tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8073732324432365035..comments2024-03-29T11:42:22.427-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Sungenis AloneJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69930150330487411232011-04-26T10:50:13.277-04:002011-04-26T10:50:13.277-04:00Mr. Swan:
here is the addition I made to my arti...Mr. Swan: <br /><br />here is the addition I made to my article: <br /><br />[April 26, 2011. Please note: I have revised this article to remove some language that was uncharitable to James Swan, James White, Steven Hays, Turretinfan and David King. It was unfair of me to paint them with a broad brush-particularly when such is an exercise in fallacious argumentation-which the reader knows I abhor and have commented on several times here. Over at his blog, Mr. Swan was correct for calling me to account for saying what I said about him and about "Calvinist" apologists in general when my focus should have been kept on the remarks of Mr. Bugay. As I said there, and as I will here-I apologize to all of the aforementioned gentlemen for the over-generalization.]<br /><br />I also redacted what I believe was not appropriate as well.<br /><br />Again, thank you for correcting me.Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70147420488076842862011-04-26T10:38:03.409-04:002011-04-26T10:38:03.409-04:00Mr. Swan, Please note that I used the word "...Mr. Swan, Please note that I used the word "Will" before my inflammatory coment. I erred in including However, to the point you are making, I do admit that my remarks are over the top and for that I do apologize. As one of your compatriots pointed out, my wordings tends towards the bombastic. I know that I make mistakes and since I do take ownership of my words, I will tone down the offending language in my post. I certainly do not believe that all Calvinists are that way. Thank you for that correction! I deserved it. <br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80708664553878137542011-04-25T23:52:21.932-04:002011-04-25T23:52:21.932-04:00And what might be the reaction if you, James, char...And what might be the reaction if you, James, charged that <br /><br />John Paul II <br />1. Invited pagans to pray to their false gods.<br />2. Looked the other way while his clerics raped his children, and ordained faggots to say his Masses<br />3. Shuffled pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish, even giving them safe haven at the Vatican.<br />4. Subjected those Catholic who dare protest to droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about “submission” <br />5. Watched scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said.<br />6. Suggested that hell might not exist.<br />7. Suggested that the Jews still have their Old Covenant<br />8. Kissed the Koran<br />9. Made it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in official writings<br />10. Accepted the tenets of evolution.<br />11. Wrote a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities.<br />12. Changed the canonization laws: marriage laws, capital punishment laws, laws about women’s roles.<br />13. Went against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings.<br />14. Failed to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies.<br />15. Protected Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican.<br />16. Ignored the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre)<br />17. Exonerated Luther<br />18. Allowed the Luther‐Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high‐ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that “man is justified by faith alone.”<br />19. Disobeyed the Fatima request to consecrate Russia.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-17256252046681843952011-04-25T22:55:49.227-04:002011-04-25T22:55:49.227-04:00Paul it took a while, but I found this mean nasty ...Paul it took a while, but I found this mean nasty post I wrote about you:<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/response-to-paul-hoffer-on-luther.html<br /><br />Sorry, I'm a calvinist, so of course I wrote such awful things about you. Notice the meanness that dripped from my every word, slander after slander about you.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-77368044378806499042011-04-25T22:46:03.446-04:002011-04-25T22:46:03.446-04:00Paul Hoffer says:
God bless!
Over on his blog, P...Paul Hoffer says:<br /><br /><i>God bless!</i><br /><br />Over on his blog, Paul Hoffer says:<br /><br /><i>Will we soon see articles written by Mr. Swan, James White, Steve Hays, David King, and Turretinfan chiding Mr. Bugay for his lack of scholarship or will they close ranks and attack me for pointing out the obvious double standard? Well, they are Calvinists and if they stick to their usual modus operandi, I am sure to see derogatory articles about yours truly if they even bother dealing with this matter at all. </i><br /><br />Paul,<br /><br />You are a week behind. <br /><br />I'm trying to think, where are my "derogatory articles" about you? Please refresh my memory.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65807249805309170522011-04-25T18:52:24.336-04:002011-04-25T18:52:24.336-04:00Hello Mr. Bugay, I updated my article to incorpora...Hello Mr. Bugay, I updated my article to incorporate the source of your "Pope Benedict quotation." I do look forward to your response.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79315896376887006252011-04-25T14:27:27.615-04:002011-04-25T14:27:27.615-04:00"but I was saddened to read this and wanted t...<i>"but I was saddened to read this and wanted to give Scott my deep condolences. <br /><br />I am so sorry about the loss of your daughter, Scott."</i><br /><br />Triple ditto.<br /><br />I'm sorry for your loss too, Scott Windsor.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-8349235920247113212011-04-25T14:20:14.734-04:002011-04-25T14:20:14.734-04:00I haven't done that much here since my daughte...<i>I haven't done that much here since my daughter's illness and passing</i><br /><br />I haven't commented much in months and am reading this post late, but I was saddened to read this and wanted to give Scott my deep condolences. <br /><br />I am so sorry about the loss of your daughter, Scott.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59611099989117308362011-04-25T09:27:30.014-04:002011-04-25T09:27:30.014-04:00You wrote: "I did not "create" a m...You wrote: "I did not "create" a misapprehension. I may have sought to perpetuate an "apprehension" that many have, including Sungenis, who is on your side."<br /><br />I respond: Perpetrating a misapprehension here is creating one here since you posted here. Repeating a lie doesn't make the statement any less of a lie, does it?<br /><br />You wrote: "And I prefaced my comment by saying that such a thing would have offended me back in the days when I was Roman Catholic."<br /><br />I respond: So what? Reconcile your statement above with Romans 1:32. <br /><br />You wrote: "That it has not been translated into English [in any official way -- there are more extensive translations] -- does not remove the potentially caustic nature of what he said."<br /><br />I respond: Do please link us to one a more extensive translation. I would like to see how such differs from what he has taught since 2001.<br /><br />You wrote: "One might well ask, why do they not translate this work into English, as readily as they have translated some other works? Are they trying to hide something?"<br /><br />I respond: Why have not Protestants translated everything Fr. Luther or John Calvin wrote into English? What do you folks have to hide?<br /><br /><br />You wrote: "I'll ask further, why is it so hard to find an index in a Ratzinger book? Is someone trying to cover his paper trail?"<br /><br />I respond: My goodness! Why not look to your own house first and work on providing attribution for your quotes rather than speculate about why some works of a particular author provides an index for your personal ease? The fact that Fr. Ratzinger took the time to publish the text of a speech he had given is suggestive that he has nothing to hide at all. Why didn't Marin Luther or John Calvin publish everyhing he wrote with an index in English? For that matter, how come you don't publish an index with everything you post here? <br /><br />You wrote: "At any rate, I'm preparing a much more thorough treatment of all of this."<br /><br />I respond: I look forward to seeing the lenghts you will go avoid apologizing to your readers for posting something that was not true.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20662839878859307242011-04-25T09:27:14.899-04:002011-04-25T09:27:14.899-04:00Mr. Bugay:
You wrote: "Then your "Just...Mr. Bugay:<br /><br />You wrote: "Then your "Just in case" blog article is also premature." <br /><br />I respond: I am not the one who posted something without giving it attribution. The fact that Mr. Sungenis posted something without attribution is reprehensible as well. I will state that Mr. Sungenis also stated that this sort of statement was never "reiterated", something you left out of your positing.<br /><br />You wrote: "Ratzinger has taught many things over the years, and it should not be in question that in his early years, he was a liberal. This is not in question."<br /><br />I respond: Well the problem is that you cited to the work as if it were a present authoritative expession claiming that it was a "betrayal" of Church doctrine. Your sophistry is no less an attempt to obfuscate that.<br /><br />You srote: "What should alarm you is the ease with which he slipped into a more "conservative" posture."<br /><br />I respond: Again, more obfuscation. Whether he is a liberal or conservative is of no import to me. The issue is whether he taught anything that is contrary to the teachings of the Church itself-a question you have not yet answered. You claim that Pope Benedict XVI "betrayed" the teachings of the Church. I have challenged your assertion.<br /><br />You write: "Why are you concerned with alleged inconsistencies in what I write? I am a mere blogger. Ratzinger is your pope now. Do you accept everything unreservedly that he has said?"<br /><br />I answer: I am not alleging "inconsistency", I am contending that you posted a comment that was defamatory. Further, you are not posting as a mere blogger. You are posting as a Christian blogger and as an apologist. That suggests that you should be adhering to some sort of standard of truhfullness. Furthermore, you are posting on this website which holds itself out as persuasive resource on behalf of Reformed theology and as an opponent to the "Roman" Catholic Church. So you are anyhting but "mere".<br /><br />As for whether I accept what Pope Benedict XVI teaches unreservedly, my assent to Catholic teaching is not a blind or implicit faith but a question of willing obedience. There are mechanisms for examining and questioning one's teachings of an authoritative figure, whether he be a priest or a pontiff. My allegience to the Church requires me to do so within the parameters of the Rule of Faith. If I was so unreservedly accepting of what the Pope teaches as a part of the ordinary magisterium, I would not have taken the time to investigation and write the article questioning your mis-quoting somehting he wrote as a young man decades ago. The question is why are you so willing to accept without investigation a quote that he supposedly made in 1966? What does that say about the notion of "private judgment"? And given the fact that you were wrong here about what Pope Benedict XVI has held and taught since before he was elected as pope, why should anyone accept as truthful anything you write unreservedly?Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88884827446339087112011-04-25T06:49:22.571-04:002011-04-25T06:49:22.571-04:00Thus, your accusation of double-standards is prema...<i>Thus, your accusation of double-standards is premature.</i><br /><br />Then your <i>"Just in case"</i> blog article is also premature. <br /><br />Ratzinger has taught many things over the years, and it should not be in question that in his early years, he was a liberal. This is not in question.<br /><br />What should alarm you is the ease with which he slipped into a more "conservative" posture. <br /><br />Why are you concerned with alleged inconsistencies in what I write? I am a mere blogger. Ratzinger is your pope now. Do you accept everything unreservedly that he has said? <br /><br /><i>it would have been far more impressive of you to correct the misapprehension you created in repeating the quote claiming that Pope Benedict XVI denied the Real Presence and Eucharistic Adoration rather than just removing it.</i><br /><br />I did not "create" a misapprehension. I may have sought to perpetuate an "apprehension" that many have, including Sungenis, who is on your side.<br /><br />And I prefaced my comment by saying that such a thing would have offended me back in the days when I was Roman Catholic. <br /><br />That it has not been translated into English [in any official way -- there are more extensive translations] -- does not remove the potentially caustic nature of what he said.<br /><br />One might well ask, why do they not translate this work into English, as readily as they have translated some other works? Are they trying to hide something?<br /><br />I'll ask further, why is it so hard to find an index in a Ratzinger book? Is someone trying to cover his paper trail?<br /><br />Mind you, I'm not making accusations, just asking questions. Your sophist/Thomist understanding of things should be able to understand the difference. <br /><br />At any rate, I'm preparing a much more thorough treatment of all of this.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-56259799312599285942011-04-25T03:35:02.188-04:002011-04-25T03:35:02.188-04:00Mr. Bugay, since you did not give attribution, I w...Mr. Bugay, since you did not give attribution, I was not able to call Mr. Sugenis to account. However, I did note that you were merely repeating the defamation, not that you were its originator. Thus, your accusation of double-standards is premature. I will add Mr. Sungenis' link to my article as the source of your misapprehension. <br /><br />Speaking of double standards, it is sort of a double standard that you would trust the accuracy of a Catholic source merely because it supports your opinion of the Catholics Church over another that opposes your view. Also, it would have been far more impressive of you to correct the misapprehension you created in repeating the quote claiming that Pope Benedict XVI denied the Real Presence and Eucharistic Adoration rather than just removing it.Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-55971467253991252162011-04-25T03:11:49.597-04:002011-04-25T03:11:49.597-04:00Or will you admit that you merely borrowed it from...<i>Or will you admit that you merely borrowed it from an sedevacantist website without verifying the accuracy of the quote or what Pope Benedict XVI actually has taught over the years?</i><br /><br />Paul Hoffer, I did "borrow" this, but not without <i>some</i> verification, namely, that Robert Sungenis made <a href="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/pope-benedict.htm" rel="nofollow">the same naked citation, here</a>. <br /><br />Apparently, it is not safe to cite the things that this famous Catholic Apologist <i>par excellence</i>-turned-"prophet of warning" is citing; the Protestant is held to a higher standard. <br /><br />(I only note this because I note that you have not similarly called Robert Sungenis to account. Might we assume then that you are allowing this little double standard for yourself?)<br /><br />Nevertheless, I have removed the offending quotation, and I give you my personal assurance that I will not make such a mistake in the future. <br /><br />And, if you are interested in my other, somewhat-more-detailed analyses of Ratzinger's work, it is freely searchable on this site.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75840955476764425392011-04-25T00:32:12.757-04:002011-04-25T00:32:12.757-04:00Mr. Bugay: You proffered for your audience the fo...Mr. Bugay: You proffered for your audience the following quote from a work of Pope Benedict XVI:<br /><br />“Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to Church on the grounds that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects.”<br /><br />Are we to assume that you actually translated this quote from page 26 of the Sakramentale Begründung christlicher Existenz, an early work of the former Fr. Ratzinger that has never been published in English? Or will you admit that you merely borrowed it from an sedevacantist website without verifying the accuracy of the quote or what Pope Benedict XVI actually has taught over the years?<br /><br />Just in case it is the latter, I offer a corrective on my website.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86380753779137638252011-04-23T01:24:22.135-04:002011-04-23T01:24:22.135-04:00Justification IS by faith, just not by faith alone...<i>Justification IS by faith, just not by faith alone.</i><br /><br />The reason why RC Apols are quick to shout this is because their idea of faith is not the same as the idea of faith as defined by Protestants. For them, when faith is mentioned, they think it means assent like I believe that an island exists somewhere though I have never seen it. It is not trust.<br /><br />It seems clear that the one shouting <i>Justification IS by faith, just not by faith alone.</i> has a different understanding of faith and has not the same object of faith as the one who says <i>Justification IS by faith alone</i> <br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887169410291453228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44725923986756822502011-04-22T16:44:46.016-04:002011-04-22T16:44:46.016-04:00The distinction between "by faith" or &q...The distinction between "by faith" or "by faith alone" is a Erasmian-style waffling, afraid to say what it really is.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7270344147323305372011-04-22T15:06:58.871-04:002011-04-22T15:06:58.871-04:00Here is an online link to Martin Luther's &quo...Here is an online link to Martin Luther's "On the Councils and the Churches" where he gives his opinions of the 5th century controversies and the relationship of faith and good works:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/worksofmartinlut009285mbp#page/n221/mode/2up" rel="nofollow">http://www.archive.org/stream/worksofmartinlut009285mbp#page/n221/mode/2up</a>Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81991595830788604762011-04-22T14:59:37.109-04:002011-04-22T14:59:37.109-04:00In his book of "Councils and Church" (15...In his book of "Councils and Church" (1539), Martin Luther employed the metaphors of the 5th century Christological controversies (Nestorianism and Eutychianism) to illustrate his view of the relationship between faith and good works. <br /><br />If I understood Luther correctly, these two belong together "WITHOUT SEPARATION AND WITHOUT CONFUSION", just like the two natures of Christ. <br /><br />And like the divine nature of Christ was before the Incarnation His only one, and thus inherently "superior" to Christ's human nature, so the faith is inherently superior to good works and necessarily precedes them - even though faith and good works must exist in "hypostatic union" in the lives of every true believer.Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13296824347561324562011-04-22T13:43:32.096-04:002011-04-22T13:43:32.096-04:00Great one, Rho; a well-written and concise gem.
U...Great one, Rho; a well-written and concise gem.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I do not agree with all of it. I maintain (and I may be alone on this, but here I stand ...) that good works do not necessarily follow from justifying faith, even though I agree we cannot help acting on what we believe.<br />If we believe that we are justified before God through Christ, this being the faith that justifies, we cannot help act a certain way (as Hebrews 4 says, "let us boldly approach the throne of Grace with a clear conscience" this being done due to what we believe). But will having this justifying faith imply that I will necessarily do the upright things more than I did before? No. (In fact, emphasising this, mostly due to bullying from the works-based people, has led people to teach their flock not to live by faith, but by sight: you will know that you are justified, because you will have to be doing more of the upright things. But we live by faith, not by sight.)The 27th Comradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08490992094734826485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14093449177876109102011-04-22T13:38:25.092-04:002011-04-22T13:38:25.092-04:00Scott Windsor said: I haven't done that much h...Scott Windsor said: <i>I haven't done that much here since my daughter's illness and passing</i><br /><br />I just wanted to say Scott that I'm sorry for your loss. I can't imagine how hard this hit you. My thoughts and prayers go out to you and your family.<br /><br />God Blesszipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26606868137638419552011-04-22T13:20:25.033-04:002011-04-22T13:20:25.033-04:00Don't just yell "James 2!!!!"<a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/12/read-this-before-yelling-james-2.html" rel="nofollow">Don't just yell "James 2!!!!"</a>Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69025091597775794772011-04-22T13:10:11.920-04:002011-04-22T13:10:11.920-04:00@Brigitte, CathApol:
Justification is by faith alo...@Brigitte, CathApol:<br />Justification <i>is</i> by faith alone. Understand your James well. Even the Abraham example that James gives is of Abraham's works, which come chapters after "Abraham believed, and it was merited to him as righteousness."The 27th Comradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08490992094734826485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24414698787505997022011-04-22T09:20:29.675-04:002011-04-22T09:20:29.675-04:00Alan,
I'm pleased to see that you accept that ...Alan,<br />I'm pleased to see that you accept that justification is NOT by faith alone!<br /> <br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-55621514510020348992011-04-22T08:35:31.898-04:002011-04-22T08:35:31.898-04:00Justification IS by faith, just not by faith alone...<i>Justification IS by faith, just not by faith alone. We have St. James' backing on this.</i><br /><br />Just not the aforementioned high-ranking Cardinal's backing on it.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58228237500003602752011-04-22T08:08:30.750-04:002011-04-22T08:08:30.750-04:00If Luther became less and less desirous to be &quo...If Luther became less and less desirous to be "reconciled" as time went by, he can hardly be blamed, considering how badly he was treated by Rome.Steve Polsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02089143946289641707noreply@blogger.com