More from White on the Subject of Sola Scriptura

(qtd. on: http://www.bringyou.to/apolonio/Real.htm) Gerry Matatics vs. James White, clip from "Great Debate 2" 1997 Matatics: Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord, Yes or No, Mr. White. White: I have said over, and over, and over again, that sola scriptura -- M: It's a Yes or No. W: -- is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church, not to times of enscripturation. M: So your answer is No? W: That is exactly what my answer is. M: Thank you. W: It is no. M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or No? W: No. M: Thank you White's "response" to this is: ...he's the one who took 15 seconds from a cross examination with Gerry Matatics on sola scriptura where Matatics asked if the Apostles practiced sola scriptura and I answered they did not (sola scriptura to the normative condition of the church, not to times of enscripturation, of course), and touts this as my "admission" that sola scriptura is not true, etc. I suppose I could ask a Roman Catholic opponent someday if Peter functioned as the Pope during Christ's ministry, and when he said, "Well, no, of course not" I could cut him off, make a clip, and tout it as an admission that Peter wasn't the Pope, but that kind of argumentation is only effective upon those who are not interested in the truth to begin with. I'll leave that kind of trite stuff for the political realm, where truth is irrelevant, and all that matters is what works. The point is, sola scriptura has not always been the norm for the Church, in fact, it NEVER has been for the Church. Further, though White whines about the shortness of what is quoted from that debate with Matatics, he doesn't provide us with more context here! Would more context help his case, or further Apolonio's? For the sake of rebuttal (fair use) I include the following link to the audio of that entire cross examination of James White by Gerry Matatics: Great Debate 2, Cross Examination of James White by Gerry Matatics I assert that not only is what Apolonio said furthered, but White's claims on this topic are utterly destroyed by Mr. Matatics. White introduces a straw man in his imaginary question to an unnamed Roman Catholic opponent regarding whether or not St. Peter functioned as the Pope during Christ's ministry. Mr. Matatics questions were not imaginary, nor does the context of his questions detract from the snippet which Apolonio quotes (above). What I do find a bit interesting, even in this straw man, is that White has implied that it is a "truth" that Peter was indeed Pope - and that if he were to make this sort of edit it would "only be effective upon those who are not interested in the truth to begin with." That's a bit of a diversion from THIS topic, but it is interesting to make note of. Back to the subject at hand... I reiterate, though White has attempted (his usual) distraction and character assassination tactics on Apolonio - when we look (or listen) to the actual context of what Apolonio quoted - we find that Apolonio's quote is furthered - while White's tactics here are completely invalid. More Sources on Sola Scriptura

Exposing the Baptist "Trail"

First, let's look at a common "chart" often used to
support the Trail of Blood (hereafter ToB):

http://www.exchangedlife.com/trail_of_blood.htm


(Click on chart to see a bigger image)

Let us now quote Mr. Carroll:
} The purpose of this book and chart is to show
} according to History that Baptists have an
} unbroken line of churches since Christ and have
} fulfilled His prophecy -- "I WILL BUILD MY
} CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT
} PREVAIL AGAINST IT."

Clearly Mr. Carroll is claiming an "unbroken
line of churches since Christ," and we will
demonstrate this is a lie, at least as it
relates to the Baptist churches. There were
no "Baptist" churches in the Early Church.

} The horizontal lines at the bottom have between
} them the nicknames given to Baptists during the
} passing years and ages -- Novations (sic),
} Montanists, Paulicians and Waldenses.

Why are ANY of these heresies considered "Baptists?"
PURELY for the reason that they didn't baptize
infants!? Well, let's look and see, shall we?

1) Novatians. Novatus, a schismatic Catholic priest,
named himself a pope - becoming an anti-pope.[1] So
do you really claim Novatianism as part of the
Baptist heritage? No, you really wouldn't if you
REALLY looked at history objectively. So, there's
one lie, and we still have a "hole" from the time
of Christ and the Apostles, now up into the 3rd
century.

2) Montanists. "The sect was founded by a prophet,
Montanus, and two prophetesses, Maximilla and
Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla." [2] Montanists
believed that their prophets superceded and fulfilled
the doctrines of the Apostles, do Baptists believe
their doctrines "supercede" those of the Apostles? [3]
I don't think so. Montanists believed in ecstatic
prophecying and speaking in tongues, there may be
some Baptists who accept this, but most do not.
They emphasized chastity and even forbade marriage,
now does THAT sound like a Baptist practice? No,
it does not. So, we have yet another lie from Mr.
Carroll.

The Montanists and the Novatians existed about the
same time - so we've not really progressed in time
at all in naming these two cults.

3) Paulicians. A cult which actually came out of
another heresy, that of Manichaeism. Let's look
at what the CE says about them: "They rejected
the Old Testament; there was no Incarnation,
Christ was an angel sent into the world by God,
his real mother was the heavenly Jerusalem. His
work consisted only in his teaching; to believe
in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism
and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in
John, iv, 10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless,
let their children be baptized by the Catholic
clergy." [4] Uh, oh, they let their children be
baptized by the Catholics! Does that sound like
a "Baptist" church to you? It doesn't to me!
They reject the Old Testament and the Incarnation?
Which Baptists do you know who do this? This cult
doesn't even practice adult baptism - so why does
Mr. Carroll even bother to list them? Is it
solely because they were rejected by the Catholic
Church? It certainly seems so - but nonetheless,
we have another lie from Mr. Carroll, for these
people certainly were NOT "Baptists!" We've also
expanded the "hole" for the Paulicians did not
come into existence until the mid 7th century.
We're up to some 600 years after Jesus Christ,
and still no sign of a "Baptist" church.

4) Waldenses. This cult did not begin until the
late 12th century, named after the founder, Peter
Waldo. In the early years of their cult, one
would have had great difficulty differentiating
them from Roman Catholics. They adhered to the
Seven Sacraments, said Mass and offered prayers
and alms for the dead. [5] Does THAT sound like
a "Baptist" church to you? It sure doesn't to
me!

So, in the four groups Mr. Carroll names by name,
NONE of them can be classified as "Baptists" in
ANY sense of the way Baptists today see themselves.
In fact, I'd venture to guess if ANY of these
cults co-existed with modern Baptists, they'd be
condemned for what they taught and believed.

That being said, though we've gone over 1100 years
in that statement from Mr. Carroll, his "chart"
does go back a bit earlier with another group, a
group called the Anabaptists. Even if we were to
grant him this cult - even HE documents them as
beginning in the late 4th century! (See the
chart). In the early years of the original
Anabaptists, the controversy was NOT over infant
baptism, but over who the valid minister of baptism
could be - e.g., could an heretic validly baptize?
LATER they'd debate over infant baptism. [6] The
term "anabaptists" literally means they RE-baptized
people because they considered the baptism by an
heretic to be invalid, thus the need for a convert
to be "rebaptized." The topic of baptizing infants
came several hundred years later, just prior to the
Protestant revolt. That being said, there is no
"unbroken line" for us to follow between the original
Anabaptists of the 3rd and 4th centuries, to the
more recent Anabaptists who come into light around
the 11th and 12th centuries. To claim THIS as an
"unbroken line" is just not honest - therefore, we
have just exposed yet ANOTHER "lie" from the ToB.

In summary, Mr. Carroll's "chart" is little more
than fantasy. The "red dots" which are supposed
to represent true "Baptist" churches are not
identified, but just apparently placed randomly
or even as if in a pattern, so as to allegedly
demonstrate an "unbroken line." I can get a
crayon out too and make a few more "red dots" on
that chart, and they would be as meaningful as
the ones Carroll has given us. In short, all we
have from the ToB, and especially this chart, is
fantasy of a church which co-existed along side
the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles.
Mr. Carroll's statements are not supported, nor
are they supportable. It should be quite clear
to anyone who objectively looks at this "chart"
that there truly is no "Trail of Blood" giving
the Baptists an "unbroken line" back to the
Apostles. This is purely a weak attempt to
answer to the Catholic claim of an unbroken
line of succession all the way back to the
Apostles. Unlike Mr. Carroll's unsupported
claims though, Catholics can not only name the
churches - they can name the bishops who sit
in Apostolic succession from the Apostles.

That being said, whether or not you agree with
the Catholic position on Apostolic succession,
you CERTAINLY cannot honestly look at the ToB
and believe the stories and tall tales Mr.
Carroll would have you believe.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm
[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanus
[4] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583b.htm
[5] http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/sheldon/waldenses.html
[6] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01445b.htm

Happy Birthday!

I just heard, as I was listening to the Pope's Solemn Mass of Easter that today is his birthday!

Happy birthday Pope Benedict XVI!

Cafeteria Catholics - Come NEXT Week, Please!

Those of you who have heard of the "Easter Obligation" and believe that you, as a Catholic, are supposed to attend Mass at least once per year and if it be once per year that it be on Easter Sunday - are sorrily mistaken! Once per year you pack our pews with hypocrisy - and you're only fooling yourselves! It is the OBLIGATION of EVERY Catholic, under the penalty of MORTAL SIN to attend Mass on ALL Sundays AND Holy Days of Obligation. If you're NOT attending EVERY Sunday AND Holy Day, then you're in mortal sin - I certainly HOPE you do not approach the altar and receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord in the Eucharist! To do so only INCREASES your SIN - IF you have not first gone through the Sacrament of Penance (Confession) and SINCERELY confessed your sins AND sincerely resolved "to ammend my life and sin no more," (from the Act of Contrition, do you remember that?) meaning that you have resolved to NOT avoid Mass on Sundays anymore, and that you WILL be there EVERY Sunday AND on Holy Days of Obligation. IF you have done this, I welcome you back with open arms and unending rejoicing! IF you show this year with no intention of being there next week - why bother? You're NOT a practicing Catholic anymore - so who are you really fooling here?

What you've likely confused here is the requirement that every Catholic must participate in the Eucharist at least once during the Eastertide. Eastertide begins with the First Mass of Easter (during Easter Vigil) and ends at Pentecost. ONCE during that time you MUST participate in the Eucharist, and to do so if you have ANY mortal sin on your soul (like not attending Mass every Sunday and Holy Day) then you must FIRST participate in the Sacrament of Penance (Confession/Reconcilliation). So, if you have not gone to confession yet - why bother showing up for Mass this ONE TIME? You are morally forbidden from receiving the Eucharist and this "one time" attendance does NOT fulfill ANY requirement of Catholicism if it is only this "one time" per year. The requirement to participate in Eucharist at least once per year does NOT excuse anyone from attending Mass EVERY Sunday! What it REALLY is, is a requirement to get to Confession at least once per year! You still MUST attend Mass EVERY Sunday, even if you're in mortal sin - you just cannot receive the Eucharist until you've reconciled through the Sacrament of Penance. Again, IF your confession is valid, so is your contrition, and if you didn't MEAN IT when you resolved to ammend your life, then your confession is not valid and you still should NOT receive the Eucharist.

So, if you THINK that you MUST merely attend Mass once per year - the "law" you've misunderstood gives you from Ash Wednesday to Pentecost. Do the rest of us a favor, don't hypocritically fill our pews on Easter Sunday! Come NEXT WEEK so my family and I actually have a place to sit on Easter - OK? While you're at it, try studying your Faith a little - and come to the realization that this once a year gig is NOT fulfilling ANYTHING. If that's ALL you're going to do - don't bother, you're just wasting your time and occupying space. Now again I repeat, if you're going to ammend your life and truly be sitting next to me next week and EVERY week, I welcome you back with open arms! I rejoice with the angels in heaven! If our churches were filled EVERY week, like they will be this Easter Sunday (tomorrow) then we'll be opening more churches (again) and having more Masses every Sunday to accomodate - THIS WE WELCOME!

In JMJ,
Scott
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com