Saturday, August 16, 2008

The Quotable Sippo #6


I have an occasional feature called, "The Quotable Sippo." It's very simple, I just let Catholic apologist Art Sippo speak for himself. Recently, Dr. Sippo provided some of his insights, and well... let's just let the good doctor speak for himself:

"You have GOT to be kidding! Swan is a throwback to an era of Protestant apologetics where Luther's mental illness, vulgarity, moral ambiguity, hypocrisy, and open dishonesty were ignored. Not even Martin Marty (himself a Lutheran) or Richard Marius (another modern Protestant Luther scholar) make any pretense about this anymore. Read Marty's short biography of Luther from a few years back and Marius' two books "Luther: An Experiment in Biography" and "Luther: the Christian Between God and Death". Swan pretends there was no dark side to Luther and as if the Protestant apostasy of the 16th century was in continuity with the previous 1500 years of the historic Christian religion. The Catholic Faith is the Faith of the New Testament, the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Saints. Protestantism is a denial of that Faith, seeking to replace it with man-made wishful thinking."


"Mr Swan refuses to admit the possibility that Luther was mentally ill. He just dismisses it all. IMHO he is dishonest in doing so. As a CAtholic, my main concern is that Luther CONTRADICTED 1500 years of Christian teaching and practice, creating his own religion and encouraging others to do so until they started contradicting his opinions. Then Luther wanted to kill them. The question to ask is: "Did Luther advocate REFORMING Catholicism or DESTROYING it?" The answer is that he wanted to totally annihiliate it. Furthermore he was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated. The excommunication remains in force. As a Catholic, that is all I need to know about him. That in itself is a greater crime than any of the mere pecadilloes that Swan wants to dismiss. And remember that the only Catholic Swan wants to emulate on Luther was Fr. Lortz, a card-carrying NAZI before and during WWII. When the Catholic bishops condemned Hitler's "Mein Kampf", Lortz wrote a pamphlet defending Hitler. Lortz's opinions about Luther were founded on the NAZI view that Germainc civilization was superior to the corrupt culture of non-Aryan Europeans. He was an asdvocate of totalitarianism and an opponent of democracy. Lortz's views are not held in high regard by Catholic scholars. But Swan thinks he was the BEES-KNEES. A murrain on Swan and his ilk! Follow where the Holy Spirit has led the Catholic Church, and let the dead bury the dead."

7 comments:

Turretinfan said...

wow

Frank Luciani said...

Hey, I like this Sippo. It looks like he's giving you right back the type of attacks you have been making against him and the Catholic Church. Its one thing to dish it out, and another to take it isn't it?

David Waltz said...

Hey Frank,

You posted:

>>Its one thing to dish it out, and another to take it isn't it?>>

Me: Precisely. Though I am no fan of Sippo’s bombastic style, his apologetic sure seems to reflect a response in kind.

I have no problem with James’ “Sippo” series; what I do have a problem with is that I (and others) have been accused of “stalking” for similar reporting on Reformed individuals. Oh well…


Grace and peace,

David

GeneMBridges said...

Follow where the Holy Spirit has led the Catholic Church, and let the dead bury the dead."

Then somebody can pray to them!

I have no problem with James’ “Sippo” series; what I do have a problem with is that I (and others) have been accused of “stalking” for similar reporting on Reformed individuals.

But you are, Blanche, ya are!

By the way, here's the difference:

According to Catholic teaching, we "Prots" are "separated brethren." That obligates you all to treat us like "brethren."

We "Prots," however, suffer from no such handicap.

We reserve the right to use harsh, judgmental language where appropriate. Invective is context-dependent. The Bible employs harsh, judgmental language for apostates, false teachers, and other enemies of the faith. The Bible is full of taunt-songs.

Remember that, in Scripture, most false teachers are professing believers. So, for us, since we make these judgments based on whether you can offer us a credible profession of faith, merely calling yourself a Christian doesn’t immunize you from judgmental language where appropriate. It is our Christian duty to analogize from Biblical cases to contemporary cases.

You, David, fit that description to a "T" as does Sippo. When you deny the clarity / perspicuity of Scripture, you get tarred with being a false teacher, and, in addition, you get tarred with forfeiting a credible profession of faith. When you turn "the Church" into a 2 headed mutant freak beast, you get tarred with being a false teacher, you forfeit any claim to offer us a credible profession of faith.

The Dude said...

Gene,
Would you say just a few, some, or many of the professing Christian writers from the post-Apostolic age to the Reformation made credible professions of faith? Did more hold to credible professions early on, then less and less as corruption grew until the Reformation? I presume the driving criteria for a profession being credible is an orthodox view of Christology/Trinitarianism (leaving aside the filioque) and sola fide as tblog says all the following are examples of credible professions:
1. The Thirty-Nine Articles
2. The Formula of Concord
3. The Baptist Faith & Message (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp)
4. The C&MA statement of faith (http://www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/doctrine.jsp)
5. The JFJ statement of faith (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/statementoffaith)
6. The EFCA statement of faith (http://www.efca.org/about/doctrine/)
7. The Campus Crusade statement of faith (http://www.ccci.org/statement_of_faith.html)
8. The AG statement of faith (http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm)

You mention sola scriptura as well, but I would think even if one did not hold to sola scriptura but did hold to sola fide, you might still consider their profession credible.
Now, you may think Buchanan's and others attempts to find sola fide throughout history are persuasive, and that's cool, but I'm just wondering when you consider all of a writer's beliefs together if you still think few, some, most could hold to a credible profession.

Augustinian Successor said...

"You mention sola scriptura as well, but I would think even if one did not hold to sola scriptura but did hold to sola fide, you might still consider their profession credible."

Actually, it's a "non-issue". Sola Scriptura and sola fide belong together, explicitly or implicitly. It's not so much the formula that counts but the basic or fundamental idea. Sola fide presupposes sola Scriptura and sola Scriptura implies sola fide.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God ...

Augustinian Successor said...

"You mention sola scriptura as well, but I would think even if one did not hold to sola scriptura but did hold to sola fide, you might still consider their profession credible."

Actually, it's a "non-issue". Sola Scriptura and sola fide belong together, explicitly or implicitly. It's not so much the formula that counts but the basic or fundamental idea. Sola fide presupposes sola Scriptura and sola Scriptura implies sola fide.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God ...