White Mans Burden 2.2

This response was started literally YEARS ago (well over a decade), I lost track of it and found it in my "drafts" for this blog so I have reviewed it again, and though sadly the links that James Swan asked me to review no longer exist. That said there is enough here and some primary source links where we can see where White truly did lose the debate and the "bait and switch" or "shell game" he attempts is exposed and clearly shows how and why he lost and loses this debate - hands down.

Back in 2010, I told James Swan I'd be looking deeper into the White/Madrid debate, and to be honest - I lost track of that and am getting back to that now.  In the earlier post, Swan left links for me to look at, but those are no longer valid so I have found these in which to continue:

Transcript of the debate:  http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html (this link no longer exists)
Audio of debate (on YouTube):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IJYWqFjKb0 (this link is also no longer valid).
I found the vlog from Sept. 2, 2008 here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx-FsKV-GEU  (this link still works as of the date of this posting).

November 1, 1995, James wrote: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/catholic-answers-myth-or-reality-a-refutation-of-patrick-madrids-article-the-white-mans-burden-and-a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

The actual debate can be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7_Cge-p6o

White's 2012 - well, 1995 - summary response:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/11/15/catholic-answers-myth-or-reality-a-refutation-of-patrick-madrids-article-the-white-mans-burden-and-a-defense-of-sola-scriptura-vintage/ This link now takes you to White's 1995 article (cited above).

I started this article using the 2008 response, I will leave what I've entered previously, but keep in mind, that was in response to the video blog (vlog).  

September 2, 2008 - White defends himself first by attacking the response of Patrick Madrid to the 1993 debate between Patrick Madrid and James White on "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?".  White points out that Madrid uses the terminology of "anti-Catholic" twice in three sentences.  Well, I'm not sure what White's objection is here, he IS an anti-Catholic!  He opposes Catholicism!  I would not say White is anti-Catholic-persons, as he and I have long been on friendly, though sometimes on tenuous, terms.  I think he appreciates the person of Patrick Madrid but still, White is anti-Catholic!  If you're counting, I used the term 3 times in 6 sentences.

Next, White pretends he has the insight into some secret meeting at Catholic Answers headquarters where allegedly it was decided that they (the Catholic apologists) in a debate would wait until there was no time left in the debate for their non-Catholic challengers to respond and then slip in the matter of the Canon (of Sacred Scripture).  Then, with no real time to respond, keep hammering home the fact that the non-Catholic apologist cannot and/or has not responded.  He claims this is exactly what Madrid did in the debate, he waited until the second rebuttal period to introduce this topic - and since White went first, he had no chance to respond. Whether or not this "secret meeting" ever took place is immaterial. That said, White 

In actuality, it is White who brings up the Canon of Sacred Scripture first, and he does so in his Opening Statement!  White, who brought up Cardinal Newman builds a strawman and then knocks it down stating, 

"Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon but the nature of Scripture itself as originating in God."  

I'm surprised that Madrid did not pounce upon this sooner!  Yes, Madrid does not come back to this topic until just before the Cross-Examination Round, but I don't know how much more White could have said.  In White's 2012 response (to this same debate) he said "That is what I was inviting Mr. Madrid to do: show us another “infallible rule of faith.” He came up with exactly one example in response: the canon of the NT. We will discuss later why this effort failed."  There were no time constraints upon him in this 2012 response, and yet even though he stated he would "get back to this later," the only mentioning of the canon after that point was this:  "It would be profitable to examine Madrid’s statements on the canon of Scripture, and note how he had to move away from the Old Testament and use only the New (since the historical reality of the formation of the OT canon refutes his position). But such will have to be left for another time."  So, even when he has all the time in the world to respond - White has not "lifted the burden."

White then proceeds to tout that in the last 15 years (he recorded this vlog in 2008) that he has learned so much about sola scriptura, he's written books on the subject, defended the subject in debates, etc.  In short, he's setting himself up as the final word on sola scriptura - or at least A final word.

White brings out the allegation that Patrick Madrid claims he will resist from bringing out the 52 pages of Early Church Fathers so that he does not bury White in the quotes.  White scoffs and anachronistically mentions that he has the third volume of the King/Webster series on sola scriptura with over 300 pages of quotes allegedly supporting sola scriptura.   Even if the King/Webster volume was as authoritative as White insinuates it is, and he doesn't cite from it, is he not guilty of the same "bluster" he accuses Catholic Answers of?

After all the "bluster" he claims that Madrid touts that we know who wrote the book of Matthew, and the only way we know this is through our tradition.  Then White brings up unnamed modern Catholic theologians who claim "we don't know who wrote Matthew."  Without facts here to look up, I will not speculate upon who these Catholic scholars are - but I have a pretty good idea to whom White refers.  Modernist revisionism aside, we do know who wrote Matthew - and it was St. Matthew the Apostle.

The next part of this vlog is White's 20 minute opening statement from 1993.  He begins by accusing that there are always some who refuse to give Scripture its proper position.  He quotes St. Basil stating that in matters of dispute we should allow Scripture to decide between us and on which ever side we find doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the favor of truth.  Then White asks the question, "Is the Bible the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, or must we have other revelations from God?  Do we need the Book of Mormon the writings of the Watchtower... or the so-called unwritten apostolic traditions of Rome?"  Now that is NOT what the subject of this debate was!  THE subject of the debate was "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"  Next White cleverly manipulates the title of the debate, stating, "Does the Bible teach its own sufficiency to act as the sole rule of faith for the Church?"  Let us note, loud and clear, this is NOT a debate about "sufficiency" but rather "sola."  The bait and switch is in place.

Following the bait and switch above, White begins his actual debate by defining what sola scriptura is NOT.

"First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.  The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail... but the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to act as the sole rule of faith for the Church."
"Secondly it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth."
"Thirdly, it is not a denial that at times God's Word is spoken. Apostolic teaching was authoritative in and of itself.  Yet the Apostles (anecdotally) prove their teaching through God's Word."
"And finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church." 

After this he goes on to define:

"What then is sola scriptura?"  The doctrine of sola scriptura simply stated is that the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith of the Church.  All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source.  That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

Note again, the change in topic!  White continues to try to make sufficiency the matter of the debate, and not "sola."  He continues bringing up concepts of sufficiency and has abandoned sola, and then states, "The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating."  Well, so he claims, but he doesn't state where Scripture itself, or shall we say Scripture alone, teaches these doctrines.  So, since these are "not found in Scripture" - then they are "not binding upon the Christian conscience."  White defeats himself in his opening argument! If the subject of this debate were "satis scriptura"- well, let us not fall for the bait and switch!

White interrupts the opening statement here to interject more on what he means by "self-authenticating" - and again it is noted, this is NOT the subject of the debate!  White clarifies that the matter of self-authenticating is not about "canon" (as in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, noting again, it is White who brought up the Canon of Sacred Scripture).  He's essentially conceding that one cannot find the Canon of Sacred Scripture by means of sola scriptura.  He projects that later Madrid will be accusing him of claiming that just "feeling" a book is scriptural and just "feel" that it is inspired.  The fact of the matter is, nowhere within the Canon of Sacred Scripture is the Canon of Sacred Scripture defined! In fact, books were added and subtracted from the Canon for the first four hundred years of the Catholic Church and the Canon would be finalized by St. Jerome - and Jerome's Canon was dogmatically declared at the ecumenical Council of Trent in the sixteenth century!

 

Why did the Catholic Church wait over 1500 years to dogmatically define the canon? Well, as stated already, the canon was "set" in the fourth century via St. Jerome's translation of Sacred Scripture from the original tongues into the Latin Vulgate. It would not be until the sixteenth century with the dawning of Protestantism that St. Jerome's canon was contested - specifically the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals, which he did not "add" to the canon - they were already there in the Septuagint, or Greek canon, which many, if not most, Christian scholars agree - is what Jesus, as well as the Apostles and Evangelical writers of the books of Sacred Scripture, referred to and cited from - but I digress...

Back to the debate...

White continues...

Now, given this, I would like to explain how I plan on winning my debate this evening with Mr. Madrid.  Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.  Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church.  Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.  Hence, logically, I must do the following things:

• First, I must demonstrate that the Bible teaches that it is A rule of faith for the Church.
• Secondly, I must demonstrate that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church, that is, I must demonstrate its sufficiency, or in the language used in the New Testament itself, that the Bible is artios.
• And, thirdly, I must demonstrate that the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith does not refer us to any other rule of faith.

Well, again, the topic of the debate is NOT to show the Bible is sufficient, period.  All discussion of sufficiency is nothing more than a red herring argument intended to draw the audience off the scent of the REAL subject - which, again, is "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"  Whether or not Scripture refers to "another rule of faith" is irrelevant!  If the Bible does not teach "sola" then the teaching falls under its own weight.  

The above being said the Bible DOES teach that there is another infallible authority!  Sadly, White knows this, all too well, but stands in denial of the plain words of Scripture.  1) In Matthew 16:18 and 2) 18:18 we find Jesus Himself, as recorded IN SCRIPTURE stating that 1) a man and 2) a group of men can bind or loose whatsoever they choose - there is NO LIMITATION here!  Further, what they bind or loose on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven!  Now, unless White believes God would allow for error to be bound or loosed in Heaven - then these MEN have been given infallible authority - AND that authority is explicitly taught IN Scripture!  White has already lost this debate!  I realize that White will deny the passages in Matthew mean what I said here - but his denial cannot change reality.  Facts are these men were given authority to bind or loose on Earth and what they bound on Earth was bound in Heaven and this authority was not limited in scope for "whatsoever" they should bind, or loose, was bound or loosed in Heaven.  Since I believe that both White and I would agree that no error could be bound in Heaven, then this authority is infallible authority.

That being said, White continues in stating many who oppose sola scriptura use "cheap debating tricks" of trying to get the proponents of sola scriptura to prove a universal negative.  That is, to prove the non-existence of another rule of faith.  Well no, and if some non-sola scriptura debaters use such a "trick," well, they are just missing the obvious - and that is the challenge of THIS debate!  The Catholic position of Madrid is simple - NOWHERE does the Bible teach SOLA scriptura!  That which White is REALLY representing is not sola scriptura, but satis scriptura - or the sufficiency of Scripture.  If THAT were the real topic of this debate, then Madrid (myself and others who have engaged White on the topic of sola scriptura) would have an entirely different approach and argument.  We would have to discuss the difference of materially sufficient v. formally sufficient to begin with; the former can have a valid (Catholic) understanding while the latter would be a false teaching.  However, I digress, THIS debate is about whether or not Scripture teaches sola scriptura and on THAT point, White clearly loses the debate when he does the "cheap debating trick" of the "bait and switch."  By changing the subject he has essentially conceded the entire debate.

Next, White goes with his infamous pen analogy - which is, in reality, just another attempt to shift the burden of proof from himself to his opponent.  He prefaces (and I paraphrase a bit here),

IF this debate were about me having to prove there is no other authority that would be like me holding up my pen, yes, my pen, and declaring there is no other pen like this in the universe.  How would I go about proving it?  To prove there is no other pen like this in the universe I would have to go through all your purses, all your shirt pockets, all the stores in the world which carry pens, go through all the houses on the earth, go to the moon, all the planets in the solar system and the entire universe, looking for another pen like this.  Well, of course, I could not do that.  But you see it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win this debate.  All he would have to do is go out and get a Cross Medalist pen, walk up here, hold it next to mine and say, "See, another pen just like yours."  And he has won the debate.  In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than relying upon an illogical demand, or he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen."

Actually, White has merely set the terms of this debate in black and white terms (another common fallacy in debate) and has insisted upon either the absurd or that Madrid present something which is not the topic of the debate!  Remember, the topic of the debate is "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"  In short, White is attempting to set an impossible premise for Madrid to fulfill.  That being said, as we have already seen, that "other pen" DOES exist IN SCRIPTURE, (Matthew 16:18 and 18:18), so White - even in his own fallacious terms - has clearly lost the debate.

I will stop here for now. The links which James Swan challenged me to review are no longer valid, if he has another source for those links - I would be more than happy to pick up where I am leaving off here.

 

In JMJ, 

Scott<<<

Scripture of the Week

 I stopped doing this for a while because my previous instructor stopped posting a Scripture of the Week, my current one, my Chair, has been very regular so I hope to continue this again.

Verse: I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first (Revelation 2:2, New International Version)

Translation: Our love and grace will continue to grow through hard work.

Application: We may continue to lean on Him throughout the hurdles or challenges that the dissertation journey brings.

My response:

I must say when I read a verse like that the apologist in me jumps up! Not only does love and grace increase, but so does faith! So many times anti-Catholic "apologists" (a contradiction in terms, in my humble opinion) attack Catholics with the "faith alone" argument, then I have to respond with "saving faith is never alone" and if they would take a closer look at the verses they point to it is "works of the law" that scripture condemns as unable to save you. Many more modern non-Catholics, starting with Martin Luther and more precisely stated by John Calvin make the statement "One is justified by faith alone, but not by a faith which is alone" (Bauer, 2015). From someone else in that same article/response who goes by "Mr. Toodle-Ood," several other quotes and citations are made, including one from a Mr. James Swan, whom I have had many direct debates with - and also whom I would concur is a genuine authority on quotes from Martin Luther. For one such response to Swan on this very topic, I wrote a blog article (Windsor, 2016). Perhaps the chief argument I have with the statement "faith alone justifies, but not a faith that is alone" is that it is a contradiction of terms or double-speak. However, I believe the bottom line here is that non-Catholics, especially anti-Catholics, get stuck in a mantra and end up talking past Catholics and not engaging what is actually said. At one point I believe I too engaged in that sort of "debate" - but in recent years it has been my goal to hear what they have to say, and then if I can, point out the flaws in the arguments so that we can continue a dialog and learn and grow from each other.

Cordially,

Scott<<<

References

Bauer, S. (2015). Is Luther really the originator of “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone”? Stack Exchange: Christianity. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/42366/is-luther-really-the-originator-of-we-are-saved-by-faith-alone-but-the-faith-t  

Windsor, S. (2016). The fatal flaw in sola fide [blog]. Qui Locutus. http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-fatal-flaws-in-sola-fide.html (For more discussions between Windsor and Swan, see this list: http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/search/label/James%20Swan).

 

1 Esdras - 3 Esdras and the Question of a Closed Canon

I read an article by James Swan posted on Friday, June 17, 2016, wherein he states he had been challenged to defend both his and James White's position on 1 Esdras, 3 Esdras and whether or not the Canon of Sacred Scripture is indeed a "closed canon."  I will say that I found Swan's article interesting, to say the least.  It is an interesting discussion, but beyond mere interest - it carries no weight theologically speaking.

I was tempted, when I first began reading, to just dismiss the article, after all - "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" - to paraphrase St. Augustine.  Regardless of debates which may have taken place prior to the Council of Trent, the fact remains that Trent infallibly decreed the Canon of Sacred Scripture - end of story - the canon is closed.  Still, I repeat, I did find Swan's article to be interesting.

Of course, the reason folks like Swan, White, or Webster (whom Swan also mentions) will make such speculations is clear - they wish to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church to infallibly define ANYTHING.  Ironically though, in doing so they undermine one of their own pivotal and foundational tenets, sola scriptura.  Why?  Because if we define sola scriptura as the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian church, as White & Co. does, and Scripture itself records God Himself giving this infallible authority to the first leaders of His Church (Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18) then Scripture has confounded the argument of sola scriptura in CLEARLY presenting us with ANOTHER infallible authority - so much for White's definition of sola scriptura (which I believe Swan and Webster both subscribe to).  As I have previously pointed out, this is "the other pen" White has challenged others to present.

Infallibility Challenge - Part 3

On BeggarsAll (BA) PBJ and Ken responded again, here are their arguments and my counter arguments:  (quoted words in purple).

PeaceByJesus (PBJ) said...

 SW: Scripture, quoting God Himself, states that "whatever" they bind "is bound" in Heaven. That is infallibility - at least to the objective reader.

   PBJ: Which is the "no true objective Scotman" fallacy,

SW:  It's not exactly the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, though I can see how you might believe it is.  I also understand why you bring it up.  You could challenge my objectivity and/or the objectivity of my statement, which you go on to attempt (without success).   We could make this a debate about which kind of fallacy the other is using, but then we're just diverting the actual argument (known as the "red herring" fallacy, which you have been caught participating in).

PBJ continues: for objectively examined and shown, the power of binding and loosing was not a novel provision, but nowhere did it translate into ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office.

SW:  Wait, binding and loosing was not a novel provision?  Please document or retract where said binding and loosing, by men, is previously recorded in Scripture - especially such which is bound or loosed in Heaven.
SW:  Again, I am not debating the existence of an "office" at this time - I am only arguing for "the other pen" - which Ken has already conceded when he agreed that nothing fallible is bound (or loosed) in Heaven.  Surely you, PBJ, are not arguing that error could be bound in Heaven, are you?

PBJ continues:  As said, God broadly bound/binds souls to obey both civil and religious judicial magisterial judgments ("according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do" - Dt. 17:11) but as with "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it," (John 14:14) accordance with God's word and will is the condition to see this fulfilled. Only God is autocratic, not man.

SW:  More diversions.  I am not saying God cannot bind or loose.  You then assert that "God is autocratic, not man" in direct defiance of Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 - where GOD HIMSELF has stated certain men DO have this autocratic authority to bind or loose "whatever" they choose.

PBJ continues the red herring:  And nowhere is there any example or promise that an office will posses ensured infallibility when speaking according to a scope and subject-based formula, nor is this a requirement for authority or preservation of Truth and faith.

SW:  And again I repeat, let's not be diverted into a discussion of the existence of the office(s).  Of course I accept the existence of these, but THAT is not THE POINT of MY argument.  Stick to whether or not "the other pen" exists - then we can discuss/debate whether or not these "offices" existed and/or whether or not they were to continue.

PBJ still continuing the red herring:  Moreover, unlike Rome's uninspired "infallible" decrees, the writings of Scripture, as with men of God, essentially came to be held as being of God due to their unique Divine qualities and attestation, and not based upon the premise that an office of scribes was promised ensured formulaic infallibility.

SW:  And again, let us not be diverted into a discussion debate of Rome's infallibility or inspiration.  Until we conclude "the other pen" discussion - it is meaningless to proceed without a common premise.

PBJ concludes:  Furthermore, while Swan's argument was "Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture," yet even speaking an infallible Truth does not make it equal to the wholly inspired word of God, and Scripture is the only body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God, which thus possesses a unique power. (Heb. 4:12)
    5:18 PM, April 23, 2016 

SW:  Again refocusing the argument, I am not arguing against what James Swan represents as what Protestants argue, I focused on his bringing up of James White's fallacious argument of non-existent "other pen."  MY whole point is to show that Scripture itself points to "the other pen."

Then Ken said...  As "Peace by Jesus" related John 14:14 - "whatever" is qualified by the rest of Scripture, "whatever" in Matthew 16:19 is also qualified by the the context and rest of Scripture, so the "pen" is not infallible like the Word of God/ Scripture is. 

SW:  Ken, that you admit to the existence of "the pen" you concede the argument.  Either "the pen" is infallible, because no error can be bound in Heaven, or "the pen" does not exist - for the OTHER PEN which I am arguing for is that which MEN can bind or loose on Earth and IS BOUND (or HAS BEEN BOUND if you prefer) in Heaven MUST be infallible, because - and as you've already conceded, "Of course not, no error is bound in heaven." (your words on April 16, 2016 at 8:44am).  You're not going back on your word now, are you?

Ken concludes:  Local church authority is a secondary authority, a fallible authority and should be submitted to the Word of God. Your church drifted from the Scriptures and left its first love. (Revelation 2:4-5)
    11:50 PM, April 24, 2016  

SW:  Whether or not local authority is a secondary authority is not the point.  If a man or men binds something which IS or HAS BEEN bound in Heaven, then it is infallible, period.  You see, my first love is God.  I love His Word too and have never left either of them.  I embrace His Word, especially where it is clearly stated that whatever he/they bind/loose on Earth, is or has been bound in Heaven.  That's beautiful.  Don't run from the Truth.

AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradition

 

James Swam re-posted an article on the Canon of Sacred Scripture and challenged whether or not it is part of Sacred Tradition - and thus, infallible.

"The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition"

This originally appeared on the aomin blog, 03/20/2010.
"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.
One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.

And if Swan is sincere in holding to this standard, then he must reject sola scriptura for even in his source another infallible source is named!  Actually, TWO other sources of infallibility are named!  The authority of the pope (infallible authority given to one, and only one, in Matthew 16:18-19), and the authority of the college of bishops (infallible authority given to the group of the Apostles, our first bishops, in Matthew 18:18).

This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr. White held up his pen and said:

If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate. In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality, and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or, he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand." An argument like this is pointed directly at what Romanism claims to have: God's voice elsewhere besides the Sacred Scriptures. Most often those defending Romanism claim to have God's voice in Sacred Tradition. Getting them to throw this Tradition up on the table to take a look at is the problem. Typically only one thing is thrown up on the table as Sacred Tradition, the canon of Sacred Scripture. The canon is said to be an example of God's voice of special revelation outside the Bible.

The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof that a large lake is just over the mountain. 

Please note the diversionary tactic thrown in here!  The challenge is to provide "the other pen" and not only can we, we have!  This "pen argument" has been refuted so many times, it's not even funny anymore. Again, that "other pen" is the fact that Jesus gave singular authority to St. Peter to infallibly bind or loose whatsoever he chose; and likewise the college of Apostles was granted the same authority as a group.  That IS, no matter how you slice it, infallible authority which, while recorded in Scripture, is separate from Scripture.  Therefore, it is completely false to state "Catholics can't produce what the claim to have."  We can and have produced it - many times over - and yet some Protestant apologists continue to claim we have not.  Please, Mr. Swan, just look at Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 - THERE you'll find "the other pen."

The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman Catholics as to what the canon list is. The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.

I have responded to White's presentation of sola scriptura, and I did so back in 1998 to his book The Roman Catholic Controversy, also chapter 5 of that book titled, Sola Scritptura, God Speaks Clearly.   I also responded to White's arguments he made on a podcast while visiting in England.  The point remains, which again Swan appears to be attempting to divert from, that the Canon of Sacred Scripture is not found IN Scripture, thus this canon has come to us from an extra-biblical source, namely, the Catholic Church.  Swan (and White too) actually AGREE with the Catholic Church's decree on what comprises the New Testament!  They differ from us on the Old Testament, but upon what authority do they base their disagreement?  The answer to that is quite simple - they accept what the Jews decided in the New Testament era to be their "canon" (they do not use that terminology) and reject what the Christian Church (Catholic Church) determined.  In short, they side with those who reject Christ and Christianity.

Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C. Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.

This argument would be all well and good IF there were not varying canons in the first 400 years of the Christian Church!  Yes, nearly FOUR HUNDRED YEARS would transpire before the Church, and again, that's the Catholic Church, would solidify the canon.  It would be a bit more than a THOUSAND YEARS after that when the same Catholic Church would infallibly decree that same earlier canon (used in St. Jerome's Vulgate).  That infallible decree came by the Council of Trent in response to those who were attempting to CHANGE the canon.  Back to the point - for nearly 400 years there were VARYING canons.  Some included books which eventually were considered to be not canonical - while others left out books which were determined to be canonical.

To Swan's point on the Old Testament - there were at least TWO versions of the Old Testament too!  The Jews used BOTH canons until some point after the dawn of Christendom at which point they rejected the "Greek canon" (the Septuagint or LXX) and stayed with the "Hebrew canon" (pretty much that which Protestants adhere to now.  So again, those who rejected Christ and Christianity made the decision to reject the Greek canon - even though their predecessors used it (and there are good arguments that it was the Septuagint which was used by Jesus Christ and the Apostles when they quoted the Old Testament, but that's another argument for another time).  The point is, not even the canon of the Old Testament was "decided" upon definitively during the early Christian Church (Catholic) or the late Jewish "church." 

Fourth, there is no reason to assume church infallibility in order for the church to receive the canon. That is, there is no reason to assume God's voice of infallible pronouncement via an infallible magisterium. I recognize the Christian church received the canon. It does not though infallibly create the canon, or stand above the canon. The church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian church in providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer fifty years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.

Again, "the Old Testament believer" had at least TWO CANONS fifty years before Christ was born.

First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had "certainty" that it was the very word of almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite not having the alleged infallible ruling of an infallible authority. His use of Old Testament passages show a certainty that the words were God's words. Or, think of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Paul notes that from infancy Timothy "knew" the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical?

And again, Christians primarily - if not exclusively - relied upon the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament, which is NOT the canon which Protestants accept!  If Swan wants to ask hypotheticals, then let him answer this:  Why did SOME Christian believers accept the Epistles of Clement as canonical, but later Christians did not?

Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an accurate explanation of Christian reality. Think of all the New Testament writers. They freely quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source defined the canon for them. A "source" definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that "source" was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.

The Catholic argument is not that ONLY an infallible authority can provide certainty - and history bares this out.  From the time of St. Jerome through the time of Trent (about 1200 years) educated Christians did indeed have this certainty.  Yes, it was eventually defined infallibly, but that does not mean for that 1200 years Christians had no certainty.  The fact of the matter is, they had certainty AND the canon they were "certain" of is not the canon of Jews and Protestants!

How was it that Timothy had "certainty" the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God's sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the canon, my certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice of God. God used means in giving us His canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means don't need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God's word.

Again, the "need" is not for infallibility - but that doesn't change the fact that the canon was infallibly decreed.

If sola scriptura isn't sola, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic claims or argumentation. 

The notion of sola scriptura is DISproven by Scripture itself which names at least TWO OTHER SOURCES of infallibility... or back to White's fatally flawed analogy, "two other pens."

If Roman Catholic(s) have God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I'll stick with that which is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

The Fatal Flaws in Sola Fide

The fatal flaw of sola fide can be found in the ONLY verse in the Bible which uses the words "faith" and "alone" (sola fide) together.  That verse is James 2:24:

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (NASB)
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (KJV)
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?  (DRB)
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.  (NIV)
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.  (NABRE)

NO other verse uses these words together!  The ONLY place they are used together is in absolute denial of sola fide!  

Now according to the interpretation of Bradley Cochran (another blogger), even Luther's teaching on sola fide is NOT what most Protestants adhere to today. 

Luther’s notion of justifying righteousness is faith itself because faith satisfies the law.  Luther’s notion of justifying righteousness, then, was not Christ’s active and passive obedience, as in much of the Reformed versions of the doctrine of imputation.  
Furthermore, Luther’s fundamental understanding of justification is one of being “made righteous” by God’s granting of faith precisely because faith is transformational to the core of our hearts.  Luther’s understanding of “none are righteous,” is this: None are righteous apart from the heart transplant of faith, but with that transforming grace, people can be made righteous.  Luther’s understanding of “the works of the law” (pejoratively referred to today as works righteousness) is this: The works of the law are works done without transforming grace.  Good works, on the other hand, for Luther, are those done by the power of grace worked in the heart.

http://theophilogue.com/2009/01/17/what-martin-luther-really-said-luthers-sola-fide/

In other words, it is not faith alone, sola fide, which justifies - but the God given gift of faith which allows men to perform works which God sees as pleasing, or justifying.  Is the WORKS which justify, faith is the enabler to make the WORKS acceptable.  I'm not sure Cochran intended that, but that IS the logical conclusion to his argument - and that IS what Scripture tells us in James 2:24.

That being said, many Protestant sites make the claim that Luther said of sola fide, "it is the article by which the church stands; without which, it fails."  However, in doing a lot of searching for Luther actually making this statement, I've come up empty.  James Swan of BeggarsAllReformation blog also lists this among the "6 Quotes That Luther Didn't Actually Say." (Though Swan's "quote" does not mention sola fide explicitly, rather "justification" being the article by which the church stands or fails).  Did Luther himself say this?  For me, the jury is still out.  It is undeniable that many, perhaps even most Protestant apologists not only believe Luther did say it, they believe it - that their version of "church" falls if this article of sola fide falls.

In another article by Swan, from 2006, he defends Luther's use of the word "alone" in Romans 3:28.  The word "alone" does not appear in the original Greek OR Latin of this verse, it is an addition.  In Swan's article he dances around the fact, doesn't deny it - and then offers rationalization (some from Luther himself) for the reason Luther inserted the word into Scripture.  But oh, the irony!  Often when Protestant apologists are challenged with a scriptural view, they INSIST upon what was recorded in the original texts and reject ANY additions from later interpretations.  So why does Luther get a pass on this?  Why does someone like Swan support the rationalizations of Luther, and others, who argue for this addition to the text?  I submit he must do so.  If they do not defend Luther's defection from authentic scriptural text then they would be forced to admit Luther's Catholic critics were correct.  Luther SHOULD have accepted correction and not altered Scripture, but instead he entrenched himself in the error and used sarcasm as his defense.  

I'm sure Swan would be quick to point out that Luther himself pointed to other, respected, Catholics who used "alone" in reference to Romans 3:28.  The difference being, they were COMMENTING on the passage, not TRANSLATING it.  They were also contrasting "works of the law" not "works in general."  Works done in the state of grace, that is WITH faith, do indeed justify - as St. James so clearly points out and so explicitly states that faith is NOT ALONE in the matter of justification.  Even if we were to accept that "others made the same error" - why does this excuse the error?  It's still an error and still not appropriate to add interpretive words to a TRANSLATION of Scripture.  Now, if you want to call it Luther's PARAPHRASE of Scripture, fine - but let's not call it a TRANSLATION!  The fact is that MIS-translation of Romans 3:28 becomes quite foundational for the invented and anti-scriptural concept of sola fide. 
Whether or not Luther made the claim of the article of sola fide being that upon which his church, and the so-call Reformation, stands or falls - many DO put their "faith" in that article and that stance and the fact is - sola fide does not stand on its own.  Scripture does not support it and again, in the ONLY place where those two words are used together in Scripture (James 2:24) it is an explicit DENIAL of sola fide!  Come home to the Catholic Church.

AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

For more reading and related to this topic, let me recommend the following from another blogger and fellow convert:  Your Bible Probably Has a Mistranslation In It.
If you have enjoyed this article, please use the share or like buttons below it!  Thanks!

Sola Scriptura James White v. Peter D Williams

I was browsing BeggarsAll and saw an article about James White debating the subject of sola scriptura with Peter D. Williams on Unbelievable, a British webcast/podcast.  The debate took place while James was in England in 2013.  To be honest, I am a bit surprised that Swan posted it on his blog!  

While they were on-topic, Williams handled White quite well.  For followers of White, it may have seemed White was "winning," but that would have only been when Williams allowed White to redirect the debate from sola scriptura to the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Granted, White was attempting to make the argument of where does that come from in apostolic tradition?  However, the debate was not a challenge of Catholic authority, but of sola scriptura!  Williams did pretty well answering the distraction - but it was still a distraction which he could have easily dismissed (and tried to) and simply answered White's challenge of where Catholic authority comes from, and it comes from Scripture!  Matthew 16:18-19 gives to St. Peter the authority to bind or loose whatsoever he chooses and since Jesus "sent out" (that's what "apostle" means) the Apostles to do what the Father had "sent out" the Son to do (John 20:21) - then they too were ordained to continue the apostolic offices, especially that of St. Peter, who was given the coryphaeus (head) position in taking the place of the Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).  These facts put an end to White's diversion. 
 
While not being diverted - Williams took White to the cleaner!  The Fatal Flaw in any sola scriptura argument, which Williams quite eloquently elucidated, is based in the canon argument.  Since Scripture nowhere gives us an "inspired table of contents" - White, et al, is dependent upon an extra scriptura authority to give him what he claims is the sole infallible authority for the Christian Church.  The irony, as I stated above, is that Scripture itself gives us ANOTHER infallible authority - actually, at least two!  1) St. Peter's office, now held by the Bishop of Rome (from Matthew 16:18-19) and 2) the College of Bishops (given in Matthew 18:18) as the Apostles are our first bishops in the Catholic Church!  This second one is exercised through ecumenical councils.  White loses this debate, hands down.  If one truly believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then they must also yield to the authority God's Word tells us about!

Perhaps you can see why I am a bit surprised that Swan would post links to a debate which White lost - even the Protestant host (Justin Brierley) was challenging White's arguments!

So, I would recommend this debate to anyone interested in seeing sola scriptura soundly defeated.  Like I said, the only thing I can see which would have made the debate even more convincing is if Williams had not been distracted into discussing the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary for so long during it.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

[Link to the actual show]
     

Windsor on Swan on Brumley on Bouyer

James Swan, in a recent article, presents a critique of a posting in the Catholic Answers Forum on Martin Luther or more specifically Louis Bouyer's book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism.  In my humble opinion while I do appreciate that Swan appears to be attempting to find at least some "good" in the Catholic position, he is relying upon (what appears to me to be) modernistic and even revisionist theology, and totally dismissive of what he calls "pre-conciliar works on Protestantism," naming Grisar, Denifle and O'Hare in particular.  Ironically the book in question here was written ten years prior to Vatican II!  If Vatican II is the dividing point between pre- and post-conciliar, then Bouyer's book is pre-conciliar!

While I accept that at times the polemics of the other pre-conciliar authors named above, especially O'Hare, can be quite confrontational, but are or were they really "wrong?"  Why, after 490 some years of Protestantism do we NOW think Luther's ideas weren't so bad?  How can we think his several "solas" could somehow be acceptable and even aid in healing the rift between Catholicism and Protestantism?  I like the summary Bouyer uses:  "The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan's expression) or it was tragic because unnecessary."  I'm still on the side of the former - it was unnecessary and I would add, it opposes the Will of God.

If God desires that we be one, (John 17:21-23), as Scripture clearly states He does, then breaking away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is wholly contrary to His Will.  True "reform" does not happen from without, it happens from within.  That which Luther, Calvin, et al, did divided God's People and thus spits in the face of God and His Will to claim such separation is good and/or holy.  Yes, that is polemical, but it is true - and undeniable to anyone who believes the Scriptures are true and truly God's Word.  If Luther and Co. were truly interested in "reform" then they would have stayed within the Catholic Church and worked toward that reform within God's Will, and not without it.

Swan closes his commentary with the following challenge:

If the infallible Word of God is found elsewhere beyond the Scriptures (say, in Tradition or the Magisterium), scriptura is not sola.

My response to this is, as it always has been, that when Scripture itself points to other infallible sources - then those issuing such a challenge as Swan has made must reject the notion of sola scriptura. Where does Scripture itself point to these other sources? In Matthew 16:18-19 (infallible authority given to one man, who would later become the corypheaus (head) of the Apostolic choir) and in Matthew 18:18 (infallible authority given to a group of men, specifically the Apostolic choir, our first bishops in the Catholic Church). If error cannot be bound or loosed in Heaven, then the authority given above is necessarily infallible authority. So according to Swan, scriptura is not sola.

Authority of the Church Outside the Bible?

James Swan

A few months ago I was involved in a discussion at Green Baggins (GB) and one of the persons watching there happened to be James Swan.  He commented a couple times there, but unbeknown to me, he also posted to his blog, Beggars All.  I don't frequent his blog much anymore, but happened to be looking there and found an article he entitled "Sola Windsora" wherein his chief question/challenge to me is whether or not I could demonstrate the authority of the Catholic Church without using Scripture.  Here are his words:

My question to you is probably too simple compared to all the other interactions you're having at Green Baggins. I'd like to know, other than using the Bible, how do you establish that this other authority is also infallible? Or is it simply the case that you believe the Scriptures, correctly interpreted, establish the other authority?  Above you appealed to Matthew 16 and 18 ("..in relatively few circumstances, perpetual infallibility. This comes from Jesus Christ as recorded in Scripture in Matthew 16 and 18"). In other words, when all is said done, is your primary way of establishing this other authority simply an appeal to Scripture alone?

The challenge seems a bit silly to me (and I did answer this on the GB blog).  Why would I want to or even need to provide such evidence when it is already found in Scripture?   For an adherent of sola scriptura to ask me to provide him with a non-scriptural reference also seems quite ludicrous.  If he's true to his credo, why would he accept anything outside the testimony of Scripture regarding infallible authority?

To directly answer Swan's question/challenge I will say "it is simply the case that (I) believe the Scripture, correctly interpreted, establish(es) the other authority."  Does this make my "primary way of establishing this other authority simply an appeal to Scripture alone?"  Clever, well, sort of.  The fact that I only need to appeal to Scripture does not make me an adherent to Scripture alone, though I appreciate the attempt at word-play.

Speaking of word-play, I have to wonder why he entitles his article "Sola Windsora" - when clearly he's asking me to provide an authoritative source - but I have never stated *I* am that source!  I am pleased to provide references and sources for why I believe what I believe and I've never stood upon my own authority.  Maybe I should be flattered?  Regardless, the label is a bit misdirected.

I believe Swan is truly stuck here.  He either cannot or just does not respond to my challenge regarding Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18.  That challenge is "Can error be bound or loosed in Heaven?"   Both of these passages have our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ telling a man and a group of men, respectively, that whatsoever they shall bind or loose on Earth is also bound or loosed in Heaven.  So, unless Swan (or anyone else) believes error could be bound or loosed in Heaven, then we have an explicit example of Scripture, quoting Jesus Christ, giving infallible authority to a man first and then to a group of men.

A comment Swan makes, which I'm beginning to believe is "All the interactions at Green Baggins become really... a waste of time."    Well, based upon the fact that none of them dealt specifically with my response article and coupled with the fact that in the several times I've gone back to see if there is anything of substance going on there what one mostly sees is a lot of what appears to be "in-fighting" amongst themselves and branches of their fellowship, I have to agree with Swan on that one.

As Swan is concluding he points to an article by another blogger, who goes by the name of "TurretinFan" (TF) that he too wrote an article referencing me and my participation on Green Baggins!  It sure would be nice if when someone is addressing me directly in an article, that they at least let me know said article(s) exist!  Well, since I'm at this, let me respond to TF too: 

Over at GreenBaggins, Scott tried to make an argument for an infallible rule of faith other than the Bible.  He wrote: "The fact is that Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 teach that man and/or those men can bind or loose, not just sin, but whatsoever they choose."  Let's consider this argument piece by piece:
"that man and/or those men"Peter and the other apostles are gone.  Francis, like his predecessor Benedict XVI, is not an apostle of Jesus Christ, he did not personally receive revelation from Jesus as they did, It is a leap to say that the apostles could do X, therefore someone who is not an apostle can do X.

What TF has done here is admit men were given infallible authority!  He just doesn't allow for that authority to be handed down to the successors of the Apostles.

"bind and loose"Of course, "bind and loose" doesn't sound anything like "define dogma."  It sounds more like freeing people from their sins or leaving people in condemnation for their sins. 

Addressed in a moment...  it is not merely sin here - but "whatsoever" they chose to bind or loose.  The point remains, if it is bound in Heaven, then it must be infallible - unless TF is willing to say error can be bound or loosed in Heaven.

"not just sin"That sounds like Scott is saying, "sin and more."  But Rome's teaching of infallibility is that Rome is infallible only in her doctrinal and moral definitions, not in her exercise of discipline.  So, if it is "sin and more" and implies infallibility, then Scott has proved a point that is stronger than what Rome can adopt.  After all, a Roman bishop exonerated Pelagius (and then later condemned), a Roman bishop condemned Athanasius (and then later exonerated), and let's not even get into the trial of Galileo. 

The charism of infallibility does not mean that every act, even judgment, made by a pope is infallible.  What is really being said here though is that while the Church is not limited to only doctrines and morals, she does not make infallible pronouncements regarding disciplines.  If a given pope or ecumenical council were ever to bind us to a specific discipline - it would be so bound. 

"whatsoever they choose"
In Roman Catholic theology, the definition of dogma is (officially) not arbitrary.  For example, CCC 86 states:

• “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” 

Of course, I acknowledge that in practice the power is arbitrarily exercised (contrary to CCC 86), but this is just an internal inconsistency.

Likewise, to be precise the text does not mention choice, it just states that what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.
- TurretinFan

The point is not one of arbitrariness - yes, the word "whatsoever" is used - but that simply means that anything which they have bound on Earth is also bound in Heaven.  It seems TF's problem here is not with the Catholic Church, but with Scripture.

Addendum:
I just went back and skimmed through the GB responses - and while I was not made aware of the two articles posted, which I have responded to above, most, if not all, of what was in those articles was also in the comments at GB.

Did Mary Die (Part 2)

The Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is drawing to an end now for 2013, and I was just browsing by Beggars All and saw the latest article (as of the publication of this article) from James Swan, who is rehashing an older discussion from at least nearly two years ago.  Here's a link to Swan's latest article: 

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/08/remembering-assumption-of-mary.html

And here are the comments so far there, including my own:

Nick said...The text of Munificenttisimus doesn't give any indication that Mary did not die. The text does however make comments to the effect that She did die:  http://taylormarshall.com/2013/08/did-the-virgin-mary-die.html

Either way though, your overall argument doesn't hold water because the Dormition is secondary to the dogma of the Assumption itself. Even Protestants claim there are such things as non-essential aspects to dogmas.
If you want real confusion, consider the fact Protestants cannot agree on whether Jesus died for everyone or not. Svendsen denied the L in TULIP while White affirms it.

5:20 PM, August 15, 2013

Conhecereis a Verdade said...This dogmatic definition, completely devoid of biblical, patristic and historical support, is extremely curious because Pius XII could define with all certainty that Mary ascended into heaven in body and soul, but can not tell if he really died or not. Hence the obvious ambiguity of the words "having completed the course of her earthly life."
Indeed, an outstanding example of the double discourse typical of the popes.
Hugo

9:10 PM, August 15, 2013

TomiPad said...Often Roman Catholics, under the premise that only infallible statements count, their church has never contradicted itself. Rome defines what a contradiction is and infallibly defines herself as possessing assured infallibility in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria. 

10:23 PM, August 15, 2013

Scott said...
As even this article from Swan points out, there is no definition of death in MD. The closest we come to that is that it DOES define "having completed the course of her earthly life." But again, MD does not seek to define whether she died or not, but that she was taken into Heaven, body and soul, and that IS defined, and infallibly so. Whether or not she died is PURELY a distraction to the TRUE subject at hand in MD.
My initial response to Swan's article from 2011 is here: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2011/10/did-mary-die.html
Scott<<<

11:08 PM, August 15, 2013 (actual Arizona Time of posting)

In short, what I said to Swan today is a reiteration of what was said nearly two years ago.  Why the continued attempt to distract?  

Now, if Swan wants to discuss or debate "Did Mary Die?" - that's fine!  But attempting to use THAT discussion to derail the infallible definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is, simply, not THAT discussion.

AMDG,

Scott<<<


A couple more comments, as of 11am, August 16, 2013 (Arizona time)...

  Stephen Galanis said...
Firstly, Nick, "doesn't give any indication that Mary did not die" is the argument from ignorance. And you've backed up your view by citing... the infallible magisteirum? No. By citing Taylor Marshall. And he's not infallible. That's his interpretation of the magisterium. Thank you for that demonstration of real-world Catholic authority. You do see the irony of how you responded? You claim an epistemological advantage of Protestants, but if Catholics have to defend the perspicuity of the magisterium, then logically, it has already failed to be perspicuous.

Scott, you're right, there's no definition of death in MD. And you'll have to admit there is some level of confusion about whether Mary died or not. It may be a distraction, but Rome ought to settle the debate if it can. And if Rome wants to make historical claims about the assumption of Mary - and it is an historical claim - surely it knows whether or not she died? How on earth can one begin to defend "Mary definitely was assumed into heaven, but whether it was before or after her death we don't know"? Because whatever source you imagine supports the assumption (there would have been eyewitnesses - family at her deathbed, that sort of thing), that source would also contain the datum of whether Mary had died or not prior to her assumption. It's remarkable that Rome, and you, claim to know one but not the other. And what of those Catholics who died before the assumption was made a required belief? It wasn't necessary for salvation before 1950, so that just looks like Rome dictating terms to God.
6:23 AM, August 16, 2013

 Scott said...
Stephen,
Dr. Marshall doesn't have to be infallible! We're not even discussing a topic under the charism of infallibility! I do find it a bit amusing to see Protestants continue to distract this way though - who do you think you're fooling?

As for your comment to me, whether or not she actually died is not important! What is important is that she "completed her course of her earthly life" and was "assumed, body and soul into Heaven." There is no real "need" for Rome to settle whether or not she experienced physical death - her course of this life was complete, period.

As I said (on the CathApol blog) if you want to discuss or debate whether she actually died, fine - that's another discussion. We can discuss this all you want, but when you get down to it, it's just musings of folks on the Internet positing opinions (ancient and/or new) regarding this.

MY POINT is that if we're "Remembering the Assumption of Mary" (as Swan entitled his article) then let us do that! Why the distraction?

We could discuss further, as you brought up, that prior to the 1950 defining of this dogma not all faithful Catholics held to the dogma - and I concur with that. The point, as you recognized, is that after the definition was promulgated no faithful Catholic can deny it. It becomes a recognition of the authority Jesus Christ empowered His Church with and denial of that authority becomes a denial of Christ - and THAT is more relevant than whether or not one "accepts" the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Scott<<<
1:50 PM, August 16, 2013