Saint Thomas Aquinas

Thursday, March 13, 2008

James Swan over at Beggars All closes thread on Luther. Damage control for White and Co.

James Swan said...

Thank you all for your comments. This comment thread is now closed.

6:58 AM, March 13, 2008

View entire thread here. Busy Minds Are Working to Make Black=White


Now that it is plain to see that White and Co. have been exposed as complete charlatans of the apologetics world, Swan closes the thread on the Luther subject so they can no longer be held accountable for their haphazard positions they took on this Luther mess. I also noticed he removed my reply to James White on the thread below on his blog titled Catholic E-pologetic Methodology #3 where White attacked my character. Thats OK, I put a copy of it in my blog on the thread below, so all is not lost. The point is these guys are not honest people. They will do anything to win a debate, or to make someone else look bad. Yet White has made a huge mistake that no real apologetics scholar would do. He based an argument on his video on an event that did not happen yet, (the rehabilitation of Martin Luther by the Pope.) and the "event" has now been exposed as a false rumor. These guys are not worth the time to engage in serious dialog with. I thought it might have been fruitful to bring some evidence to show them the truth of the Catholic Church by real research and documented sources, but it is painfully evident that they are unwilling to be open in their dealings with the public.

To see this video of White's on Luther you can go to http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/ and go down to his video Martin Luther ex-heretic. He may remove it before long. He begins the video with "it seems that this will happen" and then he launches into an attack on the Church and then mocks older Catholics, and then says that "he saw this coming" and continues on to assume that all of these Roman Catholic apologists will be left in some stupor that they will all have to apologize for. Then he tells us that the Roman Catholic Church is changing, and that Pope Benedict XVI is not consistent with prior Popes before him, and yet doesn't give us one example of what he is talking about. I guess he is talking about the rehabilitation of Luther, which hasn't happened! Is this what is the best the Reformed Protestants have to offer? Then White concludes his video with a little comment on how, when we as Catholics deny Sola Scriptura this is what we can expect. Who owes the apology here? One that bases an entire video off of a farce, or Dave Armstrong, Steve Ray, Art Sippo who at least bring some substance to the table? Once again the evidence is before all to see.



9 comments:

James Swan said...

I also noticed he removed my reply to James White on the thread below on his blog...

On my blog, right side: "Information About commenting On This Blog"

See point #5

Matthew Bellisario said...

So we see how you operate James. White can get on your blog and insult me, but when I retort I get erased. Nice. If you and your cohort can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Matthew, I read your comments on Beggars All and thought I would check out a fellow commenter's blog. James White typically insults someone on his blog where he doesn't allow comments and then goes on his radio show and during an one-hour giggle session demand that you call in and debate him. At least that is how it went with me when I stated that he misused plurium interrogationum in his cross-examination portions of his debates with Catholic apologists. However, rather than responding to him in the matter he wanted, I backed up my claims in writing which to date he has never actually addressed (aside from a couple oblique remarks on his radio show). Since you mentioned you like debates, I am providing you with the link to my paper: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/defense-of-my-opinion-on-james-whites.html.

What I found so silly about Mr. Swan's comments is the fact that he tries to portray the Church having more authority than what the Church itself claims so he can refute the zeitgeist version as opposed to the real thing. The Catholic Church can objectively condemn a person's actions, but it can not damn someone to hell. I commented to Mr. Swan's article because while he acknowledged that the Catholic Church claims that it never damned Fr. Luther, he basically claimed that the Catholic Church was dishonest in saying that. Apparently, he forgot that the Church does not have the authority to contradict the clear texts of Scripture which state that Jesus alone has been given the authority to judge.

Anyway it is a badge of honor to be insulted by Mr. White. It usually means that you are right. He likes to mention 1 Pt. 3:15 as a sort of mission statement, but like all anti-Catholics he leaves off the "but do so with gentleness and respect" part in verse 16. I guess the Greek text that his NASB version is based on has a double top secret super duper exception written in it when it comes to rascally Romanists like you and me.

Anyway, I will check back again. God bless!

rr1213 said...

Don't lump all Protestants together on this one. Below was my initial response to the newsreport.

"I'll believe it when I see it. The media has a strong propensity to get it wrong when it comes to reporting on developments in the religious sphere. My totally uneducated guess is that whatever Pope Benedict says about Martin Luther will prove to be a bit more subtle or nuanced than what is being suggested in the Time article.

But in any event, if there is a marked departure by the Pope with respect to the Church's view of Luther, isn't this just going to kill the Traditionalist Catholics? (And, even, maybe some of the non-traditionalists who post on these boards!"

http://www.surprisedbytruth.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5832

Matthew Bellisario said...

I do not think anything is going to come of this that is going to be of any significance regarding the Catholic Church or its doctrines or dogmas. I am not too worried about it.

Matthew Bellisario said...

It is also important to understand that the Pope cannot change doctrines or dogmas anyways. As far as Martin Luther goes, we know that many of his positions were heretical, that is a fact. If the Pope comes out tomorrow and says he wasn't that bad, or any number of things about him, it doesn't change anything. Doctrine and Dogma cannot change, and that has been a fact of Catholic history for 2000 years. So in short, I am not really concerned with what the Pope may or may not say about Luther. This whole issue is addressed to James White who took a cheap shot at Catholics on his video.

Kepha said...

Mr. Bellisario,

You come across, at least to me, as someone who really knows his stuff, and knows he knows his stuff, and very confident in your challenges to Dr. White; I was wondering if you have any academic training/degrees in the areas that you talk about? In all fairness, if you do not, then how can Dr. White, who's now working on a second PhD, and James Swan, who's working on a Masters, be expected to take up your challenges? Surely you know that they've been dealing with lay-Protestant-converts-turned-Catholic-apologists for years now.

Matthew Bellisario said...

In these days far too much focus is given to degrees and PHDs. In fact we can get down to looking at accreditation and so forth and see that many of these "apologists" have no accredited degrees at all. I find it interesting that debates are turned down based on someone's level of "degrees" instead of looking at the argument and evidence presented. A debate is not based on anyone's academic accomplishments. It is the argument put forth and the evidence brought to the table.

I am in no way discounting anyone's education, including James White's. This however is not the be-all, end-all when it comes to apologetics or debates. If we were to get into stacking up one's academic credentials against one another we would never get anywhere. Those who have PHDs from prestigious universities would never stoop down to those who did not, and we would not have the great deal of apologetics information that we have today. After all, why should a scholar from Oxford pay attention to someone who has a degree from Grand Canyon College or Columbia Evangelical seminary? I am being factitious here of course. I do not have any formal degrees in theology. I have taken some classes from Notre Dame on early church history and so forth. I do however engage in my own research and I have a library well over 1000 volumes. I may not have a formal degree in theology, but I can bring forth substance to the table of any debate. When it comes to apologetics, it is not just the apologist and his credentials that matter, but where he gets his information from, and how he presents it. No matter how many degrees you have you can never know it all. This is why apologists must know their sources. I hope this answers your question. God bless.

Kepha said...

Mr. Bellisario,

I totally understand where you are coming from. I myself have no degrees, and, like yourself, research on my own. I was just curious.