I wouldn’t usually highlight a post from Dr James White since I am sure 99% of the readers here also read his blog, but this post was so excellent that it just needed to be pointed out.There was a discussion on another blog about the Francis Beckwith conversion in which one of Beckwith’s friends responded to Dr White’s comments. Dr White’s response (posted on the AOMIN Blog) is a must read for anyone who cannot understand why 1) Rome teaches a false gospel, 2) Why we cannot call those who confess a Roman Catholic faith “brothers/sisters in Christ” and 3) Why we must oppose Rome rather than drink the ecumenical kool-aid.
Some highlights:
“How can one say "faith alone, Christ alone, to the glory of God alone" and then say "propitiatory Mass that never perfects, grace mediated through Mary, temporal punishments, purgatory, and satispassio"? Or to return to the Galatian context, what basis does anyone have to believe that one can say "faith alone in an all sufficient Christ" and "circumcision necessary to have true faith in Christ" at the same time without involving such a contradiction as to render words meaningless? What is it about the Galatian heresy that rendered its proponents anathema that is not present in the pantheon of Roman additions to the gospel? How many times does Rome have to say "no, no, faith alone is not sufficient, you need sacraments, you need the priesthood, you need indulgences, confessions, penances, and a never-perfecting re-presentation of Calvary" before she catches up with the Judaizers in Galatia?”
“Dr. Bauman, every single Judaizer in Galatia could have answered your questions above "correctly." Yet, they were pronounced anathema by Paul. Why?” [in response to Bauman’s assertion that Beckwith would likely answer yes to questions of believing in Christ’s death & resurrection]
“Frank Beckwith does not define Roman Catholicism. Rome gets to do that. If you truly believe that as long as a person says they are a Christian, it matters not what the substance of their profession is, then I must believe you find the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses good "brothers in Christ" as well? Why draw any lines at all? Maybe the Christian/Muslim woman up in the Northwest has it right?”
If you have not read the whole post, please do so.
Posts
18 comments:
"...faith alone is not sufficient..."
True.
"“Frank Beckwith does not define Roman Catholicism"
This is also true--but I'll take Dr. Beckwith's understanding of it over Mr. White's any day.
Yes, Doc., is absolutely right: the issue is not does Dr. Beckwith believe in Christ, but whether he believes in Christ alone.
As a new seminarian of the Friars of the Immaculate wrote to my parish:
"It is the Will of God, 'You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.' (Matthew 5:48) Might we be so blessed to come by this way of perfection through Mary. To share this devotion is to share in a special way all of the sorrow and glory of Mary."
How sad that this is the Gospel for some.
Who are the modern day Pharisees? First, let's consider what the Pharisees actually did. They did not beleive in a laddder of human works by which to save themselves. They believed the following:
(1) Salvation by physical descent. This is equivalent to infant baptism today. The belief that covenant membership is inherited from parents and the 'covenant sign' should therefore be given to the faithless children.
(2) Rejection of baptism. They believed they were already saved and didn't need it. The same goes for Protestantism today.
(3) Some of what God said is more important than the rest - some can be left undone. The same goes for Protestantism and Catholicism today. They each have parts of the New Testament they just simply ignore.
(4) Showiness. Long robes, long prayers, trumpets to announce their alms, etc. Sounds much like Catholicism with the priestly robes, rings, et al. but also like Protestantism with the attempt by each Calvinist to belittle himself more than the next by exaggerating his 'sin nature' the best he can.
I have an idea. Let's quote a protestant out of context, then coment on how sad it is that this is the Gospel for some.
Since Carrie has encouraged us to read the entire, I have done so, and shall begins a series of comments on its content. James White wrote:
>> Dr. Michael Bauman of Hillsdale College has responded to my comments on the blog entry noted earlier. I provide my response here for the simple reason that once again we have an excellent example of why comboxes are antithetical to meaningful theological exchange. As soon as I posted the link to that blog discussion, Phil Porvaznik saddled up his donkey and meandered on over, dumping a pile of his tired, worn-out, "I will keep saying this, but run for the hills and never defend myself because I know I can't" garbage into the thread, producing a flood of "go look at this link and I refuted White over here and look at this by this guy" stuff. Hence, it is simply not worth the effort for folks to try to fight their way through all the spam produced by the Porvazniks of the Internet. So I provide my reply here, a theological spam free zone…>>
Me: Typical James White tactic of “poisoning-the-well”, augmented with “the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black”. Virtually any critic of James’ produces mere “theological spam”, and uses “tired, worn-out” arguments. What I find interesting is that fellow Protestant scholars have leveled the same charges against James (e.g. Dr. D.H. Williams, Dr. Paul Owen, Dr. Carl Mosser).
Time for a reality check (IMH0)…
More from James White:
>>If Frank Beckwith once truly made a gospel profession wherein he embraced the absolute sufficiency of Christ to save outside of all human additions, eschewing Rome's man-centeredness and proclaiming the sole glory of Christ in salvation, and then knowingly embraces Rome, how can this be anything other than an act of apostasy? How can one say "faith alone, Christ alone, to the glory of God alone" and then say "propitiatory Mass that never perfects, grace mediated through Mary, temporal punishments, purgatory, and satispassio"?>>
Me: :”Tired, worn-out” argument #1 – Rome denies “the absolute sufficiency of Christ to save”.
James confuses “sufficiency” with “efficacy”. I have already dealt at length with this issue HERE and HERE .
As a Reformed Bible student said to me:
"There is no such thing as 'backsliding.' When I was saved, the blood of Jesus covered all of my sins past present and future. If I killed someone tomorrow it is already forgiven and is not a sin for me."
How sad that this is the Gospel for some.
As an Evangelical once told me:
"If I did not know that God is going to make me rich, I would not serve him."
How sad that this is the Gospel for some.
As a Baptist pastor once told our local newspaper:
"Negro people do not need white churches. Jesus doesn't want any of us to be unequally yoked."
How sad that this is the Gospel for some.
How sad that this is the Gospel for some.
Hearsay from random people is not the same thing as evaluating the doctrine of Rome from official Roman sources.
Let's quote a protestant out of context, then coment on how sad it is that this is the Gospel for some.
What is quoted out of context?
As Carrie wrote:
"Hearsay from random people is not the same thing as evaluating the doctrine of Rome from official Roman sources,or, "An unconfirmed quote from a note written by a seminarian, taken without real reference to what he means by the terms he uses is doctrine of Rome from official Roman sources."
How sad that this is the Gospel for some.
"Let's quote a protestant out of context, then coment on how sad it is that this is the Gospel for some.
What is quoted out of context?
OK. You tell me the context of the seminarian's message. Assuming the quote is correct, what exactly did he mean by "Might we be so blessed to come by this way of perfection through Mary?"
Did he mean "May Mary do a magical tapdance that makes us perfect?"
Did he mean "worship Mary and she will make you perfect?"
or just Perhaps he meant, "May we follow Mary's example and likewise answer God's call with obedience that we might be made perfect as God bids us?
You read something that mentions Mary, then put as odd an interpretation on it as you can find, then pretent you know that is what the writer MUST have intended. This you imagine is "Defending the Dospel."
How sad that this is the Gospel for some.
Dospel?
OK. You tell me the context of the seminarian's message. Assuming the quote is correct, what exactly did he mean by "Might we be so blessed to come by this way of perfection through Mary?"
Okay, I was confused and thought you were refering to the actual post but it appears you were responding to Timothy.
It would help if you quoted who you are addressing.
As a Reformed Bible student said to me:
"There is no such thing as 'backsliding.' When I was saved, the blood of Jesus covered all of my sins past present and future. If I killed someone tomorrow it is already forgiven and is not a sin for me."
How sad that this is the Gospel for some.
Yes, it is quite sad that these depraved 'Reformers' have invented a gospel to allow unrepentant sinners to go in sin thinking they are saved, and have denied 1 John 1:7-9. John Calvin the French lawyer has done the church much evil. The Lord reward him according to his works.
1 John 1:7-9 "But IF we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. IF we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
What are all these IFs then? It is plain here that forgiveness of ongoing sin is conditional. Nobody was forgiven once for all! You can't go kill someone and say "oh well, Jesus already forgave me before I did it, so it's all good, and in fact, I'm going to go do it again in a moment." NO!!!!!!!!!!! We need continual cleansing and forgivness because Jesus did not "pay my debt" or give me a one-time forgiveness of blank check--rather, he forgives me as I go IF I am walking in the light. That is, IF I am seeking to do his will and am living a life of repentance. We cannot go on living in sin on purpose and expect Jesus to forgive it. That's exactly what Hebrews 10:26+ says, that if we go in in willfull sin refusing to repent then we have stomped all over Jesus and thrown his sacrifice away and will not be forgiven.
Martin Luther at the beginning seemed to understand this, when he said in the first of his 95 Theses "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, saying 'Poenitentiam agite' etc., willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance." Yet after the heat of controversy with Rome, his attitude turns to salvation by mental assent alone without repentance and he advises Melancthon to "make your sins strong." How wicked the Protestat faith which says "sin, sin, sin. Yea, go and kill as many men as you like, for you will still be saved since you have mental assent." As Paul says "This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you: A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."
Yet, the Catholics do the same, only in a different manner. Rather than saying that their sins are forgiven once for all and thus they may sin freely in the future, they say "I will go sleep with my neighbor's wife today, and the priest will absolve me in the confessional tomorrow." Let not, therefore, the Catholic boast over against the Protestant for doing the same thing in a different way.
"Yet, the Catholics do the same, only in a different manner. Rather than saying that their sins are forgiven once for all and thus they may sin freely in the future, they say "I will go sleep with my neighbor's wife today, and the priest will absolve me in the confessional tomorrow."
Sorry dude, you don't get it.
What you describe is actually the sin of presumption.
The person who says "I will go sleep with my neighbor's wife today, and the priest will absolve me in the confessional tomorrow." has to repent of presumption that grace makes him free to commit adultery.
There is no "sin for free" ticket.
"Okay, I was confused and thought you were refering to the actual post but it appears you were responding to Timothy.
It would help if you quoted who you are addressing."
Fair enough. Sorry for the mix-up.
Ego,
Yet after the heat of controversy with Rome, his attitude turns to salvation by mental assent alone without repentance and he advises Melancthon to "make your sins strong." How wicked the Protestat faith which says "sin, sin, sin. Yea, go and kill as many men as you like, for you will still be saved since you have mental assent."
Your insinuation that Luther espoused antinomian teaching shows your knowledge about him and Protestantism is hearsay. Here is a post of Luther's sermon towards the end of his life
http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2007/11/luther-on-preac.html
I regret that I can only assume your misrepresentation is intended to simply annoy.
LPC
Post a Comment