Pros Apologian

Catholic Apologist Dr. Art Sippo Says: Calvinists Are Psychotics

Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:16:21 -0700

James Swan

When it comes to Martin Luther, there are a number of Roman Catholic apologists that become expert pop-psychologists. I don't recall Dr. Sippo being either a psychologist or a psychiatrist, yet he recently was able to make a clinical evaluation on a man who died hundreds of years ago, living in a different culture and country:

My charge that Luther was flagrantly psychotic when he wrote [The Bondage of the Will] is a clinical one. Luther makes a number of seriosuly[sic] disturbed remarks in this book. Among them, he actually says that the human mind is like a horse with an empty saddle and that either God or the Devil rides in it. This is clearly not the perception of a normal human mind. When I studied psychiatry in med school the professor told us "There are only 2 kinds of people who deny free will: psychotics and Calvinists." In my experience, there is only ONE kind of person. [source]

The tactic here employed is called psychohistory. This pseudo-science holds history can be understood by applying psychoanalysis to a historical figure. Those who have attempted to evaluate Luther via this method have come to a wide range of differing conclusions. For instance, Heinrich Denifle's approach was the "the pansexual interpretation of the Reformation." According to Denifle, Luther's psychosis was inherent lust, secret vices, an overpowering sex drive, and an opposition to celibacy. Immediately following Denifle were the works of Hartmann Grisar. Where Denifle wants you to despise Luther as a depraved sex maniac, Grisar wants you to pity him for being a psychopath.

Protestant historian Preserved Smith used Freudian analysis and theory, particularly the role of sex in personal development. For Smith, Luther was a product of an alcoholic parent, a sufferer of the Oedipus complex, an abused child, struggled with depression, had an infatuation with demonism, and had sexual repression. Smith then interprets these factors as the causes of some of Luther's central doctrines. The most famous of all the psychohistorians writing on Luther is Erik Erikson's book, Young Man Luther (1958). Erikson used a modified Freudian approach. He approached religious phenomena with prejudice: Freud argued that religious phenomena are to be understood on the model of the neurotic symptoms of the individual: hence, a materialistic outlook on religion. Freud saw religious concerns within an individual as reflecting something "wrong" in a human. Erickson does the same with his treatment of Luther.All the attempts I've read applying psychohistory to Luther fail miserably, usually being pummeled by historians pointing out the selective use of history employed in their analysis. Some of the above sources were given to me as recommended reading by Dr. Sippo a few years ago, and I go in to greater detail here. Judge for yourself if these men produce a unified, historically verifiable understanding of Luther, or if they're... guessing. How can someone do psychology on a dead man from long ago? One cannot. Thus, the psychohistory method, while interesting, should not be one's main approach to learning about Martin Luther.

One thing Art Sippo doesn't tell you, is that while men like Denifle, Grisar, Smith, and Erikson used a similar approach in trying to understand Luther, none of them arrive at the same conclusions, or even minimize or maximize similar conclusions. So, even though Luther produced a large corpus of writings to draw analysis from, each of these psychohistorians arrive at different conclusions when digging for pychohistory facts. It simply isn't honest to pass off clinical evaluations on a man who lived during the sixteenth century as an apologetic argument, but we've come to expect such poor quality from Dr. Sippo.

As to Sippo's explanation of Luther's horse / saddle analogy, I've done a little work on this here. Luther doesn't say "the human mind is like a horse." He states:

In short, if we are under the god of this world, away from the work and Spirit of the true God, we are held captive to his will, as Paul says to Timothy [II Tim. 2:26], so that we cannot will anything but what he wills. For he is that strong man armed, who guards his own palace in such a way that those whom he possesses are in peace [Luke 11:21], so as to prevent them from stirring up any thought or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan being divided against itself would not stand [Luke 11:18], whereas Christ affirms that it does stand. And this we do readily and willingly, according to the nature of the will, which would not be a will if it were compelled; for compulsion is rather (so to say) "unwill." But if a Stronger One comes who overcomes him and takes us as His spoil, then through his Spirit we are again slaves and captives- though this is royal freedom- so that we readily will and do what he wills. Thus the human will is placed between the two like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes where God wills, as the psalm says: "I am become as a beast [before thee] and I am always with thee" [Ps. 73:22 f.]. If Satan rides it, it wills and goes where Satan wills; nor can it choose to run to either of the two riders or to seek him out, but the riders themselves contend for the possession and control of it. [LW 33:65]

So if Luther was flagrantly psychotic, so must the authors of sacred scripture be by Sippo's standard. The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that unregenerate man is enslaved to sin, here are but a few examples:

Romans 8:5-8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

John 8:31-34
31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." 33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."

Ephesians 2:1-2
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

Keep in mind, Dr. Art Sippo is a frequent participant on Patrick Madrid's Envoy forums, where in fact Sippo's words above were posted. This is the same Patrick Madrid who recently commented on "name calling" amongst Roman Catholics. Sippo has been spewing out insults for years, yet Madrid seems to care less. Since Art writes in service to Mother Church, then he's tolerated. It's probably the case Madrid didn't even see that Sippo is calling Calvinists psychotic. On the other hand, he's seen Dr. Sippo spew out far worse over the years, and really doesn't seem to care.

Englishing the Bible

Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:59:33 -0700

Jeff Downs

Dr. Benjamin Shaw is professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He answers the question "Why a conference on scripture in the 21st Century" and also gives a brief word on his particular session "Englishing the Bible"

For further information and to register for the conference, go to the conference Website.

Back on December 30, 2009 Chris Arnzen interviewed Dr. Shaw. You can listen by clicking here.

John & Hebrews

Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:05:01 -0700

Jeff Downs

Two books that may be of interest to the readership of this blog are:

A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God, by Andreas J. Kostenberger. View sample pages here. Keven Boling recently interviewed Dr. Kostenberg on his new book.

Since James is working his way through Hebrews, this is worth mentioning: The Letter to the Hebrews, by Peter T. O'Brien (Due out April 2010). If I remember correctly, I heard D.A. Carson saying this will be one of the best.

Facts? Truth? Nah, We Want People!

Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:57:03 -0700

James White

I feel badly today for those Islamic apologists I know who truly believe that Islam is true. I am not talking about the men like Nadir Ahmed, but the serious minded men I have met who really believe Islam is the religion of Allah. I would name some right now, but I do not want to get them in trouble. I feel badly for them today because I can see so clearly that the Super Star of Islamic apologists, the "Doctor of Dawah," Zakir Naik, is not one of them. Instead, Naik, whose simplistic arguments, borrowed almost verbatim from the late Ahmed Deedat, are fired off at high speed, has been shown to be fundamentally ignorant of many of the subjects upon which he opines with regularity. Please note the refutation of his recent appearance on The Deen Show here. The man is nowhere near the best Islam has to offer if you measure such things in reference to the truth and consistency. However, he is one of the most popular speakers in Islam, mainly because the average Muslim simply wants to hear reasons not to believe in Christianity, whether those reasons are truthful or not. This is a sad commentary.

We have contacted Dr. Naik's representatives, seeking to arrange a scholarly debate with him. He has debated a number of Christians with far less experience in debating Islam than I. They responded by asking for evidence that I could gather 10,000 people. I replied by providing evidence of my publications, debates, and again pointed to the issue that should be front and center to any truth-loving individual: the fact that I have demonstrated fundamental errors on Naik's part. I received my reply today, and for all those Muslims that would love to see Zakir Naik defend himself against the documentation of errors we have provided, I'm afraid you will be disappointed. I provide the entirety of the e-mail:

4th February 2010

Dear Brother James White,

Greetings of Peace (Salaam) to you!

Thank you for your email dated 8th January 2010.

Some of our staff members have seen your criticism and refutation which you may consider being scholarly but it is not worth replying to. There are hundreds of such refutations of Dr. Zakir Naik’s lectures, many of whose authors would like to debate with him. All the refutations he has seen are waste of time and not worth replying.

Our question was, the person who wants to debate with Dr. Zakir Naik should have a large following irrespective whether he has written several books or not.

We do agree it is difficult to attract 10,000 audiences in U.S.A. We would like to inform you that Dr. Zakir Naik besides attracting fifty thousand to three hundred thousand audience in India has also attracted ten thousand to thirty thousand audience in Middle East, United Kingdom and North America.

There are thousand of scholars in the world. Dr. Zakir Naik would not like to waste time debating the hundreds of requests he receives from people who want to become famous.

InshaAllah we will recommend your name to debate Dr. Zakir Naik once you attract ten thousand people either in U.S.A. or anywhere else in the world. Alternately you can give your so called scholarly research to any Christian scholar who attracts 10 thousand people for his talk and we personally know scores of such Christians who attract more than ten thousand people.

If any one of these people considers your scholarly work worth being utilised he can request Dr. Zakir Naik to debate with him.

May the Almighty Creator guide all of us towards the way of Truth, Peace and Salvation. Aameen.

Yours brotherly and sincerely,

MAQBOOL BARWELKAR

Public Relation Manager

Well there you go! Nothing at all in those videos worth even replying to! I just want to make myself famous! The level of arrogance is shocking, indeed. I can fully understand vetting possible opponents. I do it myself. But when someone provides documentation of the errors of your leader that is clear, compelling, and scholarly, who likewise has proven himself in debate with leading scholars from a wide range of religions and worldviews, you do not just stick your head in the sand and pretend they do not exist. This is not a reasoned response, this is intellectual cowardice. I provide here my response:

Greetings Mr. Barwelkar:

Would you be so kind, sir, as to identify just one or two of the "scores" of Christians who attract more than ten thousand people to their lectures who at the same time engage in debate with Muslims, read the biblical languages, and have documented numerous basic and fundamental errors on Zakir Naik's part? I would like to know who these people are.

Next, would you be so kind as to explain why demonstrating Dr. Naik's errors in representing Christian doctrine are not even worth responding to? Why documenting his errors in handling the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible are not even work responding to? Surely, if what I have provided is so easily refuted, you could find the time to do so, yes?

Let's be honest, Mr. Barwelkar. Dr. Naik has debated many folks who had significantly less experience in debate, knowledge of Islam, Greek, Hebrew, textual criticism, systematic theology, etc. Just like Ahmed Deedat, he has chosen to pick and choose his opponents, avoiding the strongest challengers to his position, and for what reason? Surely not for a love of the truth, sir.

My challenge stands. When Dr. Naik wishes to demonstrate a serious ability to engage in accurate scholarship in his dawah to Christians, please let me know. Until then, we have proven that he does not speak the truth about what we believe, or about what the Bible says. We have proven this to the satisfaction of any honest mind. I will continue to document his errors, to the chagrin of truth-loving Muslims. It is my hope and prayer that his unwillingness to engage his most experienced and prepared opponents will become widely known, so that the truth of who Jesus truly is will become known to all.

May you come to know Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Jesus Christ, the crucified, risen Son of God.

James White

Rome's Arguments, Rome's Blasphemy

Wed, 3 Feb 2010 08:14:29 -0700

James White

Conference on Scripture

Wed, 3 Feb 2010 06:57:15 -0700

Jeff Downs

Yesterday, I had a chance to sit down with Dr. Joseph Pipa, president of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He took about 8 minutes to discuss the GPTS Annual Conference. I'm new at using our camera for such things, and the color is simply awful:

Click here to register for ths conference.

Today on the DL: Post-Mortem on Last Week's Debates

Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:33:13 -0700

James White

Started off with some of the very interesting comments made on the Catholic Answers Forums, and then moved to the specifics on the Staples debate, including reading the full context of both of the "Protestant" citations Staples offered. Looked at the broader issues of purgatory, and then moved on to some comments made by Dr. Brown on the issue of Calvinism. Went about nine minutes long, but got to everything I wanted to get to. Here's the program.

Don't forget, there will not be a DL on Thursday, as I will be flying to Georgia at that time.

On Next Tuesday's DL

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:46:15 -0700

James White

Wow, what a week. I spoke 14 times over eight days, finishing up with a long period of teaching with Sam Shamoun on Islam at the First Arabic Baptist Church here in Phoenix today. A very enjoyable time!
Next Tuesday on the DL I want to comment on last week's debates. Michael Brown did a program on Calvinism the next day, and I may respond to some specific statements regarding such passages as Genesis 50 and Philippians 1:29. Then I will respond to some of the comments that have been made regarding the Tim Staples debate. I will also look at the claims being made on the CA forums, including the confusion of one "Marco Polo," a Catholic who has attempted to interact with my statements (I would encourage "Marco Polo" to call in, but then again, we've seen over the years what happens when CA forum users call the DL).
We won't have a Thursday DL as I will be flying to Georgia that day.

Seems the Followers of Catholic Answers Would Like More Debates

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 06:48:57 -0700

James White

I mentioned yesterday my suggestion to Tim Staples that we do a similar type of fair debate and exchange on Catholic Answers Live. I said then that I would expect many in the CA audience would love to hear the "largest Catholic apologetics organization in the United States" actually doing direct, one-on-one apologetics with leading critics of their position. I was pointed to a thread that has begun on the CA web boards that seems to verify my prediction. You can read it here.

Greetings From Kingdom Envoy, We Miss You!

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 06:45:14 -0700

James Swan

Sometime back I had a discussion with Dr. Art Sippo on Luther biographies. It was a written exchange via Patrick Madrid's Envoy discussion forum. I can't provide the forum link, because it was deleted. I did though save my posts and analysis of Mr. Sippo's opinions. Eventually, I was banned from Envoy by Patrick Madrid. In fact, if you're a Protestant, chances are you'd be banned from Envoy as well. I was banned for posting a link to an aomin article.

Recently on Envoy, Dr. Sippo asked:

Where have the Protestant Pundits gone? It seems that the Protestnat [sic] Pundits just kind of drop in to give a few insults and then run away newver [sic] staying to engage in any frank discussion. Very typical. I hae [sic] made a number of charges about Protestantism that the pundits refuse to refute.

Where have we gone? Why Mr. Sippo, we were banished from Kingdom Envoy. I thought perhaps Sippo had forgotten this, so I dropped him a little e-mail:"Dr. Sippo, We were banned from Envoy... Remember? Perhaps raise this question to Mr. Madrid." To which I received the response, "Only the REALLY rude ones, Jim. ;-)."

Anyone can read through my posts and see this is entirely untrue. I was banned for posting a link, plain and simple. Sippo appeared to be tickled that I actually wrote him and posted this followup:

I got an e-mail from a Protestnat punpit [sic] who shal [sic] remain namelss [sic] but whose initials are Jimmy Swan. He was all cut up about being banned from this board. Golly! I wrote back to him that this is only done to the REALLY nasty people. I wonder if he got the hint? For those who do not know this fellow, he thinks that Catholics should ignore the general historical consensus that Luther was mentally disturbed and instead accept the position of Fr. Josef Lortz, a german priest in the 1930s who was a CARD CARRYING NAZI and who (among other things) wrote an extended defense of Hitler's book Mein Kampf in contradiction to the position taken by the German hierarchy. Luther was a great hero to the Nazis for a variety of reasons including his rejection of 'decandent'[sic] Rome for 'modern' German values and his snti-Semitism [sic].

Of course, the above paragraph includes the disclaimer, "Edited by - Patti on 01/29/2010 10:30:39 AM," so what was actually posted was probably far worse. What irony- Dr. Sippo has repeatedly called me names (including "Nazi") and hurled abusive language at me, yet I'm the one who is supposedly rude and nasty. Even during my discussion with Dr. Sippo, Patrick Madrid stated:

Art, we've been through this so many times now, I don't know how else to say it. Please drop the invective and ad hominem and just make your case, critique the other guy's, and move forward with the conversation. All the egregious stuff is just plain unedifying and it has no power to persuade, only provoke.

Ah well, it seems Dr. Sippo is tolerated because he supports Mother Church. Envoy is truly an odd place. They know what they like, and they like what they know. They also don't have a problem reinventing their own history.