answering the question. White and Webster seem to be under the impression that this idea is my own 'novel' interpretation of the decree of the Fourth Session. It is nothing of the kind."

   "Let me be perfectly clear. My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else's interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact."

   "...(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testamentseeing that one God is the author of both as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession."

I, DAVE ARMSTRONG, DO HEREBY RESOLVE TO CEASE AND DESIST EVEN FROM *MENTION* OF DR. JAMES WHITE AND TIM ENLOE (and strongly urge other Catholics to do the same)
Posted by Dave Armstrong on March 14, 2001 at 19:32:43:
Hi Ronnie,
   Thanks for reminding me of, and provoking me to my own actual preference, down deep. You have done me a great service indeed, and I appreciate it. One can get caught up in all the controversies with anti-Catholics, and thus cite the "king" and most supposedly "respectable" of the anti-Catholics too much.
   The better part of my judgment agrees that this is excessive, for I have been urging Catholic apologists to not engage White in *public* (oratorical) debate for many years now. I turned him down in 1995 and twice in our recent exchanges. Funny, though, how he keeps challenging *me* to debate him, since he considers me an absolutely unworthy and unqualified opponent, a pompous, foul-mouthed, dishonest and devious blowhard, etc. - things he has verbally expressed in one way or another many times. Yes, quite odd. But I don't think it is all that hard to figure out, without too much effort. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

21:10:48 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Video Evidence

04/06/2007 - James White

   First, I need to officially change the name of the Street Abusers Cult. Though SAC fits quite well, I think the name suggested today in our chat channel is far better, "Street Screechers." So, since you always have 72 hours to change the new name of a cult, I hereby dub them the Street Screechers Cult. SSC.
   Next, some folks have a hard time believing these guys exist. Now, we have a bunch of video of them, actually, and I may take the time to go through those tapes, if need arises (and if Rich can find them for me). What we have below is a series of little clips from my tiny digital camera. They are really short, unfortunately, but, they were also easy to string together and upload to YouTube! So, what you have are:

1) Here you see Ruben Israel yelling at the Mormons who are streaming in to the Conference center. Yes, he says, "Bring 'em young," as in "Brigham Young." Charming, yes? You could see the Mormons converting by the droves.
2) I'm waiting for Ruben to start again and guess who comes by and smacks me in the head with his sign but Lonnie Pursifull! I'm sure that was a worse assault than getting hit by a little old lady in her wheelchair, but I didn't call the cops.
3) Next you see someone using a plastic bottle, cut out to form a megaphone, yelling into the Temple Square area through the North Gate.
4) Next you see the "lunch rush" coming across North Temple. My son, Josh, is in the blue shirt with the tie. Note no one is interested in a tract as long as the street screechers are out and about. And note how different our demeanor and dress is than that of the SSC.
5) Next you see the same crowd flowing into Temple Square, passing by the sign carrying folks, followed by another shot across North Temple, with the yelling in the background.
6) Then, I included a shot from the debate that took place at the University of Utah with Martin Tanner. The men sitting in the back are the primary sign-carrying leaders of the SSC. They behaved themselves as the debate. We had informed security about them anyway.
7) Next, you will need to turn your head sideways, because I don't have the ability to rotate these clips, my apology. This is from Salt Lake in 2004. I was up to do another debate (I think the one on Temples at the UofU) and so I decided to go by and see what was happening at the General Conference, and quickly I was recognized. This young kid went nuts, as the next few clips show. A good follower of Peter Ruckman.
8) The last clip is of Lonnie in Mesa a few years ago.

   So there you have just a few shots at the Street Screechers and their activities. As I type this they are going at it in Mesa, proving to all that a megaphone can trump reason every time.

20:10:46 - Category: Simply Silly - Link to this article -

I Did Not Need Proof, But Since It Has Been Offered...

04/06/2007 - James White

   One of the leading names in the Street Abusers Cult (SAC) dropped us a note. I have said these men hate just for the purpose of hating. The objects of their abuse don't matter. Note the end of his message, where he intimates they might protest a Baptist Church.

JAMES I CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU RUN AWAY FROM THE MESA PREACH. I EXPECT THAT FROM JOSEPH SMITH, I EXPECT THAT HE WOULD HIDE HIS TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS AND RUN FROM STATE TO STATE. BUT YOU THE GREAT PUBLIC DEBATER, THE MOST WISE OF ALL BIBLICAL TRUTHS, THE GREAT OZ RUNS WHEN A FEW STREET PREACHERS COME TO TOWN? THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES OF YOU KING-JAMES. AND FOR THE RECORD, YOU CAN NOT QUIT.YOU ARE FIRED. BESIDES WE WERE PRE ORDAINED TO BE AT MESA BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH RIGHT? QUESTION FOR YOU JIMMY, JUST HOW FAR IS THE SIDE WALK FROM THE FRONT DOOR AT 3805 NORTH 12TH STREET IN PHOENIX? RUBEN ISRAEL

07:30:34 - Category: Simply Silly - Link to this article -

Porvaznik Perfidy and Matatics Mendacity Documented Final

04/06/2007 - James White

   Here is the final clip I've recorded from the 1997 sola scriptura debate with Gerry Matatics on Long Island. This comes directly after the cross-ex I posted Monday, so they go together. I picked up the same theme and pressed forward with it here. Hopefully these clips have illustrated, in a way that only video can, the less than useful gamesmanship and circular argumentation favored by many of the most popular, less popular, and formerly popular, Roman Catholic apologists today.

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Today on The Dividing Line

04/05/2007 - James White

   Started off with a review of the attack of the SAC (Street Abusers Cult) in Mesa, and related some of the stories from nearly a quarter century of ministry at the Easter Pageant. Then callers took up the last half hour with discussions of the exegesis of Galatians 2:7 and then the natures of Christ. Here's the program (free/high quality).

19:55:23 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Gary Michuta Says: Read My Book

04/04/2007 - James Swan

Recently, Catholic apologist Gary Michuta began posting on the Catholic Answers forum. In his posts, he commented on his apocrypha debate versus Dr. White, presenting his novel way of reconciling the canon discrepancy between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. Michuta also mentioned the work of William Webster, prompting these responses from Webster:
   Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta Part I
   Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part II
   Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part III
   I had been having some interaction with Gary over on Catholic Answers, and I knew he was aware of these links. There was nothing though from Gary on the recent entries from Webster. I had wondered if he disagreed with them, or if he was passing over them in silence. One thing you can say about Catholic Answers is they do allow for opposing points of view. There are numerous discussions between Protestants and Catholics going on. It would've been interesting to interact with Gary on this subject.
   On the other hand, the Envoy forum has "bunker" mentality. They protect themselves from those who would offer a different opinion. It appears Gary Michuta has traveled from Catholic Answers over to Envoy. He is now a moderator on Envoy. One of his first posts was a response to William Webster. I find this interesting, because he chose to post this response in a forum that doesn't like to allow Protestants to respond. Michuta couldn't even link to Webster's articles because aomin links are not allowed on Envoy.
   What of Michuta's response? He simply reaffirmed the stance he took in his debate with Dr. White. He notes the vote at Trent to pass over in silence was 42 to 3. So much for canon certainty from Rome: 42 said you can't be certain you've got all the Biblical books, 3 said you can. Michuta concludes by pointing people to his new book: "If anyone is interested in a fuller discussion of the many questions surrounding the disputed books of the Old Testament canon, my newest book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, will be available later this month." Ah, another read my book.
Quick Addition from JRW: OK, does this mean Trent did, or did not, provide a dogmatic, infallible canon? Haven't we had the Keating/Madrid/Akin/Matatics/etc. crowd telling us for years now that we need Trent's canon to even know what Scripture is? So, what do we call this? Dogmatic silence? Infallible uncertainty? "By Our Apostolic authority, standing in the line of Blessed Peter and Paul, We hereby grit our teeth." If they knew of the differences, does it not follow that we have here an ecumenical "We are clueless, don't ask"?

21:20:12 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Programming Note

04/04/2007 - James White

   Due to the invasion of the SAC (Street Abusers Cult), we will not need to move the Dividing Line on Thursday to the morning time slot. It will air at its normal time, 7pm EDT. Also, I will be joining Chris Arnzen on Iron Sharpens Iron at 3pm EDT as well (noon my time). Listen in and feel free to participate as well.

16:33:35 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Street Abusers: Mesa

04/04/2007 - James White

   As soon as the music ended, the screaming began. The band of street abusers (they call themselves preachers, but that has a particular biblical meaning that is utterly disconnected from their disjointed harangues) with their barely relevant signs held high began yelling out at those gathered on the front lawn of the LDS Temple in Mesa, Arizona, "Mormonism is a false religion! Joseph Smith was a false prophet! Repent or you will go to hell!" As I watched the people streaming across Main Street toward me, I realized I had seen this scene before, a few years before, actually, in Salt Lake City. The grim looks on the faces of people who had just had to pass abusive, mean-spirited men spewing hatred at them, showing them not the first bit of respect as human beings. And what was worse, those headed toward me assumed I was one of these abusers. I fully understood why. You can't get very far away from the yelling abusers, and you can't expect the attendees to differentiate between us. And so we passed out almost no tracts at all. In years past, we had regularly had long, fruitful conversations with Mormons. Not with these guys around. They are not looking for dialogues, they can't handle that. They are strictly monologue type folks, and short monologues at that.
   A few hours before Rich and I had been standing on "corner one," the main corner at Hobson and Main in Mesa. I have stood on that corner at least once a year (normally six times a year) since 1983, the first year I visited the LDS Easter Pageant. I had driven there on my little Kawasaki 440 with my new bride on the back seat. Times have changed. We began passing out our tracts and thankfully, at first, anyway, the street abusers were a good distance away. Eventually one of them named Paul came right up to us. An older man, mid-sixties I would say, he was purposefully coming to speak to us. "You know what?" he said. "I want you to know I detest Calvinism almost as much as I detest Mormonism." We knew it would be an interesting night. After I asked him why he believed our choice was the primary issue in light of the fact that God is the one who chooses in eternity past, and we are the direct object of the verb, he realized he had better switch over to the "more abusive" mode, and he did so. By the end of the night he had actually hissed...yes, I said hissed, at both Rich and I. His hatred for, well, everyone other than his tiny little group, was tremendously obvious.
   There was another man standing near us with a sign about seven books from hell. Here's a shot of him from later in the evening. I noticed that along with the "Koran" and the Book of Mormon he had the NIV and the "New American Bible" listed. I simply could not restrain myself, so I asked him, "Umm, which New American Bible are you talking about? The New American Bible, or the New American Standard Bible." "Both," he replied, "since they come from the same text." I.e., as long as they used something other than the Textus Receptus, they are from hell, all the rest of the glaring differences notwithstanding. I was sorely tempted to ask him about particular textual variations, problems with the Byzantine text and the like, but the opportunity did not present itself.
   Now, this fellow was standing on the sidewalk about five yards away from us early on. The sun was still up (93 degrees), and I happened to be looking his direction when I saw a little old lady, I would estimate around 80 years of age, heading toward him in her electric wheelchair. It had a joy-stick control panel, and she must have had a fresh battery charge from what I saw take place. "You're not welcome here!" she yelled at the man, and then headed her wheelchair right at him. He got out of her way, but she just turned and headed for his new position, still yammering away quite loudly about how he had to leave. I noticed as well that the woman was on oxygen, and very frail, so I was immediately concerned. The fellow finally stepped off the curb, still holding his sign. She was trying to grab his sign to tear it down (but it was a bit of a reach for her). Then something caught her attention. It was Lonnie Pursifull of Salt Lake City heading across the street with his even larger double-sided sign.
   Readers of this blog remember Pursifull. Sorta hard to forget him. Here's my most famous, or shall we say, infamous, picture of him. He's the man on the left. You will note they are holding signs at the General Conference in Salt Lake City that are about...me, not about Mormonism. These men hate me more than they hate the Mormons (which is saying a lot). Why? Because I wrote The King James Only Controversy and because I'm a Calvinist. And because I have rebuked their childish behavior from the first time I saw them in Salt Lake City. That's why they even made up signs just about me. They didn't make much sense, but, that's not unusual for these folks. After the first few sentences, they have to start repeating themselves.
   So anyway, Lonnie had started heading our way earlier, till one of the other KJV Only street abusers had pointed out to him that his sign was upside down. He sheepishly went back to the van to fix it. And now he was crossing the street, and the wild-eyed little old lady in the wheelchair made a bee-line for him. "You are not welcome here!" she screamed as she headed straight for him. Now Lonnie is not a small guy. If he had fallen over on top of her she would never have survived the encounter. And as soon as Lonnie recognized what she was up to, the martyr-syndrome kicked in. Moving with the speed of chilled syrup, he moved a bit to the right, then a bit to the left, but he was enjoying the "persecution." The little lady kept screaming and kept coming, even after she wasn't going anywhere anymore (since her wheelchair could hardly be expected to move a man of Lonnie's size). Finally Pursifull stepped back into the street, and to my shock and dismay, she followed him right off the curb. She hit on one wheel, and for a split second I thought Granny was going to flip on her side. Thankfully, she righted herself. And right around this point I heard Lonnie say, "I'm going to file charges!"
   Now, at some point I had motioned to an LDS security guard nearby who was just standing there watching all of this in a rather bemused fashion. Little old ladies lying in the street is not a good thing, so he finally somewhat reluctantly came over to try to calm her down. Meanwhile, she had gotten back up on the sidewalk and headed for a smaller target. A very quiet, very kind gentleman was standing next to the traffic control box. He had a sign around his neck that reads, "Former Mormon. Ask me why." That's all it said. Unlike the others, he was quiet and respectful. Well, granny didn't care. She headed right for him, reached up, and pulled the sign right off his neck and threw it on the ground. About this time the guard intervened and started heading her away from her little electric-powered rampage.
   Now, there is no question that Mormon Granny lady was way out of line. In fact, on any technical level, she was guilty of assault, no doubt about it. But the little lady went away, and we went on with what we were doing. But you see, this cult of street abusers is out there for only one reason: to experience martyrdom. If anyone opposes them, in any fashion, they interpret this as "persecution," and proof that they are doing God's will. They can't defend themselves biblically, logically, historically, or rationally, so they only have one source of encouragement: their persecution complex. And Lonnie had been assaulted, and so he was going to make sure the whole world knew about it. Soon he's in the face of every cop he can find demanding that the 80 year old lady in the wheelchair be arrested for assault. And when the initial cops, there to do traffic control and the like, did not act with the severity he was demanding, he called his attorney in Salt Lake City, who, we were told, called the cops in Mesa. Soon more units arrived. Now realize, granny-on-oxygen-in-wheel chair is long gone. She's at least 120 yards away and she's not using her wheel chair to ram folks anymore. But that's irrelevant. This is now about Lonnie making the cops do what he wants them to do. And so he is putting on the full court press. And I'm getting ill. "Anti-Mormons have 80 year old LDS great grandmother arrested in wheel chair." Yeah, great. We had told one of the first cops what had happened, and he came back later and asked us to fill out a report. Rich and I looked at each other and said, "What, to help him prosecute a little old lady in a wheel chair? Are you kidding?" Later, when the cops served her with two citations, Lonnie yelled toward Rich and I, "I will have you subpoenaed to appear in court!"
   Now, somewhere during this time period the older fellow, Paul, had gotten in our faces again, and then had hissed at us both. And then all of a sudden a guy shows up in a Satan costume. Yes, a Satan costume, pitchfork, tail, and red mask, with a sign that says, "These street preachers are my disciples," and parks himself right next to them. I kid you not. And so I am standing there watching this complete circus when all of a sudden up pulls a forensic evidence van from the Mesa PD! And what are they there to do? To take evidence on the assault charge! This is very dark, I know, but you can make it out, especially when they fire up the light to take pictures of the unbroken skin, but slight red mark, on one of Lonnie's shins. Here it is:
...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

16:21:18 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

Porvaznik Perfidy and Matatics Mendacity Documented #4

04/04/2007 - James White

   Here is Gerry's cross-ex portion, including the 18 seconds of silliness Porvaznik has turned into an "admission of defeat" on my part. To do this, of course, he has to seriously argue that for sola scriptura to be true, it must have been true at all times and in all places and in all situations. Hence, Jesus and the Apostles, though living in a time of enscripturation, would have to have operated on the principle for it to be true. Evidently, I guess everyone who ever lived would have had to have done so. So, Adam, would have to have believed in sola scriptura for it to be true. Of course, there was no scriptura at that point, so that's obviously silly, but, given the presupposition of the Roman Catholic "question" here, doesn't that prove the point? If sola scriptura speaks to today, and both sides agree today is different than the days of the Apostles (revelation was being given then, it is not today), then how can the question even be asked in all honesty? The circularity of the Roman position of self-proclaimed infallibility and outright ownership of "Sacred Tradition," including the "written traditions" of Scripture, blinds their apologists to the emptiness of their claims. As I have pointed out in the past, it is an empty claim to assert that a belief must be believed at all times. There was no Papacy to believe in even from the Roman Catholic position before Peter (and in the historical context, long after). Applying the same circular logic to that concept would lead to self-refutation of the belief. Indeed, the only folks who believed in oral, extra-scriptural divine revelation in the days of Jesus were...his opponents in the Jewish leadership. I'm sure my RC apologist opponents do not wish to embrace that as their paradigm---or do they? All depends, I guess.
   In any case, just a few comments: it is so sad to see a former student at Westminster Seminary starting off with a classic Jehovah's Witness style question, "There is no verse that says the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith." When the same man will have to admit there is no verses referring to the Papacy, transubstantiation, Bodily Assumption, purgatory, etc., and that he will then have to attempt to demonstrate these things not from specific texts, but from constituent teachings from different texts brought together, you again wonder how the question can be asked honestly. What is more, this kind of argument likewise could be used in the form, "You would agree there is no text that says specifically that the Book of Mormon is not divine Scripture" or the like. This kind of argument is supposed to be compelling?
   You will note that as soon as I finish citing 2 Tim. 3:16 Gerry says he wants me to quote Scripture. I thought that was Scripture. Then note he asks, "does that say every doctrine?" It says doctrine (teaching). It does not say every doctrine, but that would be included in the work of teaching, would it not? Any sober-minded exegete of the Pauline letters to Timothy and Titus would have to say yes. Then he accuses me of "reinterpreting" the term "good work," yet, again, he well knows, or, at least, at one point in his life, knew, that "good work" in Paul's exhortation to Timothy did include the entire list of exhortation, teaching, rebuking, training, etc. This is not even a question in any serious context. His wandering off into the Roman Catholic addition of "good works" to justification is, of course, not only not a question (and hence a violation of the cross-ex rules) but a red herring as well.
   The applause of the Roman Catholics in the audience at the grand admission that the word "only" is not in 2 Timothy 3:16 is as gratuitous and empty as the glee of a Jehovah's Witness at the admission the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, or that of the Mormon when you "admit" the Bible does not say Joseph Smith was not a prophet. The Bible does not speak, by direct verbiage, to the term "Islam" either, but that is hardly relevant, is it?
   Next, Gerry's "last year you used Greek to confuse this audience" rhetoric was simply reprehensible and, on any meaningful level, sufficient grounds for his disqualification. He is referring to the discussion of "until" and e[wj ou- "hews hou" in reference to Matthew 1:25. Even raising the topic in this context was an egregious violation of the rules. He spends 45 seconds wandering all over the landscape and then has the temerity to insult the audience by saying "it's a simple yes or no question." This is the standard Matatics methodology of using what can only be called cheap debating tricks. For the person who seeks to follow the issues closely, this kind of thing is maddening. The circularity of Matatic's attack upon the sufficiency of Scripture, all to make room for Rome's dogmas of Papal Infallibility, or the Bodily Assumption, etc., is clear to all with eyes to see and ears to hear.

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line

04/03/2007 - James White

   Today on the DL I made note of at least the majority of works we will be reading for The Cross: Theology and Historicity class on the cruise in October, and then replied a second time to a Roman Catholic correspondant. Then we went back to the Catholic Answers Live presentation on the "twin pillars" of Protestantism. Here's the program (free/high quality).

15:43:46 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Is William Webster Telling The Truth?

04/03/2007 - James Swan

I received a private message over on the Catholic Answers forum informing me William Webster was being accused of lying about the edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia which contains a statement from Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo, against the canonicity of the apocrypha. This Bible was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X. The assertion of Webster's lack of truthfulness reads:

   "I hate to admit this but I think Webster's assertions are wrong. I found a book about Cardinal Ximenes, Pope Leo X and the Complutensian Polygot. It was on Questia com. From what I read there is no preface condemning the Apocrypha books. What Pope Leo does condemn are pseudo-Apocrypha books. But who really knows... perhaps the Vatican isn't telling the truth (maybe they fudged the real documents). After all the Vatican has all of these secret documents (I tried to check some of them out on the Vatican web-site) that the average person isn't permitted to read."

   This was the first time I've come across such as assertion. If this is indeed the case, I would have to ask this person to explain this statement from the preface of Ximenes:

   "The books which are without the Canon, which the Canon receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of ecclesiastical doctrines, are given only, in Greek, but with a double translation."

   If pseudo-Apocryphal books are meant, this is equally as awful for the Roman Catholic dealing with the historical record. Well, this is not what is meant. Ximenes meant the apocryphal books.

08:44:10 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Six Points On Luther's "Epistle of Straw"

04/03/2007 - James Swan

Almost five hundred years after the fact, Roman Catholics still scrutinize Martin Luther. One the most popular quotations from Luther is the infamous "epistle of straw" remark, directed at the canonicity of the book of James. It really is amazing how frequently this citation appears. It is usually brought forth as proof one must believe an infallible church authored an infallible list of infallible books. Without this, one subjectively decides which books are canonical, like Martin Luther supposedly did in the sixteenth century.If you find yourself in dialog facing this quote, there are a few facts and arguments you should know.
   First, this quote only appears in Luther's original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. After 1522, all the editions of Luther's Bible dropped the "epistle of straw" comment, along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books. It was Luther himself who edited these comments out. For anyone to continue to cite Luther's "epistle of straw" comment against him is to do him an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.
   Second, detractors are keen on selectively quoting Luther's preface to James. Most often cited are only those comments that express negativity. If one takes the times to actually read Luther's comments about James, he praises it and considers it a "good book" "because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God." Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform a reader Luther praises James, or respects God's law. On the other hand, I have seen many Catholics insist Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian. Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth Gods law.
   Third, Luther does appear to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James, but it wasn't because he was purely subjective as Roman Catholics claim. He did not whimsically dismiss Biblical books simply because he did not like their content. Luther was aware of the disputed authenticity of the book. Eusebius and Jerome both recorded doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. Luther did not consider James to be James the Apostle. He wasn't alone in this. The great humanist Scholar Erasmus likewise questioned the authenticity of James, as did Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars.
   Fourth, it is true Luther had a contextual problem with the content on James. He saw a contradiction between Paul and James on faith and works. Some conclude Luther missed the harmonization between these two Biblical writers, but this isn't true either. Luther's great biographer Roland Bainton pointed out, "Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting reconciliation. 'Faith,' he wrote, 'is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith' " [Here I Stand, 259]. In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies. Luther responded:

   "The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, 'faith' ought to be placed with the word 'justifies' and the portion of the sentence 'without works justifies' is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word 'justifies,' not to 'faith.' In the minor premise, 'without works' is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. 'Without works' is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. [LW 34: 175-176].

   Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution, it is probably the case that the question of James' apostleship out-weighed it. One cannot argue Luther was never presented with a harmonization between Paul and James. He seems to have granted the validity of it, yet still questioned the canonicity of the book.
   Fifth, its important to point out the double standard at play when Catholics bring up Luther's opinion on James. If it comes up, hypothetically grant the validity of the Roman Catholic Church declaring the contents of the canon. Then point out Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions and debated these issues previous to the Council of Trent's declaration. The New Catholic Encyclopedia points out,

   "According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon."

   Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All expressed some doubt.Their's was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it.
   Finally, Luther says he cannot include James among his chief books "though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him." These are hardly the words of one claiming to be an infallible authority or a "super-pope" (as one Catholic apologist used to claim). This points out an important flaw in Catholic argumentation. Some actually argue as if we think Luther was an infallible authority. Luther didn't think he was, and I've yet to meet a Protestant who considers him anything more than a sinner saved by grace, imperfect, yet used by God during a crucial period in history.

01:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Monday Miscellaneous

04/02/2007 - James White

   Looks like the blog flood has subsided a bit! Wore TQuid and cds and DV out, I do believe! By the way, I wanted to especially thank cds for that tremendous series on Qadar. If you missed it, head for the March archive and make sure you catch up! Speaking of that, I have been playing catch-up on "real life" stuff that I had to put on hold while the book was being written (you know, like, cars and family and stuff---son getting married, daughter headed off to college, little things like that), and I even rode El Tour de Phoenix on Saturday (I hadn't had time to really train or anything, so it was a survival ride--but a most enjoyable one that now has me hoping to be disciplined enough to ride El Tour de Tucson again and then try to really improve my time in El Tour de Phoenix in '08).
   This week brings us the LDS Easter Pageant in Mesa, and though we are running into this week without nearly the preparation we have enjoyed in years past, Mormonism is still Mormonism, and the gospel is still what Mormons need to hear. I've written a new tract for this year's pageant, and I hope the KJV Only radicals have finally found some other mission in life other than mocking the Mormons, mocking the church, mocking...everything. I have a feeling things will be a little more active this year if only because the emotions will already be a bit inflamed due to the distribution of the new film on Mormonism. One of the local talk show hosts was talking about how the Mormons are all upset that thousands of videos have been sent to the homes of local Mormons. "Upset? You invented door to door!" In any case, pray for us as we seek to witness to all who attend the Pageant in Mesa, Arizona.
   Next, From Toronto to Emmaus arrives tomorrow! If you have pre-ordered it, Rich has been diligently working, and your package is already labeled and ready to go. As soon as the books get here, we will be shipping them out. Of course, if they get here late in the afternoon, right as we are leaving to go to Mesa, then they will go out Wednesday (which is the probable scenario). But we will turn them around as quickly as possible.
   We also got some more nice commendations that we will include in future printings of the book. Phil Johnson, grand-mufti of the Pyromaniacs (I bet he hasn't even been notified of that promotion/exaltation, and centuri0n will be miffed), commented,

   We've come to expect that every year, just before Easter, the worldwide media will publish some ostensibly monumental new finding about "the quest for the historical Jesus." These are actually thinly-veiled attacks on core Christian beliefs--rooted in shameless cynicism. The "lost tomb" hoax of 2007 was one of the cheesiest, most offensive such assaults, boldly claiming that after nearly two millennia, credible scientific evidence--including DNA tests--had led certain "experts" to conclude that the tomb of Jesus had finally been located. "He is not risen; He is here," the media reported with breathless gullibility.
   The fact that it took James White barely more than two weeks to write a book that conclusively debunks the entire "Jesus tomb" hoax demonstrates two important things: 1) The claims were obviously total rubbish and should never have been publicized in the first place; and 2) There may be no one better equipped than James White to defend the gospel skillfully in every major arena here it is currently under attack. Whether the battleground is historical, theological, textual, linguistic, or biblical, you can count on James to be ready to give a skilled defense of the truth and a convincing reason for the hope that is in him. I love him for that.

   Now that is so kind I might even have to talk to Angel about drawing a nice caricature of Phil some day. Maybe. First I have to send Angel the new book, and at least a Tomb t-shirt. I would send him an aomin.org t-shirt, but he could just buy a t-shirt and draw it himself. Which sort of ruins it. Along with Phil's comments came these from John MacArthur:

James White adroitly dismantles the latest pseudo-scientific ploy of the skeptics. These increasingly clumsy and self-contradictory attempts to discredit the biblical account of the resurrection seem to reflect a growing level of desperation among Christianity's postmodern critics. Dr. White wonderfully responds to this flash-in-the-pan silliness with some timeless truth, highlighting why the Resurrection is vital to all Christian belief, and demonstrating why the testimony of Scripture is trustworthy.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

18:06:03 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Porvaznik Perfidy and Matatics Mendacity Documented #3

04/02/2007 - James White

   Here is the final portion of my cross examination of Gerry Matatics in 1997 on the topic of sola scriptura. In the next section I will present his turn, which will include the 18 second clip Porvaznik has posted. This portion ends with my giving Gerry a copy of the Soli Deo Gloria book on sola scriptura. Footnote 41 in my chapter on sola scriptura and the early church (pages 60-61) provides the following information, directly relevant to his question of me at the end:

Greek text found in Robert Thomson, edtior, Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 2. Or Migne, PG, 25:4. The Greek reads, auvta,rkeij me.n ga,r eivsin ai` a[giai kai. qeo,pneustoi grafai. pro.j th.n th/j avlhqei,aj avpaggeli,an. With reference to the term auvta,rkeij, we note the definition provided by Bauer, "sufficiency, a comptence" and "contentment, self-sufficiency." See Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 122. The most helpful work of Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domans (United Bible Societies: 1988), p. 680, says of the term, "a state of adequacy or sufficiency---'what is adequate, what is sufficient, what is needed, adequacy....' In a number of languages the equivalent of this expression in 2 Corinthians 9:8 may be 'always having all that you need' or, stated negatively, 'not lacking in anything.'"

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta, Part III

04/01/2007 - James White

The Teaching of Major Western Theologians of the Middle Ages
   The perspective of the Glossa ordinaria is reflected in the views of the most influential theologians of the Church throughout the Middle Ages. They separated the Apocrypha from the canon, consistently citing the Hebrew canon and Jerome as authorities. Bruce Metzger affirms this reality:

Subsequent to Jeromes time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180).

A thorough documentation of the views of the Western theologians of the Church from Jerome to the time of the Reformation can be found here.
Cardinal Cajetan
   The majority view is that expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term canonical as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

   Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage (Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.

   This is a fair summary of the overall view of the Western Church from the Middle Ages to the sixteenth century. Jerome's opinion dominated. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives