Latest topics
» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Catholic theocracy- Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) essential
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» The Social Reign of Christ the King can be seen based on Cushingite or Feeneyite theology, Vatican Council II with the false premise or without it
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» When Card. Ladaria and Bp Fellay meet a non Catholic they know he or she is oriented to Hell because the Church lic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit teaches this
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:49 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay : two interpretations of Vatican Council II and theirs is the irrational one
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Ask Cardinal Ladaria a few questions when you meet him
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:42 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Now it is the time for cardinals Kasper and Marx to reject Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:37 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria, CDF : schism from the Left over Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:35 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Schism over Vatican Council II ?
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX recognises that Abp.Lefebvre's writings are obsolete : seminaries have to make the correction
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades


James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Go down

James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  tornpage on Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:31 am

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  Roguejim on Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:39 pm

Well, isn't James just so smug, and Dimond is an embarrassment. I wonder why James never shows up to the Called to Communion forum...So, it looks like we have Augustine to blame for our Catholic understanding of justification. Anyway, White's debate with Sungenis on justification is here for anyone with a lot of time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhElg8LZM1s
avatar
Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:28 pm

Typical debate tactic of White ... much like the Diamonds when they control the debate.

White of course is a hypocrite for “interpreting” the rest of Scripture by his private “exegesis” of Romans 8: 28-30:

For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who is against us?
From whence his “inspired” and infallible “once justified, always saved” doctrine is derived.

James White makes a big issue of the fact that Peter Dimond cites Scripture passages that do not contain the word “justification”, and thus, they cannot be used as “proof” that someone can be justified and subsequently fall from grace.

Dimond makes reference to Ephesians 5: 5-8, here is 5-11:

For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth; Proving what is well pleasing to God: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Amazingly, White actually said at the end (after hanging up on P. Dimond) that this passage does not refer to the justified, but to those who never had true justifying faith. In other words, those St. Paul refers to as having been delivered by Christ from darkness, and having become light in the Lord (shining in faith and justice), cannot possibly be those who can be deceived by vain words, for they are immune from becoming partakers with the children of unbelief.

Since, according to White, not everyone IN the Church is justified (true), and every one of the justified is saved (false), White simply changes the obvious meaning of the words of St. Paul in Ephesians to fit into his divinely inspired “exegesis” of Roman 11.

As such, I’m sure he would employ the same private “inspired exegesis” to explain away 2 Peter 2:20-22:

For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit: and, The sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.

St. Peter clearly suggests that those who "have known the way of justice" (notice the word “justice”); i.e., those who have justifying faith, can turn back to their wicked ways and lose salvation; but I’m sure White can wiggle his way out of this one as well with his divinely inspired "exegesis".

"Reformed" Calvinists -- I find it hard to believe they can believe their own propaganda.




avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:39 am

Mike,

The idea being expressed in 2 Peter 2:20 addresses the level of culpability due one who is not ignorant as opposed to one who is ignorant: they, the "false propehts" who use "feigning words," should know better, and will be worse off for their knowledge or instruction in the way of Christ. Look:

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.

It does not say to "turn back" from justification, but from the instruction or commandment delivered to them. I see nothing in the text to indicate they were justified.



avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:17 am

tornpage wrote:Mike,

The idea being expressed in 2 Peter 2:20 addresses the level of culpability due one who is not ignorant as opposed to one who is ignorant: they, the "false propehts" who use "feigning words," should know better, and will be worse off for their knowledge or instruction in the way of Christ. Look:

For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.

It does not say to "turn back" from justification, but from the instruction or commandment delivered to them. I see nothing in the text to indicate they were justified.
Then you are clearly missing the obvious context of the verses. St. Peter is not referring to the false prophets as having known the way of justice, but Christians.

There are two classes of people being referenced, the “false prophets” and those Christians who have fled the pollutants of the world “through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” and, having “known the way of justice” … “for a little while escape” before being allured by the false prophets who, while “speaking proud words of vanity” and “Promising them liberty whereas they themselves [the "false prophets"] are the slaves of corruption”.

And, as Haydock says:

For if flying, and been happily freed from the pollutions, the abominations, and corruptions of a wicked world, be upon your guard, and take great care not to be entangled again in these dangerous snares and nets, lest your latter condition (as Christ said, Matt. xii. 45.) be worse than the former, lest you be like a dog that returns to his vomit, or like a sow that is washed and wallows again in the mire.
No, Tornpage, you are confusing the false prophets with the Christians who, having known the way of justice, are admonished not to listen to the seductions of the false prophets lest they fall and return to their former conditions, which will be worse the second time around then the first.

Of course, James White would say that any Christian who (having know the way of justice) falls for the lying seductions of the false prophets and returns to his vomit (the pollutants) was never justified to begin with.

How convenient, but what say you?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:56 pm

Mike,

I'd say I'd like to see some other Catholic and Protestant commentaries on 2 Peter 2:21. Each side has its ox to gore: a Catholic would very much be comfortable with your reading, while a Calvinist would agree like my reading.

I looked at the original Rheims commentary this morning and I believe it didn't gloss the text. I happened to be in a bookstore today and looked at the gloss in an NIV study bible - it said the text was addressing the "false prophets." Like I said, though - an ox to gore. Though not all Prots share White's view of the impossibility of the justified losing their justification. I think there's some newer Catholic study bible out there - I wonder what they say. I'll pull out my heavily annotated Jerusalem Bible and see what it says - though I believe conservative, traditional Catholics frown upon the Jerusalem bible.

But more broadly: I think White limits justification to a sense that a Catholic could agree, while the Catholic would understand justification per se differently - i.e, both would agree that the elect will be saved by the infallible decree, that they cannot lose their predestination to glory; that they are predestined to the same. White would limit justification to those; a Catholic would not. He would say the rest (the non-elect), or some, may indeed be justified, but lose it. White would say they were never justified. For both there are Christians who have been baptized, sitting in pews, "professing the faith," who will not end up in heaven. The bottom line, in my view, remains the same.

Frankly, and I know you will most likely disagree, I think the furor over justification is a lot of noise.

Go ahead, fire away. Very Happy
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  Allie on Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:58 pm

tornpage wrote:
I'd say I'd like to see some other Catholic and Protestant commentaries on 2 Peter 2:21. Each side has its ox to gore: a Catholic would very much be comfortable with your reading, while a Calvinist would agree like my reading.

... I think there's some newer Catholic study bible out there - I wonder what they say.

Here is what the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (2nd Ed. RSV) says:

2 Peter 2:20-21 Peter warns that genuine believers can fall from God's grace and ultimately lose their salvation. The false teachers exemplify such a danger, for they have slid back into wicked ways, even though they were "bought" by the Lord (2:1; 1 Cor 6:19-20) and once "washed" clean of their iniquities (2:22; Acts 22:16). One who has never known the Christian message is better off than one who has previously embraced it but later chooses to reject it (Mt 12:45; Lk 11:26).

2:21 the holy commandment: The gospel with its moral and religious demands (Jn 13:34)
avatar
Allie

Posts : 100
Reputation : 116
Join date : 2010-12-20
Location : southern Ohio, USA

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:02 pm

Tornpage,

Seriously, put all the commentaries away and read 2 Peter 2 from the very beginning. It will become chrystal clear that St. Peter is directing his comments directly to Christians, while speaking about (“addressing”) the “dangerous snares” of false prophets. Here are verses 1-3:

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their perdition slumbereth not.
Now, why in the world would St. Peter dedicate his Epistle to lying heretics and false prophets, rather than to his flock?

Sorry, Tornpage, but this does not take any special exegesis or enlightened commentary to figure this out. Sometimes Scripture is as plain as day.

As far as White's views on justification, suffice it to say they are heretical. And “the furor over justification” is not just a “lot of noise”, Trent was absolutely certain of that.

Another time, another place.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:05 pm

MRyan wrote:Tornpage,

Seriously, put all the commentaries away and read 2 Peter 2 from the very beginning.
Well, all but Allie's Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (2nd Ed. RSV) (I didn't see her post). Smile
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:32 pm

Mike,

I disagree with you. And I note that Allie's Bible agrees with me:

"The false teachers exemplify such a danger, for they have slid back into wicked ways, even though they were "bought" by the Lord (2:1; 1 Cor 6:19-20) and once "washed" clean of their iniquities (2:22; Acts 22:16)"

BTW, I checked my Jerusalem, and it agrees with you.

I'll add more later.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:41 pm

Let me clarify.

Allie's Bible agrees with me that verse 21 refers to the false teachers. Of course, it agrees with Mike that the justified can fall.

I still say it refers to the false teachers, and it refers to knowledge of the Gospel, the way of justice or righteousness, and doesn't necessarily refer to actual justification.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:19 pm

A couple of books for you to read (if you have the time) are called Life in the Son and Elect in the Son. Both books were written by a Protestant and were in print for a long time. Both books thoroughly refute John Calvin's heresy of “double predestination” and it's modern recarnation of “eternal security.”

In a nutshell, one must look at the Greek verbs, which are poorly translated in English. They are all present-tense verbs when speaking of faith -- one must believe and continue to believe in order to be saved (as opposed to an aorist tense.) Of course, that is why Our Lord instituted the Sacraments.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: James White v. Peter Dimond on Justification

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum