Wow are protestant apologists really THAT dishonest?

[Randy Carson]

Originally Posted by cleargospel99

William Webster is a thorough going researcher and knows what he is saying. He backs up his claims with documentation of his sources, and is not in the habit of repeating hearsay or falsehoods. Nor does he over-reach.

His critique of Gary Michuta's attempts to resolve the issue of 1 Esdras between Hippo and Trent is worth reviewing.

As are Michuta's responses to Webster found here:

http://www.envoymagazine.com/Forum/t...?TOPIC_ID=3089

http://www.envoymagazine.com/Forum/t...?TOPIC_ID=3542

Additionally, Steve Ray DESTROYED William Webster in a 200-page rebuttal after Webster critiqued Ray's book, "Upon This Rock".

You can find Ray's rebuttal at www.catholic-convert.com

Hope this helps.

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by Contarini

I agree. He is not blatantly stupid or dishonest. Unlike you, I do not consider this a "very high bar."

I have to pay more attention to the comma's, or maybe my eyesight is getting weaker. It thought you said, "He is not blatantly stupid or dishonest unlike you....." I thought someone was fixing to throw down.

[Della]

Originally Posted by Contarini

I agree. He is not blatantly stupid or dishonest. Unlike you, I do not consider this a "very high bar." Webster is not a very good apologist, but he's as good as many of his RC counterparts. I have a low opinion of apologists in general--I think that the best apologists (like Lewis) are people who have some rigorous intellectual discipline that they pursue for its own sake. This keeps their minds sharp and reminds them that truth matters in and of itself, not just to score a point.

Edwin

Of course, the question isn't "Is Webster and his ilk good apologists?" but rather "Are they honest apologists?" Yes?

I agree with the OP's assessment. There are some Protestant apologists who fudge facts or skew quotes or misquote or quote so far out of context as to make their statements ludicrous. And what makes it worse--this is done deliberately.

And why do they feel they can do this? Because to them the Catholic Church is leading millions to hell (this is what they literally and truly believe).

And because, more importantly, they believe wholeheartedly in "the end justifies the means"--something C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton, of blessed memory, would never have ascribed to. That's what makes them dishonest and hence bad apologists.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Della

Of course, the question isn't "Is Webster and his ilk good apologists?" but rather "Are they honest apologists?" Yes?

No, I don't think that's the question. Deliberate dishonesty is, I think, relatively rare among serious adherents of any form of Christianity. Perhaps I am naive. A "bad" apologist is "dishonest" in the sense that he or she does not pay careful enough attention to the evidence, but is overly driven by an ideological agenda.

And because, more importantly, they believe wholeheartedly in "the end justifies the means.

I see no evidence that Webster or any other major apologist for any Christian position believes in this. Where are you getting this rather shocking and frankly bizarre idea? OK, it's not that bizarre--it's a stock element of anti-Catholic rhetoric (that Catholics believe the ends justify the means), so I suppose it's fair in some grimly ironic sense that Catholics are now using it against Protestants. It seems to be part of human nature to ascribe unscrupulousness to people with whom we disagree strongly. I think it comes from an unwillingness to recognize just how mistaken sincere people can be. After all, we wouldn't want to be "relativists." Unfortunately, the recognition of just how difficult and confusing matters of religious truth are (a recognition which often seems to be confounded with relativism) is simply a recognition of reality. It is quite the opposite of relativism, actually.

"On a huge hill,
Cragged and steep, truth stands, and he that will
Reach her, about must, and about must go,
And what the hill's suddenness resist, win so." (Donne, Satire 3)

People like Webster--and his counterparts in Catholicism--insist on charging straight up the hill. No wonder they generally fall down and bump their heads and wander around half-crazed ever afterwards. And no wander that unsympathetic people mistake them for liars.

Edwin

[PhilVaz]

Webster/King basically re-define "sola scriptura" as a Father having a high view of Scripture, etc. And they quote only those statements of the Fathers (there are a lot of them) and statements of patristic scholars (JND Kelly, Schaff, Pelikan, etc) that seem to support them. Also their definition of "material and formal sufficiency" (see beginning of volume 3) is very loose and allows for customs or practices and minor "traditions" among the Fathers. In Volume 2 Webster goes through some of those traditions.

What they do not quote is this:

(these are also found in Not By Scripture Alone as well)

Philip Schaff, Presbyterian/Reformed, History of the Christian Church

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (Schaff, volume 3, page 606)

JND Kelly, Anglican, Early Christian Doctrines

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (Kelly, page 47-48)

"Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (Kelly, page 51)

Jaroslav Pelikan, Lutheran (later Orthodox), The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine

"Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the sixteenth century, for 'in the ante-Nicene Church...THERE WAS NO NOTION OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.'...." (Pelikan, volume 1, page 115-117)

"Fundamental to the orthodox consensus was an affirmation of the authority of tradition as that which had been believed 'everywhere, always, by all [ubique, semper, ab omnibus].' The criteria for what constituted the orthodox tradition were 'universality, antiquity, and consensus.' This definition of orthodox Catholic tradition was the work of Vincent of Lerins... To identify orthodox doctrine, one had to identify its locus, which was the catholic church, neither Eastern nor Western, neither Greek nor Latin, but universal throughout the civilized world (oikoumene). This church was the repository of truth, the dispenser of grace, the guarantee of salvation, the matrix of acceptable worship. Only here did God accept sacrifices, only here was there confident intercession for those who were in error, only here were good works fruitful, only here did the powerful bond of love hold men together and 'only from the catholic church does truth shine forth.'...[It was] the tendency of heretics to teach doctrines that were not contained either in Scripture or in tradition. But the church of the four Gospels and the four councils [Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon] was faithful to Scripture and to tradition and was universal both in its outreach and in its authority." (Pelikan, volume 1, page 334-335)

Phil P

[JoeyWarren]

Wow are protestant apologists really THAT dishonest?

Yes. The question begs "Wittingly" or "UnWittingly"?

[deb1]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

I have to pay more attention to the comma's, or maybe my eyesight is getting weaker. It thought you said, "He is not blatantly stupid or dishonest unlike you....." I thought someone was fixing to throw down.

Hey, I had to read the statement twice also. What surprised me, was that I don't think that I've ever read anything from this poster that was ever rude. So, I knew that I had misread something.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by deb1

Hey, I had to read the statement twice also. What surprised me, was that I don't think that I've ever read anything from this poster that was ever rude. So, I knew that I had misread something.

Thanks. But I have often been rude. I don't think I've ever called anyone stupid, but I have used words like "nonsense" and "bizarre" a lot. . . . I'm glad you have missed those posts!

Edwin

[mark a]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

Now Jack Chick on the other hand.............

Well, I read Jimmy Akin's account of meeting the Jack Chick guy and his cartoonist drawer illustrator guy, and he says they were nice fellers and not disrespectful in the least.

Maybe you are interpteting them all wrong.

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by Contarini

Thanks. But I have often been rude. I don't think I've ever called anyone stupid, but I have used words like "nonsense" and "bizarre" a lot. . . . I'm glad you have missed those posts!Edwin

I have no problem calling someone stupid. Like Forrest Gump's mother said:

"STUPID IS, STUPID DOES"

If the stupid shoe fits, I will make sure the stupid person wears it.

People don't like being called stupid, but when you are stupid, YOU ARE STUPID. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

[NotWorthy]

Edwin (or Contarini),

What is a dis-honest Apologist. One who unknowingly says something like, "Catholics added 7 books to the Bible at Trent", or "Catholics invented Transubstantiation in the 12th century", or "Catholics killed 100 million Europeans during the Inquistion". After the truth is pointed out to these people though, they turn around and repeat the accusation to other Catholics "conversion prospects".

Now, I know I only used anti-catholic apologists in my examples. I know some catholics do this, but as you can imagine, I'm more attuned to the accusations against the Church.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

Edwin (or Contarini),

What is a dis-honest Apologist. One who unknowingly says something like, "Catholics added 7 books to the Bible at Trent", or "Catholics invented Transubstantiation in the 12th century", or "Catholics killed 100 million Europeans during the Inquistion". After the truth is pointed out to these people though, they turn around and repeat the accusation to other Catholics "conversion prospects"..

But are they doing this out of dishonesty, or because they don't believe you?

I'm probably naive, but I tend to rule out the hypothesis of deliberate dishonesty as long as possible, largely for the same reason I rule out materialistic atheism--because both hypotheses bring about the breakdown of rational discourse, so that if they are true there is really nothing left to talk about.

Edwin

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by Contarini

But are they doing this out of dishonesty, or because they don't believe you?

I'm probably naive, but I tend to rule out the hypothesis of deliberate dishonesty as long as possible, largely for the same reason I rule out materialistic atheism--because both hypotheses bring about the breakdown of rational discourse, so that if they are true there is really nothing left to talk about.

Edwin

OK, maybe I didn't explain it quite well. Most often to refute this argument they are fed a string of ECF teachings or Council decisions that refute their statements. But instead of doing even a minor research, they just choose not to believe.

Now, on the other hand, refuting Scripture ("By Faith are we saved") with more Scripture ("Faith without works is dead") often leads to each party saying, "well, that's your interpretation" and going on their merry little way.

The biggest benefit to those exchanges are the innocent "bystanders" that are following the conversation because they have a real question. The two main protagonists, though, rarely leave the argument with the other crying, "Uncle".

[christcnection1]

Not too long ago I was listening to D James Kennedy's program, "Truths that Transform." The whole program was on St. Patrick, and how he was actually a Protestant.

I don't remember all the details, but some of the information they pushed was outlandish. I lost a tremendous amount respect for him and his program after that nightmare. It's like they started with the assumption that St. Patrick had no contact with the Catholic Church.

After contacting them by email, they just told me they were going by the information they had, without trying to debunk all the traditonal history on him. After expressing my Catholic convictions after my conversion from Protestantism, the guy asked me if I had "absolute assurance of my salvation." (I was assured truth wasn't from these guys.)

Really, the whole radio program and response was pathetic. These people are supposedly respectable in the Evangelical world too. Very disappointing...

CA has a good little piece on St. Pat

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703prof.asp

[christcnection1]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

I have to pay more attention to the comma's, or maybe my eyesight is getting weaker. It thought you said, "He is not blatantly stupid or dishonest unlike you....." I thought someone was fixing to throw down.

Haha... that's happening a lot to you tonight.