Ignatius, Ben Douglass, Summary Response Part II

He says, quote, their failure to profess faith in that which has been revealed by God, end quote, is what

Ignatius condemns these unbelievers for. That's quite true. But the problem is, what has been revealed by God?

The context admits of only one thing, the incarnation, the reality of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

To go beyond that, to the concept of transubstantiation, is utterly unwarranted in the text.

And one of the main problems I've had with the abuse of this text by Catholic apologists is because you know that on Catholic Answers Live, when they just throw these things out, how many people listening have a clue what doxicism was?

Have a clue what dualism was? Almost none. And these apologists don't explain it.

I imagine Tim Staples could define it, I don't know if Steve Ray could, but they are using these words knowing full well the context in which these words are going to be placed by the person listening, even though they will not establish that that is an accurate context for Ignatius.

That's called abusing the early writers. That's what I've been objecting to.

All along. And my objection stands, and Mr. Douglas' presentation does not do anything to change that.

Now, Douglas' attempt to rephrase Ignatius, well he would have to have said this, whenever I find someone saying, this is how

I would have read it if Mr. White was right, I know that the battle has actually been won.

Because once you have to start trying to figure out what ancient writers would have said, that means you can no longer really deal with what they did say.

And it's really not a good ploy at this point. It is

Mr. Douglas and the Roman Catholic who must provide from the text the indication that his assertion is communicated by Ignatius.

Where does Ignatius refer to the priest? Where does Ignatius refer to the consecration?

Where does Ignatius refer to transubstantiation, accident, substance, sacrifice, etc.,

etc., etc.? If it is Mr. Douglas' assertion that this is the, in his own words, plain meaning of the words, then where are these words?

Can he give us the context anywhere else? In Ignatius, where he operates upon these categories, where he gives some kind of evidence of having those foundational elements that would at least allow us to believe that one could safely assume these things, and the answer is no, and he doesn't even attempt to make that case.

Rome's apologists, once again, simply assume what they have yet to prove.

Mr. Douglas has done nothing more than note a Greek verb, expand its meaning beyond what the context calls for, but other than this, he has simply assumed that which he cannot prove.

Now, finally, he makes the comment, when I ask for evidence of Aristotelian thinking in Ignatius, that I, Dr.

White is asking too much here. Really? We have an established context that Mr.

Douglas agrees with, an antagnostic, antidostetic polemic. We get down to a point,

I can read that context in perfect harmony without bringing in anything to find 1 ,100 years later, the fourth ladder in counsel, but Catholics try to fill these words with meaning completely separated from the antagnostic polemic that comes before and after, and it is

I who is asking too much when I say, what's your foundation? Show us that this is the consistent interpretation of Ignatius and his other writings, that this is a part of his thinking.

I'm asking too much? The very foundational concepts that would give rise to the

Roman belief is asking too much? Really? Rome is the one changing the subject.

Shouldn't Rome have to prove its points? It seems that, once again, Roma locuta est, causa finita est, which, of course,

Augustine never actually said, but hey, good example of how Rome has the idea that because we are the church, our word is final.

We get to define what Ignatius says. We don't have to prove it. And if you object, well, then you're the biased one.

You're the one misreading the text. I don't believe that follows, and I believe if anyone will take the presentation

I made, look at the original documents, listen to everything Mr. Douglass has to say, lay his arguments out, write them out to see how relevant they are, because to be honest with you, a lot of material was not relevant to an actual exegesis of the text.

And then listen to this response. I am more than confident that the unbiased listener will see what the truth is.

But at this point, my emphasis in my ministry right now has to be in the area of Islam.

While these are important areas, and I will continue to say the same things, defend soul scripture, et cetera, et cetera, to be honest with you, my emphasis right now is in providing an apologetic to Islam and the study of those areas.

And so I simply cannot promise that in the at least immediate future that I'm going to have much time to be engaging in further of these kinds of give and take conversations on specific issues in regards to Roman Catholicism.

But as the Lord leads and as the Lord provides, we'll take a look at those things as they come up. Thanks for watching.