Daryl-Webster debate ends here. Daryl sent me new comments in an e-mail, and I have agreed to publish these, giving him the last word. His comments are below the asterisks halfway down this post.
I have only two final comments of my own.
1. If you read to the end of Daryl’s latest message, you may conclude, as I have, that he was set off by my stories of the guru I have called Gulliver, especially by my admission of being sexually abused. I am not surprised that Daryl found these accounts offensive. I’m sure others have had similar reactions, though unvoiced. I did not publish these accounts with any sense of pride, and I never meant them to be an exposé.
I meant only to chart as honestly as possible my improbable path to the Catholic Church. I think I have made that clear enough previously.
2. In my most recent e-mail reply to Daryl, I asked him to consider replying to comments by Neil Yetts, who is a friend of mine. Not only a friend but the RCIA teacher who led me through my first catechesis before I was received into the Church in 2007–2008. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate Neil “having my back”!
I am reprinting Neil’s questions to Daryl before Daryl’s final message, in case Daryl wishes to reply to these questions below. If his replies are civil, I will publish them; and then that will be my final word on a debate that probably should never have happened in this space.
Neil’s message—mostly questions for Daryl—is in italics here.
If not by the authority of the Church, then by what authority do you know which books/letters belong to the New Testament canon?
Where in Scripture does it teach the protestant doctrine of "Scripture Alone"?
What would be the point of Christ giving us an infallible scripture if it can't be interpeted infallibly?
There is much to say about your arguments about the Eucharist. If this conversation continues I would like to address them, but for now, I will just comment on one item you wrote—"Amusingly, we are left with the Creator of the universe becoming a prisoner of war in the stomach, and needing to escape the very stomach acids He has created! The escapee then becomes M.I.A. until the next Mass."
The reality of the Incarnation is messy. Jesus grew in a womb and came through a birth canal. He sweat, he went to the bathroom (and before the invention of toilet paper), he wept, he bled. He died. Life is messy. This is the reality of the Incarnation. Jesus took the form of a slave (Philippians 2). Is it then so hard to accept that he should also humble Himself and become our food?
Reject the doctrine, if you must, for what you believe to be scriptural reasons, but not on the basis that it is too incarnational. If you do, you will ultimately end up undermining what Jesus did for us by becoming a man.
* * * * *
And now Daryl K’s comments:
D.K. Well it would appear I have won the debate by default. As I told you from the start, according to 1 Cor 11:19, it is God's desire that heresy arise ON PURPOSE so that both viewpoints duke it out, so the better position is made manifest to all. This is most likely His way of forcing people to go back to the Scriptures to check things out (Acts 17:11). You did not even attempt to deal with the biblical evidence, and so you have left readers empty-handed as they go to Scripture to check your position. Hence, it is not that ***I*** win, it's that the word of God wins.
Previously you said
W.B. My worthy antagonist Daryl K has replied to my post of this morning...I will post my own reply to his latest comments, probably Tuesday if time permits. I must first read carefully and pick out the three or four most salient points that seem to require my own thoughtful responses.
D.K. So at first blush I am considered "worthy of a response", but apparently after losing sleep over it, you now find my apologetics simply too hot to handle, and have tried to hide behind the excuse of me not being "charitable". Anyone can see that this is a false accusation, and not worthy of merit. Sadly, you seem to think that Jesus Christ walked around with a limp wrist and a feather duster, throwing moondust on everyone He met, and we are to act accordingly.
Au contrair, Pierre.
Let me remind you that in Matthew 23, Jesus used some very firey language, which I didn't even come CLOSE to using with you. He called His detractors "hypocrites" (7 times), "son of Hell" (once), "blind guides" (twice), "fools and blind" (3 times), "whited sepulchres" (once), "serpents" (once), and "offspring of vipers" (once).
And in 1 & 2 John, the writer calls certain persons "liars" and "antichrists".
Oh my, how uncharitable!
Or John the Baptist, ("ye brood of vipers").
Or Stephen, “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you." (Acts 7:51).
W.B. You noted that you are a Reformed Baptist, i.e. a Christian like myself.
D.K. Ummmm....if I am a Christian just like you, why does the RCC feel compelled to evangelize Protestants?
What you don't seem to understand is what I pointed out to you twice in my rebuttal. There izzzz such a thing as "another jesus and another gospel" per 2 Cor 11:4, which I submit pertains to you, Mr. Bull. This "other" jesus cannot possibly save you regardless of your devotion to "it". I find it shocking that you simply stick a rose in-between your teeth and consider yourself immune from being influenced by this false christ merely by virtue of being "Catholic". Evidently, it hurts your brain to even entertain the possibility. Nevertheless, the preponderance of evidence says otherwise.
W.B. As a Christian and Catholic convert .....
D.K. NO. They were first [and only!) called "Christians, never "Catholic" (Acts 11:26).
W.B. it seems to me important that Christians not attack one another.
D.K. Oh really? What about the RCC consigning me to hell if I don't embrace papal requirements?
"This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which NO ONE can deviate without loss of faith and SALVATION." (On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff", chapter 3).
Or what about Trent? Have they not "attacked me" and consigned me to hell when they proclaim,
"After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept, CANNOT be justified."
Oh my, how uncharitable of them! These protocols of issuing passports to hell for non-compliance to RC doctrine, is certainly not in alignment with your, "I am a Christian just like you" proclamation above.
Now I forthrightly addressed some very serious issues and have done so without shame or regret. You're trying to imply I overstepped my boundaries.
Regarding atheists, did the Psalmist overstep hizzzz boundaries in 14:1 and 53:1 by categorizing them as "fools"?
Or from 1 Tim 4:2, Paul refers to "hypocritical liars", and in 5:13, he writes of "gossips and busybodies". It therefore should go without saying that those sensitive souls such as yourself who flinch when hearing someone being called a nasty name, need to stop being offended and cease with the demand for "charity"--- (which of course has its place, but not in EVERY place!). Since we agree that Christ was without sin, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that name-calling as such is not a sin either, but is rather, a virtue, when one perceives that the word of God is being mishandled. . It is identifying a person for what he is and this cannot be done except by DOING IT. Again: I didn't even come close to the hot temperature ratings given off by those in the Text, although I have every right to do so.
W.B. The same charity that Christ taught and that we try to model, we should show to fellow Christians.
D.K. But ***I*** am not allowed to model the essence of stern rebuke as demonstrated by Jesus Christ?
I don't think so!
Now as far as Catholics being considered "fellow Christians"....the fact is, that the majority of non-Catholics most certainly do NOT consider Catholics to be Christian. Those that do are being dishonest and "nonsensically charitable"....for if they really had respect for the Pope as the leader of all Christendom and believed the requirements stated above were non-negotiable when it comes to their salvation, they would immediately make a mad dash for the nearest priest and convert! But do they do this? By and large, NO.
The brutal truth is that Catholicism has fallen into the very same error as that of the Judaizers who also claimed to be Christians. Their problem was that they were seeking to add just one little thing to the gospel as being "necessary for salvation", but Paul said he would not tolerate it, "no, not for an hour" (Gal 2:5). Neither will I. Thus, you certainly can't blame ME for being intolerant to Catholic belief and practice, for they have added MANY MORE requirements than the Judaizers ever imagined!
W.B. Setting aside your misinterpretation of papal infallibility,
D.K. With no proof to the contrary, merely "saying" I misrepresented the papacy cannot possibly be taken seriously, especially since you "set aside" 100% of everything else I said.
W.B. I must say that I found your references to the “Vatican hat-check girl” and “baloney” distinctly uncharitable.
D.K. Yet, in light of the heated language already found in the Bible, I would say your accusation disappears into nothingness. It also just occurred to me that the Lord called Herod...(gasp!) "a fox" in Luke 13:32, and elsewhere, "you are of your father the devil" (John 8:44). Therefore, do not tell me that I may not also take similar liberties on occasion. If you're going to say I must follow Christ in His CHARITABLE discourses, it follows I must likewise imitate "the tone of His tongue" when correction is in order.
W.B. Your sarcastic, graphic description of the Holy Eucharist is downright offensive to a practicing daily-mass Catholic like myself.
D.K. As I recall, Jesus was unconcerned about offending the sensibilities of His detractors, so my objections still stand. I gave you the facts. You ignored them. I might also add that there is much sarcasm in Scripture, as well as "graphic language"--- like "cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin" or "plucking out your eye", or "hating your parents"....and of course, "eating my flesh and blood".....all of which were offensive, but were obviously used to drive the point homej.
W.B. If you would like to continue this discussion, please leave a comment below saying that you will try to keep things “mannerly” from now on. Otherwise, I am going to take my football (and rosary beads) and go home.
D.K. It looks like this conversation is over then and I can exit with a clear conscience, since I have no intention to strip myself of all emotion, nor would God want me to.
As for ME not being "mannerly", I would like to suggest that YOU were out of order by letting your readers know about your seduction during "Gulliver's Travels". In this day and age it gets tiresome to be constantly bombarded with every disgusting detail no matter what the topic, with nothing it seems, ever sacred or off limits. Nevertheless, the Lord says that some things simply DO NOT need to be mentioned!
"But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" (Eph 5:3).
Strangely, it seems it's OK with you that we hear the dirty details, but NOT OK for me to tell you that your "jesus" leaves your stomach after 2 minutes---even according to your own catechism????????
Now the REAL Jesus Christ gave out compliments to those who had tested those who were calling themselves Christians, but who were in fact, liars (Rev 2:2). Of course, that does not prove that my assessment of you is correct, but it does show that those who are sensitive to the truth of the gospel and sense the word of God is being dragged through the mud, have every right to counter their opponent's claims with the "sword of the Lord", and I have done so.
I would like to see if you have the guts to print this response, as it definitely exposes your reply to me as woefully inadequate.