Stay classy, James White.

White patiently explains to Muslims that real Christians do not worship idols like Catholics and Copts.

//True Christians do not “supplicate what they worship and die upon their paganism.”  The very words this graphic video displayed while Muslims murdered helpless Copts are based upon their own ignorance and the misrepresentation of Christian faith in Islamic sources, aided and assisted by unbiblical practices and teachings readily present in Roman Catholicism and even Coptic Christianity.  We cannot and do not excuse these murderers from engaging in their atrocities simply because they are themselves ignorant or that they have been taught by ignorant men.  But we cannot at the same time ignore the fact that false teaching and practice has only aided in the production of the errors of Islam.  Christians do glory in the cross, as Paul explains:

But may it never be that I should boast—except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14).

A true Christian boasts in the cross—but that is not in the context of bowing down before a cross, or worshipping a cross, or any such thing.  As the text makes clear, we recognize our being crucified together with Christ (Galatians 2:20), so that the life which we now live we live by faith in the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself in our place.  When we live as those who have already died, the world and its lusts and its perishing desires are dead to us, and we to them.  This boasting then is only known by those who live the Christian life day by day, purposefully.  It has not meaning to cultural or nominal Christianity.

To my Muslim readers: I know you see Roman Catholics prostrating before crucifixes and praying and lighting candles.  And you think that represents Christianity.  Please, think with me: what represents Islam, if not that which is truly and fully in accord with the Qur’an?  Look at the Christian scriptures: you will never find them invoking worship of anyone but God—and remember, we do NOT associate a mere man with God, the Bible is clear in telling us Jesus was MORE than just a mere man, He was the Word made flesh.  We worship only one God, and we do not worship the cross.  We glory in what God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did on that cross.  All of time before the cross looked forward to it—all time will forever look back to it.  It is the center point of time. There the God-Man gave Himself utterly freely, voluntarily, becoming sin in the place of every man, woman and child who would ever put their faith and trust in Him as their sin-bearer, as their Savior.  God joined His people to the Messiah there on the cross, which is why He had to be so much more than a mere prophet.  He bore in Himself the wrath justly due to their sin, so that they could have forgiveness.  How can we not, I ask you, Muslim friend, glory in the cross?  For there the God of Abraham fulfilled what He had pictured on the mountain when Abraham offered his unique son, so long ago.  God gave us life at the cross, and we rejoice.  And our deepest desire is that you, too, come to know that life, through Him who gave Himself so freely there.//

Well, alrighty then.

Mr. Christian Charity demonstrates that we are still in the middle of the Long 16th Century.

He's shocked - shocked! - that Rick Warren referred to Pope Francis as the "Holy Father."  Referring to the "pope" as anything other than "Mr. Bergoglio" is rank heresy!

Does James White mistrust reason?

This is from a recent convert to Catholicism who challenged James White to a philosophical debate and was given the patented James White "God is glorified by the fact that you are damned" treatment:

So now let us fast forward the conversation back into this present context in order to make a point. I think what we see in White is a certain Christian tradition that does not hold ‘reason’ in a high regard. This is what is at the heart of so many problems, miscommunications, and controversies that Catholics and fundamentalists have. Catholics (among Christian traditions) see faith and reason as strong allies while fundamentalists, at best, see reason as a weak ally to faith. I think this can especially be seen in the whole Calvinism debate (personal responsibility, the nature of God etc.). This is why I think discussing the issues of faith and reason or faith and philosophy are vital for true ecumenical dialog.

Lastly, though it bothers me to say this, I hope people stay away from White. Not because I don’t want them to hear his arguments against Rome, rather, I think the man is a hindrance to beneficial dialog that could be had with certain Christian traditions. White not only has a reputation of being prideful but he also has a reputation of being very uncharitable and down right rude. There is a part of me that wishes I could post personal emails in order to demonstrate this, however, being that it is illegal, merely testifying of this will have to do.

Does James White really mistrust reason?

On the one hand, that seems accurate, but on the other hand, I tend to see Calvinism as an extremely rationalistic system.  Frankly though I'm not as knowledgeable about Calvinism as I ought to be.

Once again, Hyper-Calvinist apologist James White channels the Christian love and goodwill ...

...of the Sixteenth Century.

Father Barron on Christology.



Father Barron is terrific. I'm not sure, however,  that he is accurately describing the heresies he discusses. For example, the  "Jesus is only human" heresy would be Ebionitism (or maybe Adoptionism.") Nestorianism would be Jesus is human and divine but separately so, as if Jesus was "possessed" by a divine being.

I love the Irenaeus quote, "The glory of God is man fully alive".  How very different from the Calvinist idea that God is glorified by the predestined damnation of souls. As "Hyper-Calvinist" James White once observed:

So the question I have to ask of many who stand behind pulpits today is this: is your preaching so wimpy it would never trouble a religious hypocrite, and never result in such a person fleeing its proclamation so as to run to man's religions for refuge? Do you pull back on those elements of God's truth that are the most offensive to the natural man because you do not wish to see that disdainful look, that annoyed shaking of the head? Do you really distrust the ministry of the Spirit to make the Word of Christ to come alive in the hearts and minds of Christ's sheep, so that you do not need to worry about those who find offense at His truth? Or have you embraced the spirit of the age which places man's fragile emotions upon the seat of prominence, and have bought into the idea that to be "loving" means to never give offense to anyone (well, except for God--it is fine to offend Him by thinking yourself so wise you can edit out what shouldn't be in the gospel in our day)? Would your teaching and proclamation allow a religious hypocrite to remain safely and comfortably ensconced in the congregation for years on end, never offended, never convicted? Finally, if such a hypocrite does leave and make a show of embracing heresy just to spite you, do you sting with embarrassment, or rejoice that God's Word continues to work in the hearts of men and women, some to His glory in their salvation, and some to His glory in their damnation? Think about it.

Ooh-Rah!!! *Thumps Chest." Manly men talk about rejoicing in the idea that God's glory is found in the damnation of souls predestined to Hell!

Particularly if they "make a show" of embracing heresy "just to spite you"!?!?!?

Really? What's the reason for the rejoicing? That souls are predestined to salvation? That God's power is sovereign? Or that people who "make a show" of spiting James White - or, to be fair, anyone who rejoices in the simple fact that some folks are sent to endless torment - gets his deepest earthly desire, i.e., to see his enemies laid low?

How different this perspective is from St. Thomas Aquinas's answer to the question of whether the saints will rejoice in the suffering of the damned. Contrary to what shallow New Atheists would have you believe, Aquinas did not say that the saints would rejoice that the damned were suffering simply because there were damned and they were suffering. To the contrary, St. Thomas Aquinas explained, with a nuance missing among a people who lack the power of concentrating on anything longer than the information contained on a movie poster:

A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

And:

Reply to Objection 2. Although God rejoices not in punishments as such, He rejoices in them as being ordered by His justice.

God does not "rejoice in his punishments." He rejoices in his justice. His glory, however, is in "man fully alive."

Here is something on the Irenaeus quote and its source:

It is not only in the doctrine of recapitulation by the grace of Christ that Saint Irenaeus wanted to situate the true value of man, which was denied by the Gnostics. He was careful to note the intrinsic dignity of man, let us even say the relative autonomy of the creature capable of freely orienting himself. Certain contemporaries of ours thirty years ago were gladly spreading about the ambiguous formula: "The glory of God is man fully alive".

In fact, this formula was truncated and ended up making the Bishop of Lyon say the contrary of that which he had taught. Man's life is for him the glory of God provided that man remains in contact with his Creator. Shortly after the Council, some theologians and some historians such as Père do Lubac had already protested against this false interpretation. The Holy Father did just as much with the tact which distinguishes him. In his address at Lyon (n. 2), he recalled the authentic and complete text of Saint Irenaeus: "The glory of God is man fully alive, and the life of man is the vision of God. If the revelation of God through creation already brings life to all living beings on the earth, how much more will the manifestation of the Father by the Word bring life to those who see God" (AH IV, 20, 7).

As Father Barron suggests, the heart of the difference may well lie in the Catholic willingness to embrace a "both/and" answer at Chalcedon.