Response to Ben Douglass #4

The reason Steve Ray doesn't like to mention James White's name is because, for him, James White is he who shall remain nameless.

He always makes it patently obvious who he is talking about by things like context and what he's linking to.

Ben, you and I may know who he's talking about, but are you sure that the people who read

Steve Ray's blog know that? I mean, look at some of the comments that are found in his comment boxes.

Go over to the Catholic Answers Forums or the comm box on Jimmy Akin's website and see what people are willing to believe about me there.

We had one guy, we got quite a laugh out of it, but we had one guy say, hey, did you hear that James White gained 100 pounds just so he could intimidate his debate opponents?

And there were people who believed it. Ben, you're just being naive as to Steve's motivations here.

And, you know, it's nice of you to bend over backwards, but sometimes that gets you in a really dangerous position.

The reason Steve Ray changed the title of his blog entry is because the new title more accurately reflects

Dr. White's actual position. According to Dr. White, it might be a bit anachronistic to call St. Ignatius a

Protestant, since as he sees it, there wasn't yet a Catholic church to protest against. But nevertheless, in his view,

St. Ignatius would have held to the five solas which define the heart of the gospel for the heirs of the Protestant Reformation.

Again, I'm left wondering, where is Ben getting all this? Where have

I ever said that? Where in my presentations on YouTube, on the Dividing Line, in my books, have

I ever said Ignatius of Antioch held to all five solas of the

Reformation? I have never even attempted to insinuate such a thing.

That's called anachronism. What I'm calling for is an end to anachronism in patristic studies.

So why would you think that I would be doing that in reverse? I don't understand it.

Never made a statement, but Ben's about to say, yes, Dr. White does believe he was a

Never even intimated such a thing. Suggested. I've said the exact opposite.

Ignatius was Ignatius. That's the whole point. He wasn't a Roman Catholic. He wasn't a

Protestant. He was who he was when he was. He believed what he did. And we have to allow him to speak for himself.

That's all I've been asking for. And the fact that Ben Douglas, who has certainly known of me for a long, long time, could be so completely confused as to what

I think about church history leaves me more than just a little bit befuddled.

It really does. To that extent, the statement, St. Ignatius of Antioch was a Protestant, is an accurate summary of Dr.

White's position. You know, the idea that Steve Ray changed the title of his article in order to hide the fact that it's about James White is absolutely absurd on so many levels.

It is not only uncharitable for James White to suggest this, it is unjust. And then for James White to publicly suggest, in his blog entry of March 6th, that Steve Ray forged the email which he quoted from an anonymous theologian is simply reprehensible.

If I were to subject James White to the same sort of treatment he has subjected Steve Ray to, I could easily find occasion to call him dishonest.

Now, let's see if we can follow Ben Douglas' reasoning at this point because it becomes really murky.

He's referring back to the blog entry of March 6th, 2008. Here's what's happened.

Steve Ray goes on Catholic Answers and pops off about Ignatius without providing any meaningful documentation.

I upload an entire series on Ignatius and what does it say in that series on Ignatius?

It specifically disavows not only what Steve Ray said but what Ben Douglas has just gotten done saying.

It was so clear, so plain in repeatedly stating we need to allow the early church fathers to be the early church fathers.

Don't interpret them in an anachronistic fashion. But for some reason, Ben Douglas didn't hear it.

I'm not going to accuse him of just ignoring it. But I am going to accuse Steve Ray of it because he's done it over and over and over again.

And after the third, fourth, fifth, sixth time of dishonesty what does that make you? It makes you dishonest.

And you don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore, Ben. That's just life. So, what happens is

I point out that despite the fact that my videos specifically stated he is not a

Reformed Baptist what does he do? Well, one of two things. Either he didn't watch them and I imagine he didn't which means he had nothing to say about them or I shouldn't have said anything about them or he's just lying about them.

Both are equally dishonest actions and so he puts this on the blog. He misrepresents me.

He now says to you, Ben, that it was a joke. Please, do not be so naive. That is not a joke.

He was being disrespectful. He likes taking shots. That's what he does. It's all he's got.

He can't do anything more than that. He can't enter into debate. He lacks the capacity to do it.

And so, I point out that once again he's been dishonest and so he changes the title.

And so then I made note of it. Then, in this hit piece, he provides an anonymous scholar.

An anonymous scholar. I'm sorry, Ben. I don't respect that. I do not quote anonymous scholars as sources to attack

Roman Catholic apologists. Now, do I? And if he's going to quote an anonymous scholar then

I have every right to say who is it? Who is it? This is being posted by someone who

I have no reason to trust whatsoever. And so, what kind of a scholar is a scholar of what?

Economics? Business? Physical therapy? Who knows? We have no way of knowing because Steve Ray doesn't care enough about the truth to speak the truth to let us know.

And so, I was not suggesting that he had made it up, but you know what? It's not a bad idea.

I would suggest that. And that's not unjust, Ben. What is unjust is what

Steve Ray has put on his blog for a long, long time. And the rhetoric and the dishonesty that he's used, that's what's dishonest.

And you're defending a dishonest man. And when you defend dishonest men, it sort of comes back to haunt you just a little bit.

And that's what's going on here. Now, I'm going to move on to Ben's attempt to respond to the

Ignatius material. I was expecting some real in -depth discussion in the way that Ben presented this, but I will just simply suggest to the person who's interested in following this saga, go back and listen to what

I presented on Ignatius. It's about... I forget how many videos it was, but it was about 50 minutes of the dividing line, so it might be about five videos.

Listen to how I presented it. Try to listen honestly if you can, fairly if you can, and see what

I'm trying to communicate. And then, let's take a... let's examine how a

Roman Catholic apologist hears what I was saying. It's quite educational.