Thursday, February 12, 2009

A Response to William Albrecht

Here is my response to William Albrecht's video. I've recorded my response as an MP3 file with a portable MP3 player. My apologies for the slight distortion, I didn't feel like re-recording it again.

MP3 Response To William Albrecht

Here is William's video:


13 comments:

rsolis89 said...

Great response! Keep up the great work Mr.Swan!

Andrew said...

Eric Svendsen is dumb. He he, another anti-catholic, fundamentalist, bigot soundly refuted. I think if I were the pope I would tell Mr. Albrecht to stop "helping".

Turretinfan said...

When they have to lie to get people to come to their parody/mockery site, you know the religion they support.

Ben Douglass said...

Dear Francis,

Protestants have used far more egregious deceptions to attack Catholicism. Witness The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk. This phenomenon, of course, does not prove that Protestantism is a false religion. Nor does the immature behavior of "James Duck" prove that Catholicism is a false religion.

Ben Douglass said...

It's quite ironic to hear a Bob Sungenis fan faulting Eric Svendsen for his unaccredited doctorate.

I agree with Andrew. Albrecht's help is less than helpful.

Turretinfan said...

Dear Ben,

Certainly some folks dispute the veracity of the "Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk" - but no reasonable person could doubt that there are no videos at the "video here" links above.

-TurretinFan

Ben Douglass said...

Certainly some folks dispute the veracity of the "Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk"

And some folks dispute the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

And my point wasn't to defend "James Duck." I was pointing out a double standard.

Turretinfan said...

Dear Ben,

Whether or not those two documents are comparable in any way, my original comment was obviously a dramatic overstatement.

There are lots of dishonest people out there - and sometimes even true believers fall into sin.

I'm not trying to suggest that the only honest people are the Reformed or that every Romanist is also a liar (for example, I think you have attempted to be scrupulously honest in your own interactions with us).

Please don't take my original statement overly literally. The long expression I hoped to bring to mind was something like this: "When you lie in order to promote your mockery, it doesn't look good for the religion you are a part of." Obviously (unless you are also Mr. Duck, which I highly doubt) you should not view that as aimed at you.

-TurretinFan

Churchmouse said...

I've seen this guy over and over again and the only thought that goes through my mind is "Clean your room dude, find a girlfriend, and move out of your parent's house. There are medicines for over-salivation and leave the apologetics to the big boys."

Btw, is it me or does he sound like the Comic Book guy from the Simpsons???

CM

EA said...

"Btw, is it me or does he sound like the Comic Book guy from the Simpsons???"

Bingo.

Also, try talking slower.

Ben Douglass said...

Dear Francis,

Thanks for your clarification, and for your kind words (especially since my girlfriend was looking over my shoulder when I read them).

rsolis89 said...

James,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBaS9xJsqkM&feature=subscription

Williams strikes back

God bless

Churchmouse said...

It’s funny that “gnrhead” keeps making the accusation that James White uses an argument “over and over”, yet doesn’t provide any examples of him doing so. Considering this, he continues to make a “crony” comparison to Jim but fails to show this to be the case. Jim has already stated that, if this were truly the case, he would be a Reformed Baptist just like Dr. White, but this is obviously not the case. I guess to poor William, we all look alike.

He keeps using words such as “silly” in an obvious attempt to poison the well and claims Jim made a “straw man” argument regarding the purgatory scenario Jim proffered earlier. In actuality, it is William’s response that if fallacious, a red herring, considering that the point isn’t whether the church still believes in purgatory, but only that there are those—in positions of authority in Catholicism—who do not submit to Rome’s doctrinal teachings, whether known or unbeknownst to them. Of course, the logic of the Catholic pop-apologist is to say that if you don’t agree with Rome on dogmatic issues, you cannot truly be Catholic. As a former Catholic myself, I’ve known quite a few priests and nuns who’ve digressed on Catholic distinctives. One in particular, on the same issue of purgatory, was a Monsignor who told me that he didn’t believe in the concept, claiming that it was a later theory and not one taught in the earliest church. The point is that the “Catholic unity” thrusted into the face of the non-Catholic is a fable. The Catholic Church IS divided on various issues and the solidarity claimed by the minority doesn’t answer for what’s seen through an apparent glass house.

He claims that it is a “ridiculous argument”, further stating that the “pastors in [his] home town” are left without a response when he shows them how “fallacious” the argument is, but what’s missing is what he claims he showed them. This amounts to unsubstantiated rhetoric.

He demeans any attempt to take him seriously by claiming that Jim is “attacking” Catholic dogma. Anyone who reads this blog will find that Jim isn’t on the “attack” but is pointing out serious issues, double-standards, and inconsistencies in Catholicism, especially when it comes to the musings of Rome’s pop-apologists. Has William pointed out any inconsistencies on Jim’s part? No. All we get is the same old non-responses coupled with a dose of implied ad hominem.

William assumes that Jim should go on a “correction-spree” regarding those who “attack” the Catholic faith, and then attempts to implicitly color Jim’s motives by implying “guilt by association”, but again, one can only account for one’s actions. In Jim’s case, all one has to do is read what he writes and, if one takes issue with something, they are fully within their rights to provide a substantiated response, but to assumes that Jim reveals a salty persona because he doesn’t spend time—time he doesn’t have—correcting what every “Tom, Dick, or Harry” says or doesn’t say on his blog is presumptuous and misleading. Thus far, the only thing William is attempting to dismantle is Jim and not what Jim stated in his mp3 response.

The word “fallacious” seems to be a means to an end for William.

William says that the “Bible is Catholic, Mr. Swan”, a mantra claimed by many a pop-apologist, but doesn’t qualify his statement. Yet, it will only lead to confusing the issue. Thus far, William is all over the place.

He claims that Catholics don’t need the Bible to substantiate Catholic doctrines and dogma and then goes on to say that—at least for him—he can find implications of Catholic distinctives in Scripture. Well, the same can be said for Modalists, Pelagians, Arians, and whatnot. They can find “implications” of their distinctives within the pages of Scripture as well. Does this imply that need for an “infallible arbiter” to harbor Scriptural certitude? Or does it demand the use of good hermeneutics and proper exegesis? Go back to Jim’s mp3 response to see how William’s response fails on this issue.

Hmmm…it seems William admits a “hatred or dislike” for James White. This is very telling in regards to his motives. They seem personal. William, practice a little Ephesians 4:15 and get over it.

I don’t know where or when he “debated aomin.org” or the subject that he debated considering he isn’t clear. He sounds a bit garbled at this point. Would he care to post a transcript or mp3 (whatever’s relevant), including the names of who he allegedly “debated”? Unless he attempted to speak via the Dividing Line, I find it hard that Dr. White would give him the time of day.

Regarding Dr. Eric Svendsen (and I confidently assert “Dr.”) and his doctorate, it becomes evident that nothing can change the double standards which William employs. Since the context is “hate or dislike”, it comes as no surprise that he uses this issue to attempt poisoning the well a bit further. After all, the logic seems to be, why attempt to refute these men if they call themselves “Doctors” without earning their degrees? Using the same rationale, hmmm…why would I listen to a guy who tags himself “gnrhead” and is, evidently, not qualified to engage Dr. White or Dr. Svendsen on these matters? Both of these men have debated the best apologists Rome has to offer. And William takes a back seat on YouTube and, just as evidently doesn’t have anything new to say, let alone attempt a refutation to Jim’s response, of which he really hasn’t (I’m sure the listener can deem this quite easily). What’s really laughable is how he labors to misrepresent both Dr. White and Dr. Svendsen by implying that they “bought” their doctorates. This is slander at best. If William has evidence of this then let him provide it. Other then that, it is merely hearsay and he joins a long list of Catholic pop-apologists who would rather employ ad hominen tactics rather than refute the issues. William clearly is just repeating what he hears rather than concluding this on his own.

William states that he doesn’t attack anybody’s character, but one only needs to listen to his response to see that this is clearly the case. To say that he calls only those who provide weak arguments and misrepresentations “foolish and ignorant” implies that William truly knows what he speaks of. Yet, what he provides is nothing new. His rhetoric is unimpressive, to say the least and, speaking of “mills”, his argumentations are a dime a dozen, common of any Catholic apologetic book, tape, or DVD. Once again, I point the reader to Jim’s mp3 response to William. One can see that William has not refuted anything Jim stated and labors to redeem himself via his rhetoric. Maybe William would like to try again, this time sticking to the points Jim makes rather than make it personal.