Response/Notes from Debate Between Scott Windsor and James White

A little preface. In my chat channel, #CathApol which now resides on StarLink-IRC, (we're still on Undernet too), I made a comment to someone that "James White has been proven wrong so many times, it isn't funny." Well, this got back to James, and he came into #CathApol to ask me about it. One thing led to another and he challenged me to a debate. Below are some notes from the debate, it is not a complete transcript, though most of our comments are contained herein.

The live format is James' "home" (that and books) email and the web are mine. I have taken the liberty of responding to the debate offline and then posting it to this webpage. Points I have made in the non-live setting will be indicated by being enclosed in [brackets].

Since the issue that brought James into this was based on how many times I felt he has been proven wrong, I will be adding a "Wrong Count" after each "wrong" comment from this discussion. I will put the "Wrong Count" as a number in brackets, like this: [WC=01], using this font and color. I will add, many of the places that I have labelled him as "wrong" are rooted in our differences in theology and authority - but a few of them he's outright wrong, no matter what the authority is. (In the list below, items in bold are outright wrong).

For ease of referencing this response, I am numbering the paragraphs.

1. James:

• "All of those alleged disciples, except for the twelve, walking away from Jesus."

• [A couple points I didn't catch in the live hearing:
  1. The Scripture doesn't tell us that ALL the disciples left Him - in fact it doesn't say "all" at all! Verse 67 says: "From this time MANY of His disciples turned back and no longer went with Him." [WC=01]
  2. They were not "alleged disciples," the WERE disciples - or else, as James seems to imply, this verse is possibly in error [WC=02] ]

• Coming to Him is not a physical action.

• [36. You have seen Me, and you do not believe.
• Seen = physical.] [WC=03]

• 37. All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me.
• The giving of the Father preceeds the coming to the Son.
• Only those that the Father gives will come to the Son and ALL those whom the Father gives WILL come to the Son.
• In the Greek, the act of giving happens prior to the coming.
• He places the drawing/the giving prior to the coming.

• Yes, the drawing preceeds, but the drawing was on Calvary. That was when God drew All men to Himself. [WC=04]
• WHO are the ones the Father gives? The "context" of John 6 does NOT identify this group!
• Men still have Free Will and can reject the Gift of God, which was when the Son being lifted up on Calvary redeemed All Mankind.
• [James equates the giving and the drawing as the same event, when they are not, nor does this scripture reference indicate they are one and the same thing.] [WC=05]
• The context makes no mention of those who may reject the Father's drawing. Those who reject the Gift will not be given by the Father to the Son.

• 39. Now this is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what He has given Me, but that I should raise it up on the last day.

• The key is not the drawing, but the coming.
• [What I should have said was: "The James' key is not the drawing, but the GIVING and the COMING."]
• [James claims to focus on the drawing part of this verse, but to take James' interpretation, we would have to negate the verse in John 12:32, wherein Jesus Himself declares that ALL men are drawn to Him.] [WC=06]
• [Hence, James is not really focused on the drawing, but the GIVING and the COMING, as we see later - this truly is the case.]
• [In Acts 17:30-31:

  Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." (NAS)

• The drawing happens before the coming.

• [We concur! However, James claims this happened prior to the existence of the world - but if we look at the context of the same book just a few chapters later (12:32) the drawing happens when He is lifted up (on the Cross) - this is a point I make next, see below.]

• Would you agree or disagree that the "giving" of the Father, occurs prior to the coming.

• The drawing precedes, and occurs on Calvary. We don't have an exact timeframe of when the GIVING of the Father occurs - [we only know that it happens].

• The drawing you (Scott) said we don't know when it happens. (Then he quotes verse 37 again and relates the giving and the coming - SKIPPING the drawing).

• [This is NOT what I said, I said we don't know when the GIVING happens, not the DRAWING).] [WC=07]

• "All that the Father has given me, I will not lose." So obviously, this giving must have taken place prior to Christ coming into the world. James addes, "Even before time itself, this must have taken place."

• [Whoa, hold on a second! Why must this be prior to the Incarnation? Or even prior "time itself?"
• The context is general in John 12:32, it is not specific to a given time. The drawing happens when the Son is lifted up.
• James is attempting to insert Calvin's view of predestination into this verse, where it is not indicated that this must have taken place prior to "Christ coming into the world!"
• The problem James is having here is he is attempting to put God on a linear plane of time, because that is what WE are familiar with. How can anything that God is completely "fit" into anything we, as mortal, finite beings, can understand? [WC=08]

• You said that those who persevere are the ones who will be given. Can you show us from John 6 where it says those who persevere will be given?

• It doesn't say this in John 6, and that furthers my point, that it doesn't pinpoint exactly who will be given. And we have to look to other points in Scripture to find (implications) of this, like "we are in the race, run to win." We are given Free Will and it will be those who persevere that are given. We have a choice in this matter, and if we choose to turn our back on Christ [as many of his disciples did] then we are lost again, back in the same condition, or worse, as we were prior to us coming to Him.
  • [I would also add the parable of the 10 Virgins and their oil lamps (Matt 25); 5 were wise and prepared with oil and the 5 foolish virgins, who brought their lamps - but had no extra oil. They were still able to go back and get more oil, but by the time they returned, the "door was shut." And the Bridegroom said to them, "Amen I say to you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for you know not the day or the hour." This parable is CLEAR reference that having the gift, or being drawn (symbolized by the lamp) is not enough - but we must fill that lamp with something, our good deeds done in the state of grace and reception of the Sacraments are symbolized by the oil. We cannot be caught with an "empty lamp" when the Bridegroom comes for us!
  • Please note, the foolish virgins lamps did have oil at the beginning of the evening, but ran out, and thus they needed to get more. Having ALL that was necessary at the beginning of the evening was not enough. The 5 foolish virgins did indeed have all that was necessary, had the Bridegroom come sooner - but since He came later, and they were "out of oil," they were locked out of the wedding feast!
  • What's more, even though all 10 of the virgins had everything necessary at the beginning of the evening, the word from the Bridegroom to the returning foolish virgins was, "I know you not!"
  • This parable alone squashes James' attempt to insert Calvin's concept of predestination into John 6! I wish I had thought of it prior to or during the debate! I guess in terms of this debate or at least this portion of the debate, the Bridegroom came, and I was not prepared, since this was not the main wedding feast - I may "get another shot at this" but if I don't I hope that those reading this who may confront James or another like him, will have learned from my mistake and be prepared.] [WC=09]
• [Let us take a moment to reflect on verse 37:
  • All that the Father gives to Me shall come to Me, and him who comes to me I will not cast out.
• So, we have a few points to make here:
  1. Those whom the Father gives - shall (or will) come to Him. Again I assert that we don't know, from this context, exactly who those are that will come and the verse doesn't pinpoint when that giving will take place.
  2. Those who DO come to Him, He will not cast out. This does not say that those who come cannot, of their own Free Will, leave Him, or as the context of this verse does imply, "turn from Him and walk with Him no more."
  3. The context also only indicates that the drawing must take place first. Then, those who are given from the Father will take place at some undisclosed, but definitely later date. Then, those who are given will definitely come.
  4. So there are three items that must follow this order: 1) Drawing; 2) Giving and 3) Coming. What is not spoken of here is one who may be drawn, but fails to persevere and/or ends up rejecting the Gift of God.

• Back to verse 39: "Is the Son able to do the will of the Father?"

• [James again focuses on the giving and the coming, avoiding the drawing.]

21. James:

• Next James raises the point of dedkwen, a perfect tense verb a completed action of the past binding an event of the future.

• You cannot take this one verse out of the context of the rest of Scripture, and to dissect this one word, I believe you're looking at it with too fine a microscope [and therein losing the macro - or big picture - in the scope of the salvation story].
• [I also add that this very well could be [and is] refering to a future event such as I can promise to give you something in the future and refer to that as a past "giving" when compared to another future event that is even further into the future.]
• What's the purpose in "persevering to the end" if it's already a "done event?"

24. James:

• So you believe it is putting this under too fine a microscope and this refers to a future event even though the passage indicates otherwise?

• You have to remember that God is not limited to our [concept of] time. God is eternal [and exists before, during and after our existence]. He knows all that we will do and decide to do because He has seen it already. [God "remembers" our future for He is not limited to our linear view of time. He is eternal, with no beginning and no end and exists in eternity.]
• God knows all, but part of His Will was to give us Free Will so that we could choose Him.
• [ Robert Sungenis contributes this after reading about what transpired:

  The perfect tense of dedooken is not crucial. White is taking it to mean that the Father chose everyone without their free will, but the text does not say that.

  From our perspective, it is very easy to interpret this as the Father having given to Jesus those who responded to the grace the Father gave them. They respond by their free will.

  In fact, the next verse, John 6:40, uses "sees" and "believes" in the Greek present tense, active voice, showing that the people are seeing and believing at the present time, by their own wills (Greek active voice, not passive), and it is the Father's will that each one who does this will be raised on the last day.

  This is also significant since the "last day" in John 6:40 is pivoting off of the "last day" in John 6:39, showing that the "have given" of John 6:39 must be related to the those who chose to "see" and "believe" in John 6:40. If anything, there is a dynamic relationship here, not one weighted to the Father making all the decisions.

  Also, the verb "give" in John 6:37 ("All that the Father gives to me will come to me") is a Greek present tense, not a perfect, which shows that the action of "giving" is occurring presently, and is not confined to whatever White conceives the perfect tense of 6:39 to be saying. The "give" of John 6:37 is the same Greek word as the "has given" of John 6:39, only a different tense.

  Moreover, we can say the same about 6:37 as we did about 6:39, that is, those the Father "gives" to Jesus are those who have responded to the Father's call by their free will. The Father gathers these people and brings them to Jesus.

  In the final analysis, one cannot say what period of time the perfect tense of John 6:39 refers to, since the text does not give a reference point. It is very easy to abuse the perfect tense, because we don't always know when the action of the perfect tense starts.

  White is assuming that the perfect tense refers to a time long before the coming of Jesus. But all we can tell from the verse is that the action of the perfect tense occurs before the future tense occurrences of "I shall not lose" and "I shall raise him up."

  Although it is possible that the perfect tense refers to an event in the mind of God before the world was created, there is absolutely nothing in the grammatical text itself that demands that interpretation. That interpretation is simply commandeered from other passages they see as teaching absolute predestination, which they then place in John 6:39.

  That fact, coupled with the present tense didoosin in John 6:37, and the present tense, active voices of "seeing" and "believing" in John 6:40, leans the interpretation to a present interaction between the Father and man, not an exclusive action by the Father in the distant past.

• I am, admittedly, not knowledgeable in the Greek, but Robert Sungenis is, and has confirmed the position I presented - that being that the text itself does not demand James' interpretation.
• I also brought this discussion up with "The-Ox" (one of the "operators" of our #CathApol Chat Channel) and "The-Ox" is a theology student (senior year) who also knows the Greek and is familiar with this passage and also confirmed my position (White also makes mention of "The-Ox" within this debate).
• We are left with James White's private interpretation of this text, which is contrary to nearly 2000 years of Christianity/Catholicism. ]

26. James:

• Theology is to be derived from Scripture and Tradition is to be tested on the basis of Scripture and Jesus' words are given to us so that we can do this. If looking at something as the meaning of verbs, the tense of a verb is going too far then I would point out that every passage that has been cited, such as John 12:32 or references in James 5, I can simply say, "Well, that's putting it under too fine of a microscope, we need to look at the whole context of Scripture...

• [Ah, but wait, you've just gone from using a "microscope" in dissecting one verb down to it's tense, and moved into a "macro-vision" of looking at several other passages of Scripture - which we do to see if it fits.]

• ...whole context of scripture says that it is God alone who saves and that we are dead in our sins, there is nothing that we can do in and of ourselves. It is clear that Jesus doesn't lose any of His sheep, and He saves all that are given to Him.
• I believe all of these are true and the way to arive at this conclusion is through exegesis of the text of scripture itself.
• How would you Scott, respond to the point that I believe that it is you who has missed the entire context of the Scriptures, the Sovereignty of God, etc. I get from you that the only way to arrive at this is through the sole infallible Church.

• [I can say "My mother has given me love" and I can refer to that as a past, present [my mother has loved me and on this day that love is given in the form of (some gift)], or future tense [using a similar scenario as given in the present tense example].
• [When Paul uses the word "dead" as in "dead in our sins" he is using a metaphor not a theological definition. Literally, "dead" means one thing, but figuratively it means many things. Paul uses a metaphor, and one cannot take a metaphor from Scripture and make a theological definition of it. When I say, "Katie (my wife) is the apple of my eye," do I have an apple in my eye?]
• [James, a couple of times in this section stated, "I believe..." which struck a nerve with me when he first said it - though I didn't comment then, on rehearing this, I must - James, it's not so much a matter of what YOU believe or even what I believe that matters. What does matter is what did Jesus teach, and is our comprehension/interpretation of the passage in harmony with what the Church has always taught - OR would that interpretion force us into a position contrary to another statement in the Scriptures? This cannot happen! This is also the fundamental difference between James and myself - and that is authority. James says the Scriptures are his sola regula fide yet, ultimately it is James' private interpretation of the Scripture that is his ultimate authority. It must make sense to him or else he won't accept it.]

• I say the exact same thing, I believe you are ignoring the rest of Scripture that is so clear on the Sovereignty of God and the deadness of man in sin, but the point is that when we get down to the point of interpretting Scripture, it sounds like what you are saying is that Jesus wasn't speaking in this language... let's say for a moment that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic in the synagogue...(he drops this point)... it is my understanding that the historic view of the Roman Catholic Church is that the canonical books of Scripture, the canonized version of the Gospels are in the Greek language, and there is no "canonical John" written in any other language other than Greek, so it seems to me that Rome has said "these are the original books, these are the canon of Scripture and not that these are simply a good translation but we cannot get into tenses of verbs, etc. Yet people such as Robert Sungenis, Steven Ray, Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid - they all have gone into the tenses of verbs to without once saying "this is just minutia."

• I don't belittle anyone who wants to take it to that level, unless they are doing so at the cost of the rest of Scripture, then you're losing something there.
• [James likes to point out the Sovereignty of God, but his interpretation would exclude verses like: Zec 1:3 "Therefore tell the people: This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Return to me,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'and I will return to you,' says the LORD Almighty." (NIV).
• [It would seem that everytime you (James) see another Scripture where man's will is involved or where God pleads with man, you invalidate those passages to support the Sovereignty of God and Predestination issues.]
• Where does Scripture define God taking someone without their will involved?
• The Church did not canonize a specific translation of Scripture, She said, "these are the books.
• And again I emphasize, and later point out other verses that are simply not tenable if we were to take James' interpretation of this section of John 6.

• Yes, in the original languages. I mean it has always been understood that the Gospel of John was written in Greek. If anyone has read the Early Church Fathers, if you read (St.) Chrystostom, (St.) Athanasius, they argue using the exact same arguments that I am...

• [James stops there and moves on to callers, but let me state that since he brought up the Early Fathers, then we can also turn to Eusebius, who points to the original form of Matthew being written in Aramaic - yet that translation is no longer extant. But that's another discussion, so I too will stop.]

• Was Rome fallible when they declared St. Augustine a Saint when he clearly denies the transubstantiation of the Eucharist and it is nothing more than a symbol, and Trent states that anyone who denies the Real and substantial change are under the anathema of God.

• I don't believe that Augustine held that view of Transubstantiation.

• Well sir, he did... He said that Jesus delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood, and he does distinguish what he means by the word figure within his writings that it is the representative of something, not the reality of something... you can read that in his Homilies on Psalms 3:1 and there's lots of other places where he says the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ.

• [First point, it is an invalid argument to merely state there are "lots of other places..." and not cite or name these alleged "other places."]
• [I found this reference that Mike was refering to at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801003.htm and the mentioning of "figure" here is so brief and in passing that one has to "assume" that "figure" here is denying transubstantiation. There's simply not enough context around this citation to support Mike's conclusions.
• The above being said, what has Mike to say to this?

  "That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

  "The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

  "How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

  "Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

  These quotes and more can be found at: http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num30.htm

• All this being said, Mike's point is lost. St. Augustine did believe that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ - so his one quote, out of context means nothing. [WC=10] (James supports this caller, so it counts as another in his "wrong count.")

• I used to believe in Free Will, but I read the writings of Augustine ... all of those things were preceeded by God's sovereign choice. The will of God is all in control.
• God's sovereign Grace is not dependent on my will or desire... but on God who has mercy.

• I quoted for Johnny, "But the religious mind chooses both (Free Will and Foreknowledge), confesses both, and maintains both by the faith of piety." (City of God, Book V, Chapter 9). [WC=11]
• Of course we depend on God's mercy. Our will does not give God the impetus.

• Now Scott, you are aware of the work called the Retractations, you know that Augustine was one of those interesting, interesting folks who had, what shall we call it, the intestinal fortitude to go back and say "You know what, a lot of the stuff I wrote in the past wasn't really any good." In fact later in his life he retracted many of his claims to synergism, due to some of his battles with Pelagianism, and ended up with just what Johnny was saying... [cites no source, makes not even a quote here]. [WC=12](Johnny, who goes by RW on IRC contacted me privately afterward, when I asked him if City of God was part of the Retractations he couldn't answer, said he would get back to me, and hasn't since then either).

• [James, would you happen to have a citation from the Retractations wherein St. Augustine specifically denies Free Will? I would challenge that no such citation exists.][WC=13]
• [After discussing this with one of the moderators from the ACTS Email List I was provided this information:

  They said therefore unto Him, what shall we do, that we may work the works of God? For he had said unto them, "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life." 'what shall we do?' they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept?' Jesus answered and said unto them, ' this is the work of God, and ye believe on Him whom He has sent' This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth to eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou has eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, 'that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law.'

  Commentary: This passage is used by opponents to claim that Augustine denied the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and only believed in a spiritual presence. Such was the proposition of Protestant apologist James White in a debate on the Eucharist when challenged to provide one instance of Augustine denying the belief in the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

  First in this section of the Tractates, Augustine is not speaking directly about the Eucharist. He is speaking about the first half of John 6, the section of the chapter in which Jesus is speaking purely in symbolic terms with the Jews. Tractate 25, from which the above quote is taken is subtitled "Chapter VI, 15-44" in NPNF, which refers to John 6: 15-44. It is not until Jesus begins the series of verses in John 6:49-58 that Catholic theology enforces a literal interpretation of Jesus' words concerning the Eucharist. It is obvious by even a cursory reading of the context that Augustine is merely showing the contradiction between works and faith in the Jewish mindset; not a denial of the substantial presence in the sacrament, or that mere belief in Christ does not require one to partake of the sacrament."
  (Not by Bread Alone by Robert Sungenis, pp272-273)

  So, we have found at least one place where James has attempted to use a quote from St. Augustine to indicate a "change of mind" but
  1. It comes from the Tractates, not the Retractationes.
  2. It is not in the context of defining the substance of the Eucharist, rather contradicting faith and works. Though it IS in the context of our discussion of John 6! However, it does not say what James would have it to say.
  ]

• The person is dead in sin... So, [to complete the comparison] it would be like God is going around to dead corpses causes them to rise up, spiritually. (If they are "dead" they cannot act upon anything themselves).

• We're all dead in sin when we're not reconciled to God. We become reconciled to Him through accepting Him, through baptism and after those, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Sacrament of Penance. [WC=14]

• So, a person who is "dead in sin" can still accept God?

• We accept God, and again, we go back to the drawing, and what Jesus was lifted up on the Cross, He drew all men to Him.

• Going back to John 12;32, which you've brought up a number of times now, you believe that when He says "all men" He is not refering to Jew and Gentile, because you know the context, Jesus says in John chapter 12, that Greeks come seeking Jesus and Andrew comes to Jesus... Jesus' words are the result of the fact that non-Jews / Gentiles, are seeking after Him, and in that context He says, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Myself." So, your view is that "all men" means "every single person," right?

• Yes, and I don't think that the reading from John 12 has to go your way. [In fact, the context of that verse is a bit more broad than James is attempting to make it! Look at the verse which immediately preceeds:

  31 Now is the judgment of the world; now will the prince of the world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things (men) to myself. 33 Now He said this signifying by what death He was to die (being lifted up on the Cross).

  So, again James is just flat out wrong when he attempts to say this verse does not refer to all men as in every single man for truly, every single man will come to the "judgment of the world!" [WC=15]

• Does not the Bible say the Cross will be a stumbling block to the world?

• The very nature of Christianity is a stumbling block to many (most) people of the world.

• I understand, so how the cross, which is a stumbling block, foolishness, repulsiveness, how can that draw all men?

• The Cross doesn't do the drawing, Jesus does! "When I am lifted up (on the cross), I will draw all men to Me..." (he says) I will draw, not the Cross, but Jesus.
• So, yet again, James is proven dead wrong in his representation of Scripture, for clearly it is not the cross that does the drawing, but Jesus! [WC=16]

• Ok, so in John 6:44 then, you believe it is the same drawing that is mentioned six chapters later?

• [It is noted that James ignores the point I made over Who or what does the drawing, and tries to go back into another comparison.
• It would be a similar drawing, yes. [No, it is the same drawing - for there is only one drawing, and Jesus tells us when it will be - "When I am lifted up..."
• God does the drawing.

• So in James 6:44 you are saying that every man is drawn to the Father?

• Yes, every man has been given the opportunity, has been given the gift... [WC=17](James denies this).

• Now, in John 6:44 it says that "I will lift them up on the Last Day" now, will everyone be lifted up on the Last Day?

• No, only those that the Father gives. There's a difference between the "drawn" and the "given" but there is no difference between the "given" and "who will be raised up." [WC=18]

• Can you explain then that in John 6:44 that there is no difference between the one who is drawn and the one who is raised? "No one can come to the Father unless He has drawn him and I will raise him on the Last Day."
• What you are saying is that the first him is everyone in the world and the second him is only the select few that accept Him. Can you give us any basis of that from the text?

• In this particular text it doesn't say anything about those who were drawn, but don't come.
• Other parts of the Scripture make reference to "many are called, but few are chosen." Did God fail in His calling when He calls many, yet only "few" make it?
• (No answer).
• [The operative word is "come."
  • drawn = when man is drawn to Him. (past event)
  • come = an act of the will (current event)
  • raised = those that are raised on the last day (future event).

• How can a man who is dead in his sins, say yes to God?
• James addes his story about having "dead cadavers" that he could lift out the heart or the lungs, and they didn't complain a bit. He could ask them anything he wanted to, but they wouldn't respond - because they're dead! How can one be dead, but not really dead?

• Johnny now uses the "dead" metaphor/analogy - it doesn't work any better this time round than it did the first time round.
• Well, because we are dead, but not really dead! We are living sentient beings who are given an oportunity sometime during our life to hear the Word of God, if we hear the Word of God and reject it, we're in trouble. If we've never heard the word of God then there's a different category - for as it is recorded in Scriptures, it is better to have never heard the Word of God than to have heard it and rejected it.
• I then related the story of the Prodigal Son and James 5:19-20 in support of those who once had the faith an lost it. [WC=19]
• * A Reader responds (click here).

• Scott, does it matter that neither James 5 nor the Prodigal Son parable has anything to do with salvation nor the context of Luke 15 have anything to do with how a person is saved?
• James reiterates that neither one of these passages has anything to do with how one is saved.

• [During the debate, I didn't back down from this position, but I didn't have the references opened up to support it either:
• In going back and LOOKING at the context, it is found within SEVERAL parables.
  • 14:7-11; The Last Seat (about pride and being invited to the Wedding Feast which IS relevant to salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven).
  • 14:12-14; The Poor Guests (inviting the poor, and you will be rewarded at the resurrection of the just - the resurrection of the just, relevance to salvation).
  • 14:15-24; A Great Supper(regarding those who were invited to the Great Supper shall not taste of it - clear reference to the Jews rejecting their Messiah, but in doing so, they rejected their salvation.
  • 15:1-8; The Lost Sheep (Going after the one sheep that was lost and leaving the 99 behind to find the one. Again, a clear analogy to being part of the flock, yet lost, and how important it was to the Shepherd to go out and save the lost sheep).
  • 15:11-31; The Prodigal Son (I stated that THIS parable had to do with salvation, one squandering his inheritance and yet, came home, and his father" declared that he was dead, and has come to life; he was lost and is found." Bare in mind, this son was GIVEN the inheritance, and squandered it, yet when he came home he regained the position of being alive. This is CLEAR reference to salvation.
  • 16:1-13; The Unjust Steward (Another parable about squandering what has been given you).
  • 16:19-31; The Rich Man and Lazarus (Clearly a reference to the afterlife, Lazarus is in heaven and the Rich Man is in hell).
• So I ask the reader, is the parable of the Prodigal Son NOT within the context of salvation, the gift of God, the free will of man to reject (and/or squander) the gift, and the ability of man to come back, or be brought back to the flock/Church? Was James misinformed, mistaken or being deliberately misleading in saying the Prodigal Son parable had nothing to do with the context of salvation? Was James White wrong when he said the context had nothing to do with salvation? Very clearly, yes - he was wrong. [WC=20]
• Does not the Prodigal Son parable mention the "dead" metaphor? The Prodigal was "dead" but of his own Free Will, he returned to the father and is now "alive" again. [WC=21]
• James also stated that when I cited James 5:19-20, that this was not in the context of salvation, or the judgment. Let us take a look at the context.

  • James 5:1-6 (talks about the Unjust Rich - speaks about how your riches can be a witness against you - hmmm, when would our riches possibly be a witness against us, if not the judgement?)
  • James 5:7-12 (Talks about the farmer waiting for the precious fruit of the earth clearly a reference to The Farmer (God) waiting for the end times/judgment).
  • James 5:13-18 (Talks about a Catholic Sacrament, The Last Rites or Extreme Unction! Allow me to quote: 14 Is any one among you sick? Let him bring in the presbyters (priests) of the Church, and let them pray over him, annointing him with oil in the name of the Lord 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man (not necessarily heal him) and the Lord will raise him up, and if he be in sins, (not in the state of grace), they shall therefore be forgiven him." Noting the sins have not yet been forgiven him, but will be forgiven him when? AFTER the presbyters pray over him! Again, this section clearly is within the context of salvation for the individual.
  • James 5:19-20 (the section I refered to originally, allow me to quote again:

    My brethren, if any one of you (speaking to those whom he calls brethren) strays from the truth (they were once IN the truth) and someone brings him back (how can one be brought back to something they were never in to begin with?) 20 he ought to know that he who causes a sinner to (again) be brought back from his misguided way, will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.
    (emphasis and parenthetical statments mine).

    So, if THIS is not refering to the salvation of one's soul, I don't know what is! It even explicitly states "save a soul from death" and the only "death" the soul can ever know is the eternal death and punishment which happens after the judgment!

• So, was James White wrong about the context of James 5:19-20? Clearly the context shows that the Apostle James is refering to salvation of the soul - so again, James White is proven wrong. [WC=22]

• Scott states that the reason the people turned away in John 6 was due to Jesus teaching eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood, I'm curious about why you think the people actually turned away, v65 I think it was the preservation, election as well as the teaching of a spiritual nourishment that the people actually left.

• Essentially, this is what led us to this actual debate (and this caller is the actual person that was in my #CathApol Chat Channel) that this person (tatrbrain) had asked me to read White's book on this subject, and I had made the comment that "White has been proven wrong so many times it isn't funny." That statement got back to James - he came over (to my chat channel) and talked to me, and here we are now!
• The topic, John 6, Jesus' teaching "You must eat My Flesh and drink My Blood or you have no life in you." And after that point [not any earlier points of alleged Calvinism] that many of His disciples left Him. [Mind you, these were disciples not just some people who just started following Him looking for miracles - they were disciples!] These men were called they were drawn to Christ and yet they left Him! Why, because they couldn't handle the literal Word when He was saying "eat My Flesh" and "drink My Blood."

• Scott, if I may comment, any reading of the text will contradict you here. Jesus entire discussion of the calling is talking about why they would leave, He tells them that He already knows who believes and who would not believe.

• [Note, the word "believe" implies an act of the will on the part of the "believer."]
• And what were those words that they would not believe? They were the words saying you must eat My Flesh and drink My Blood or you have no life in you. [WC=23]

• My point is that in verse 64 that Jesus said there were some who would not believe and He knew who they were who did not believe and who it would be that would betray Him. These are not men drawn to the Father, or to the Son. Well, you would say it was, but He's explaining in the passage, their unbelief and then verse 65 and He would say "no one can come to Him unless it has been granted from the Father, as a result of this.

• Let's go on to this other point though, Jesus turns to the 12 and I assume you would agree that these are part of the elect, the called, the drawn. (James responds "right.") And He turns to them and says, "Will you also leave?" He gave them a choice! Was He only kidding when He said that?

• Oh, wait-wait-wait-wait-wait! This is where we have to look at what the Scripture actually says. There is a way in the Greek language that you can phrase a question that expects a negative answer, and that is the way Jesus phrased this.

• He may have phrased it that way, but He still gave them a choice.
• "The Greek wording does not use the type of wording used with a rhetorical question."
  (Telephone conversation, Robert Sungenis, February 6, 2001).
• Obviously it was not purely a rhetorical question, because Peter answered Him! [WC=24]

  James writes to Robert (my source on the Greek) and asks for clarification of this issue. Click here to see what transpired.

• Notice what Simon Peter says, "To whom Lord shall we go? You have words of eternal life." How does Peter receive this knowledge? Both of us know Matthew 16 quite well, it is through the Father that Peter is given this knowledge. He is among the drawn, and the Son will not fail to bring him/them up. This is a consistent understanding throughout John 6 that simply does not allow for this (Scott's) idea, that the Father can try to save, and the Son can try to save, and the Spirit can try to save, but the ultimate authority in the issue of salvation is the dead sinner - it's just not in there. You have to read that in from another source and Scott, it's not the Bible. It your interpretation of text, that has been provided, I would assert, you by the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

• Part of that I would have to agree with. I accept the teaching Magisterium of the Church, because I believe that Jesus empowered men to lead and rule and guide His Church, and He promised that His Holy Spirit would be with that Church and that Church would be the pillar and foundation of all Truth. If we go on this basic statement, then YES I believe in the Magisterium of the Church because I believe that Jesus created the Magisterium and He empowered men to be in charge of His Church and provided the means that they would be free from error in anything that was doctrinal in nature.
• [And I would add, it is precisely through the Bible that I have been making most of my points today!]
• For clarity sake, James, you believe God created and predetermined who would go to hell - and that these men had absolutely no choice in their lives?
• Where is culpability here?

• What about the men who claim to be leaders of the Church who don't even know that Jesus used a structure in that question that expected a negative answer? Why should I believe, for example, the dogmatic teachings of men who are ignorant of the text of Scripture? I doubt if very many of the "Church Fathers" or prelates, for example at the 4th Lateran Council, knew enough Greek to know what John 6:67 said, so I guess the question is since John 6:67 the very breathed out word of God, why should I have what is so clearly indicated in that text taken away from me, by what someone said 1215 years later? ...So you know that Carthage and Hippo were not infallibly councils, for they were not eucumenical councils like Trent - did anyone know with any certainty, when reading John 6:67 (you do not want to go away also do you?) Are you saying that until 1546 that no one could know with any certainty, that that form of the Greek expects a negative answer?

• There still is a potential that they could leave, even if Jesus is asking a sarcastic question. This leads me to the fact that just looking back through history, 90% of all Christians could not read! They relied on the Tradition of the Church to preach them the Gospel, because they couldn't read it!
• Prior to the Reformation, which I like to call the Innovation, there was no one like you, James. There may have been little pockets here and there, but prior to this time - if you were Christian - you were Catholic.

• How do you test the Church? You claim that you base your authority on the Church, but how do you know that the Church has infallibly taught anything?

• First off, prior to the Reformation, I like to call it the Innovation, of the 16th Century, there was no one who believed like you - there may have been little pockets here and there, but no "movement" there was no "church" that believed as you do.

• Scott, was there anyone at the Council of Nicea that believed as you do?

• Yes.

• OK, name me one person who believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary.

• That's not mentioned.

• How about the Immaculate Conception?

• Is it mentioned?
• [This is nothing more than a red herring (invalid) argument. There is no talk of the Canon or Justification either - those weren't the points of the Council of Nicea! Going on James' logic, since the Canon was not discussed nor was Justification so these are were not and would never be defined by the Church.]

• No.

• So, you're asking me to prove a negative. You want me to show you the reference to this at Nicea, when there is no way I can show you something that wasn't there. (Trying to make an argument from silence).

• Athanasius was at Nicea, right (yes). And he wrote many, many books, right? (yes). Did he ever express a belief in Transubstantiation, in the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption of Mary?

• I am not familiar with all of his works, has he ever rejected any of those teachings?
• ["But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body."
  (Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized) [WC=25]
• St. Athanasius doesn't use the "word" Transubstantiation, because that would be a term that would be coined later - but the teaching definitely pre-exists the label.
• As for the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption, I could not find reference to those (for or against). An argument from silence is not a valid argument though.
• It should suffice though, that the context of THIS debate has been centered around John 6, and one of my chief points has been the Eucharist, and clearly James was dead wrong in implying that St. Athanasius never expressed a belief in Transubstantiation.

• No one ever discussed any of those things...

• No I don't have the sources right here in front of me, but I have seen writings and hymns from the very Early Church that do discuss and mention these things.
• [James' position has already been shown to be false.]

• That's quite true Scott (he admits it!) but you know Thomas Aquinas specifically rejected the modern form of the Immaculate Conception, right? So to go before Aquinas and say that the use of a term in a hymn equates to belief is, I think, grossly anachronistic. Scott, I think I'm very, very fair and I can point you to many Roman Catholic theologians and historians who will all say that there was no one at the Council of Nicea who believes what you believe.

• How can they say that?
• [Name one "Roman Catholic historian or theologian" who would say that they (at the Council of Nicea) did not believe as we (and he, this alleged historian or theologian) do today.]
• [St. Thomas Aquinas did not "specifically deny" the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception! Again James attempts to argue from silence. In fact St. Aquinas believed she was preserved from sin from before her birth -and- remained sinless throughout her life:

  (Summa Theologiae III:27:4): I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: '(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.' Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): 'Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,' etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: 'The glory of children are their fathers': and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): 'What concord hath Christ with Belial?' Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the 'Divine Wisdom' (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): 'Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.'

  We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: 'Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,' etc. " http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q052.htm]

  [WC=26]
• [Again James attempts to use a red herring to make a point. The fact is that being a Council of the Catholic Church, Nicea would have agreed with anything the Church had defined. James cannot bring out a point from Nicea that the Church now disagrees with - his argument is from silence (again) believing if Nicea was silent on the matter, it must not have been a dogmatic issue. Well James - councils don't work like that. They are generally convened with a specific purpose in mind - and chiefly address that purpose.]

• Because, they recognize, if you're going to say first...

• (I interupted) Did they talk about birth control or abortion in those councils? Are those "wrongs" that are definitely defined by the Church [at a later time]?

• You're missing the point Scott.

• No I'm not. This is exactly the point you're trying to make! [James is trying to say that if it wasn't explicitly taught at these councils or by these Fathers, then they don't believe it.]

• No, what I am saying is that you cannot demonstrate the positive existence of a dogma at that time, because no one even mentions it. Are you telling me that in all the things that (St.) Athanasius wrote, all the things (St.) Augustine wrote - that they believed this as a dogma, but somehow, for 500 years, minimally, no one ever put pen to paper to ever discuss it?

• It's not a matter of putting pen to paper, it's a matter of the Church defining it - and that didn't happen until a major dispute arose over it, causing heretical schisms in the Church. That's when the Church would come out and say, "Hold it, wait a minute..." That's what this whole thing, Nicea, was all about, was the Trinity. And the Trinity was not yet defined at that time. The Church had to come out and say "Wait a minute, this is the Trinity, if you don't accept it, you're no longer Catholic."
• [I have already demonstrated that St. Athanasius did indeed believe as I believe and as every "true" Catholic believes - in the Eucharist.] [WC=27]

• Actually Scott, the Council of Nicea didn't say anything about the Trinity, it talked about the Deity of Christ, but there were references all through the Fathers before then unto that belief - all the way back to Ignatius.
• Are you saying that Ludwig Ott is in error to admit that the very first reference in anything to the Bodily Assumption of Mary is in AD 495 when Pope Gallacius condemns as heretical the transitus beatae Maria literature? That this is the first place in all recorded history that ever records this belief? Are you saying that Ludwig Ott or Michael O'Carroll, that these people are Roman Catholics and are in error to make these assertions?

• Before we get to that point, lets look at what he's refuting (Pope Gallacius). He's refuting a work on Mary, so that work had to have existed prior! [WC=28]
• [Nicea didn't say "anything" about the Trinity? Hmmmm, please note this quote and then note the source:

  Bernard is one of the few Oneness writers who does not directly attribute the doctrine of the Trinity to Satan. He seems aware of the fact that the Oneness position avoids the supposed "philosophical language" by basically ignoring the issue that was faced squarely at Nicea and Chalcedon. http://www.aomin.org/CHALC.html Author: James White

  James has responded to this point, saying I took that quote of his from his article about the Trinity "out of context." Now, that confuses me - he wrote and article on the Trinity - he brought up the "issue was aquarely faced at Nicea" and somehow *I* am missing the context? Suppose I did take him out of context, are all these quotes "out of context" as well? http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/trinityatnicea.htm.

  [WC=29] (James is either wrong in today's statement, or the statement from his own webpage - they both cannot be correct).
• The Bodily Assumption of Mary is refered to: Epiphanius (c. 377), questioning the possibilities of Mary's end, states:

  "...or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires, for her end no one knows" (Panarion, 78, 23). (Qtd in: http://www.catholicintl.com/Answers_to_James_White.html)

  The very fact that it is being discussed by Epiphanius is evidence that it has been a matter of discussion of the Early Father - and prior to 495 - so I would have to concur that Dr. Ott is wrong - that is IF he has stated that 495 was "the earliest" source. As of now, that it an unsubstantiated, unquoted claim. That being said, James HAS been answered on this point before, as evidenced by the very title of the webpage I quoted!
• Regarding ANY dogma, is the "time element" so important? Was the "dogma" of the Canon of Sacred Scripture not "in effect" until the Council of Florence or Trent? Was the "dogma" of the Trinity not in effect until Arianism challenged it and the Church defined it? Is "dogmatic" based in time?

• Yah, and he said it was from heretics.

• But (the point you were making was that it did not exist prior) it existed prior (to Pope Gallacius, or he'd have had nothing to refute!).

• But not amongst Christians Scott. That's the whole point, you can't point to someone who believed as you do.

103. Scott:

• [James, I believe I have indeed demonstrated that there were those who did believe as I do today, especially in regard to the Eucharist (you kept getting away from that topic). Our topic of the day was John 6. You were partial to showing Calvin's predestination, which clearly your arguments required assumption and extra-scriptura support. I believe I have been able to raise at least some doubt to your arguments and have demonstrated at least 29 points that you were wrong about, several of which you were inargueably wrong. I grant you that some of our disagreements are based in authority, which ultimately is the "holy grail" of our discussions, so some of my "wrong count" points you will dismiss, based on your authority. Some, you just can't get around.
• I was partial to the Eucharistic references in John 6, and the text will bear out that I have demonstrated this from Scripture and the Early Fathers, including one Early Father (St. Athanasius) whom you said didn't even mention it, ever, in his writings.
• As my parting challenge: James - Tell us which of the Early Fathers that actually agree with the Reformed Baptist theology. You won't find even one.]

just some thoughts on being "dead in his sins". Johnny's/ James argument regarding dead cadavers does not take into account the spiritual nature of our souls. They have overlooked completely the effect of sin on our souls. The argument, as it is presented is totally in the temporal sense, rather than in the spiritual sense. If anything this line of argument appears to be a denial of the existence of the soul, as well as a denial of how God's grace works within a soul.

I found Archbishop Fulton Sheen's "Lift up your hearts", an excellent resource on the issue of sin - the effect of sin on the soul, and how God works even when the soul is completely black from sin. It is a concept called Black Grace, and Sheen explains that this particular grace works to awaken a person from their sin, but the person must still respond to this grace. (I am probably not being very clear here).

The parable of the Prodigal Son supports the point that I am making. That there comes a time, when a person is leading a hedonistic lifestyle recognises that he/she cannot continue to live in that style. It is at this point, when the wake up call comes that the person is responding to God's grace. Only then does the hedonist repent and seek forgiveness of his sins and attempts to change his/her lifestyle habits through reformation, and returns to God, who is waiting to welcome the sinner with open arms.

Also it seems to me that James White has missed the whole point of John Chapter 12 and the Greeks seeking out Jesus. He mentions that the Greeks sought out Jesus, and then he skips the most important verse:

"And Jesus answered them: The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified". (RSV)

(The KJV states: "The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified" - again this is not a positive statement, rather it indicates uncertainty into the words of Jesus. It is not stating that it will happen but that it should happen).

The point to be made here is that the Jews had failed in their mission to bring the word of God to the other nations, and it was a part of the mission of Jesus that he would draw the other nations so that all men will be saved in accordance with the will of God.

"and I have other sheep, that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock , one shepherd." John 10: 16

Therefore, when the Greeks came seeking Jesus, he knew that his mission of drawing "other sheep" to himself had been accomplished.

Margaret

Number of visitors to this page since January 23, 2001:

---

Return to ACTS Homepage