Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Apologist James White's Bogus, Non-Accredited "Doctorate" Degree Defended Yet Again (vs. Jamin Hubner)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TDTa6u6LDkI/AAAAAAAAC4Q/-wrbdolJWVc/s1600/whiteschool1.jpg
The beautiful campus of James White's alma mater, where he got his "doctorate"

I've already treated at great length the question of James White's bogus "Th.D.": James White's "Doctorate" Degree: Is it Legitimate? (Expanded Edition). I've done a related study of the "high" level of publishing in anti-Catholic circles: Self-Publishing and "Podunk Publishing" Efforts of Some of the Leading Anti-Catholic Authors (King, Webster, White, Svendsen).

The question was raised anew, due to the latest post on James White's blog (7-6-10): The Truth About Education and Accreditation, written by "new member to Team Apologian, Jamin Hubner." He has made flat-out amazing claims in the obvious attempt to shore up White's own bogus doctorate. In a particularly revealing tack, he actually attacks the very notion of accreditation of universities and seminaries ("what is 'accreditation,' and what is it really worth?"). I shall interact with a few of the more remarkable points, with Hubner's words in blue:

Reasons to (and not to) Obtain a Formal Education

. . . Doctoral: A person should get a doctoral degree for (a) training for ministry/teaching/leadership roles (i.e. job as researcher, apologist, professor, etc.), especially those in the academic and scholarship world. A person should not get a doctoral degree because . . . (b) "I want to be called "Dr.",

Exactly. Yet the anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist apologist James White has gone around the world proclaiming himself "Dr. James White" for years now. Obviously, he thinks this grants him a higher degree of credentials (looks great on debate announcements, doesn't it?), and he knows full well the prestige associated with the title; yet it is bogus, because it came from non-accredited Columbia Evangelical Seminary (see the school's lengthy defense of its stand on this score).

It's false advertising, and an insult to all the thousands of men and women who have done the necessary hard work of achieving a real doctorate degree. How ironic, given White's persistent and ongoing critique of a certain figure in the evangelical world, for allegedly falsely presenting his own background on a number of fronts. I am making no judgment on that affair, by the way; if anything I am inclined to agree (from my heavy skimming of it) with the substance of the case that that White has made. But I have not thoroughly read both sides, and so make no final judgment at this point in time. I'm simply noting the irony of criticizing one man for "false advertising" while doing the same in one's own glorious title of "Dr." -- without having written a genuine doctoral dissertation (and that term means something very specific, too) for an accredited educational institution.

(c) "I want to be accepted in the academic community," etc.

There is such a thing as an academic community, and it sets standards for membership: legitimate scholars vs. ones who merely proclaim themselves to be so. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with seeking to be part of this class, and therefore, abiding by its membership requirements.

Completing doctoral studies demonstrates (should) that a person is capable of being a scholar through demonstrating scholarship in one particular area, and demonstrates that a person is prepared to take Christian ministry (i.e. elder, professor, apologist, etc.) seriously.

"Demonstrates" is a malleable, subjective term. Who determines that? This is precisely why accreditation exists in the first place: to ensure certain educational standards. One is not a "scholar" simply by proclaiming himself to be one (such as, e.g., Presbyterian polemicist Tim Enloe has done, before even obtaining an advanced degree of any sort). If White has "demonstrated scholarship," who determined that? His rabid followers? A majority vote from same?

According to his own online listing of his publications, White has been published many times in the Christian Research Journal, which is not a "peer-reviewed academic publication," but merely an arm of the evangelical cult-watching organization, the Christian Research Institute: founded by Dr. Walter Martin. It's a great evangelical magazine (I've often benefited from it, particularly in my cult research), but it's simply not formally an academic one. It is on the same (popular) level as Catholic apologetics journals like This Rock or The Catholic Answer or Envoy Magazine: publications I've written for, myself, many times.

His articles have been in TableTalk Magazine on three occasions. Ditto the above: it is the "devotional" publication of Presbyterian author and radio preacher R. C. Sproul's ministry, not an academic, peer-reviewed journal. He has another in Modern Reformation Magazine, which is of similar nature, flowing from Sproul's ministry.

He has four articles published in Reformed Baptist Theological Review, which appears to be (at least prima facie) legitimately academic and peer-reviewed (though edited by those who teach at the non-accredited Reformed Baptist Seminary), but of course that is merely part of his own small wing of both Reformed Protestants and Baptists, so he can expect to get a minimal amount of scrutiny, preaching to the choir. Thus, he has a total of four articles in one (ostensibly) peer-reviewed academic journal that derives from his own theological school. This is hardly impressive academically, and does not suggest the peer-reviewed work commensurate with a true doctorate.

His many books are written on a "popular level," precisely as my own are. They aren't "academic books" and all are published by evangelical or specifically Calvinist publishers. His initial publisher, Crowne (sometimes called Crown) Publications, appears to have folded. I can't find anything about it online. There was a huge controversy between Crowne / Crown head George Bonneau and Robert Morey: a rabidly anti-Catholic apologist who was also published at Crown / Crowne, with Morey being charged with everything under the sun as a most unsavory, wascally character. And so it goes in the world of anti-Catholicism

White has at least taught at accredited institutions: Grand Canyon University and Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (see some courses he has taught by scrolling to his name, and notes on accreditation).

None of this, however, magically transforms him into a "Doctor."

Granted, White has learned lots of stuff. He knows Hebrew and Greek. He does have a legitimate seminary education. He has learned exegesis (though he often applies it in a thoroughly fallacious manner because of his highly tendentious and dubious anti-Catholicism). He knows a great deal of theology and theological history. He may know any number of things (and I think he does). For all we know, he might be the world's smartest and most knowledgeable man. But that is not the same -- sorry -- as acquiring a doctoral degree.

I actually agree with one key premise of the article: education and acquiring of further knowledge (especially for the right reasons) is a wonderful thing in and of itself. In my own case (as I have openly stated many times), I have no formal theological education. I have studied the Bible and Christianity and Christian history and apologetics and philosophy for over thirty years, for use in my vocation as a full-time apologist.

I'm all for learning: whether informal or formal. A great deal of my own (and all of my theological study) has been informal. No one need be ashamed of that. G. K. Chesterton, for example, never obtained any college degree. Yet few (in the Christian and especially Catholic world) would question his learning or even wisdom.

What I object to is the false advertising of claiming to have a doctorate and proudly bearing the title of "Dr." when one has not done the work that is required to achieve that goal and honor. It's an insult to those who have done so. I don't call myself an "academic" or a "scholar" because that would be a lie. I do call myself a Catholic apologist because that is the truth. "Apologist" is a larger, more inclusive category than "academia" or "the scholarly world." It always has been and always will be.

C. S. Lewis was a Christian apologist, but he didn't have a theological degree. The man was an English professor. I don't go around saying I have a "Ph.D." (or Th.D.) when in fact I do not. White should not do so, either. He has a legitimate Masters degree (MA in theology, 1989) from the legitimate school, Fuller Theological Seminary. That is what he can properly claim.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TDTbO1hbdZI/AAAAAAAAC4Y/6uCqk9hkKRo/s1600/whiteschool2.jpg
The beautiful entrance to the hallowed (ivy-less) hall[s?] of Columbia

If a person gets, for example, a doctoral degree from an institution, this means (if the above assertions are true) that the person has demonstrated himself/herself to be a scholar in a certain area, and thus, is (hopefully) capable of being a scholar in almost any area. Doing so requires nothing more than that: a demonstration.

The same muddleheaded fallacy is presented again: the "demonstration" is merely subjective rather than based on proper accreditation and academic, peer-reviewed standards.

If a person or group of people decided to recognize some degrees as being "real" and others "not real" for reasons other than this demonstration, it obviously has nothing to do with the doctoral degree - the demonstration of being a scholar.

To the contrary, it has everything to do with what a degree is, and whether it is legitimate or not. Granted, there are plenty of abuses in the academic world (heaven knows that I know that full well, in all of my apologetics debates and studies). But having problems does not mean that one should ditch the very notion of accreditation. We don't, for example, get rid of all traffic rules and thumb our noses at them because some routinely abuse them (e.g., speeding on the freeway or not using a turn signal when changing lanes). We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Indeed, the "degree" has everything to do with reaching a certain degree - getting to a point where one can earn the letters (BA, MA, Ph.D, etc.) indicating such accomplishment.

By this absurd reasoning, anyone can read a bunch of books, get several folks to say that he or she has reached an appropriate "degree" of knowledge, thereby entitling them to add titles to their name. I've been told myself by many people (including those with real doctorates) that my learning indicates a knowledge commensurate with those who have obtained those degrees. I take that as a high compliment and am honored and humbled by it, but I would never dream of calling myself "Dr." simply because of those observations. Yet that is what Hubner's "thesis" (no pun intended) seems to amount to. It's subjective and arbitrary and wishy-washy, rather than objective.

A person can obviously have the knowledge of a degree without actually formally earning the degree and having it recognized; . . . an athlete is no more competent a runner after he has obtained a running reward than before he received such formal recognition. . . . just because a person doesn't have the formal degree doesn't mean that person can't have the same abilities and knowledge.

I agree (this is what many folks have kindly said about me); but it doesn't follow that we can proclaim ourselves "Doctors" without following the proper, required, understood process by which we can attain to that title and honor.

Thus, to "demonstrate" what one must demonstrate in any particular degree, is to earn "the degree." So, for example, in a doctoral program, demonstrating scholarship = degree; the "degree" = demonstrating scholarship.

Again, who decides who has demonstrated this level of accomplishment or not? If anyone can do so, then it is completely subjective. If "academics" do so, then we are right back to the question of legitimate credentials and educational requirements, which is accreditation. Hubner is painting himself into a corner by his own flawed logic.


In fact, absolutely nothing about the cheeseburger (i.e. origin, taste, nutritional value, physical weight, smell etc.) would change if every single CEO, manager, and cook of every restaurant in the world endorsed the cheeseburger through paper packaging, labels, and formal institutional recognition. So it is with educational degrees. Accreditation is supposed to mean something, but it can often mean nothing - at least when it comes to getting to a certain degree of academic ability and accomplishment.

I see. So let's dispose of it altogether and regard diploma mills as the equivalents of accredited universities . . . Again (let it be plainly known what the nature of my argument is), I am not even opposed to some schools doing what they do without being accredited, if they perform a valuable teaching service. All I am opposing is the false advertising of claiming that they grant doctorate degrees and that these degrees are the same in essence as those from the accredited institutions.

Since some people have created degree-mills which give the recognition (i.e. Ph.D) without the actual demonstration of reaching a degree of ability and accomplishment, the academic world has come together to establish standards for what a "true" degree is and what it is not.

Exactly. Now we need to determine what a "diploma mill" is and isn't. Hubner apparently thinks there are three categories:


1) Illegitimate non-accredited "diploma mills."

2)
Legitimate non-accredited schools.

3) Legitimate (though questionable in several ways) accredited schools.

Who decides which is which, with regard to #1 and #2? At what point does the "diploma mill" cease to be illegitimate and become a legitimate non-accredited school? Hubner doesn't inform us. He then goes on to note some abuses in the accreditation process (inclusive language). I agree, but this has no bearing on my viewpoint one way or the other.

The purpose of accreditation should be to do just that: to associate a degree with an actual demonstration, not to make unnecessary rules that have no effect upon the actual education and quality thereof.

Bingo! So why wouldn't White's school seek this?

A doctoral degree at, for example, Columbia Evangelical Seminary,

. . . that just happens to be White's alma mater, by the merest of coincidences . . .

is not accredited by any agency. There is no golden stamp on the outside of the cheeseburger bag. But, if one compares the fruit of the doctoral degree (the actual demonstration of scholarship) with that of an accredited institution and there is is no difference, then simply put, there is no difference in the degree - except the packaging, of course.

How is "scholarship" graded, in order to determine "fruit" and "quality" -- if not by accreditation and the peer-reviewed process of journal articles and academic books?

If we are willing to assert the opposite and say, "but the academic world says its not real, so it's not," we are only fooling ourselves. We are saying the cheeseburger isn't real until an organization says it's real. We're saying a man who can lift 40lbs really can't lift 40lbs until he has formally done so in the presence of an approving body.

This forces us to stop and think: Who is determining the value of the accreditation institution anyway? If one institution can validate another, what makes accreditation institutions exempt? If there are "degree-mills," why not "accreditation-mills"? What is to prevent their false education, except yet another, higher accreditation institution?

In conclusion, high standards of accreditation does not always mean high standards of education. The fruit of one's labor is the true test of academic success, not the letters after one's name. If that's true, then term "scholar" should be more broadly used.

Right. As I stated above, obviously, Hubner is eschewing the entire edifice of accreditation, which is a ridiculous thing to do. If it isn't necessary for legitimacy, it isn't necessary. A=A (rule number one in logic). This is its own refutation.

Some of the non-accredited institutions that offer demonstrated superior education (at a fraction of the cost) include Columbia Evangelical Seminary, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, the Midwest Center for Theological Studies, and Reformed Baptist Seminary.

We shall eagerly watch to see what new "scholars" and "doctors" emerge from these wonderful institutions. I say they should continue doing what they do (again I am not opposed to that in and of itself, being a great advocate of more informal education, myself), but drop the pretense of the granting of "doctorates" and churning out "scholars." Words (and titles) mean things, and we have no liberty of redefining terms at our own whim.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Catholic Resources on the Serious Error of Freemasonry

The Catholic Church & Freemasonry (Rev. Robert I. Bradley, S.J.)

Good Catholics Should Not be Masons (Fr. Ashley Beck; The Catholic Herald [UK] )

Can Catholics Become Freemasons? (Cathy Caridi, J.C.L.; Catholic Exchange website)

Is Freemasonry Incompatible with the Catholic Faith? (Wlodzimierz Redzioch; Inside the Vatican / Catholic Culture)

Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry (L'Osservatore Romano, 11 March 1985)

The Masons Themselves Make The Church's Case Against Them (Thomas A. Droleskey; The Wanderer, 11 July 1996)

What Are the Masons? (Fr. William Saunders, Arlington Catholic Herald, 2005)

Can Catholics Be Freemasons? (Catholics United for the Faith, 1998; PDF)

Why Catholics Can't be Masons (Sandra Miesel; Our Sunday Visitor, 24 September 2006)

Christianity and American Freemasonry (book by William J. Whalen; "The Origins of Masonry" -- excerpt from chapter two)

Masonry (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Regent Restates Vatican's Anti-Masonry Position (Zenit, 2 March 2007)

Quick Answers on Freemasonry (Catholic Answers)

Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement (Rev. E. Cahill, S. J.)

FAQs on Freemasonry (John Salza / Scripture Catholic)

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

4th Century Icons of St. Peter and St. Paul Found in Rome / Ironies of Reformed Anti-Catholic Antipathy to Statues and Icons

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TCJEY0NDhZI/AAAAAAAAC3k/_bbMtsd8bh0/s1600/Icons-4thCentury.jpg
[AP Photo / Pier Paolo Cito]

These are the earliest known images of any of the apostles. They were part of a square ceiling painting that also included St. Andrew and St. John: all around an image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. Special laser techniques were used to uncover them.

See the complete story from Associated Press / Fox News.

We Catholics are happy to find this evidence of the biblical practice of veneration of the apostles and saints (including the Protestants' favorite saint, the Apostle Paul) from the 4th century, while certain extreme anti-Catholic Calvinists rail against all icons (even statues of Christ), while at the same time inexplicably praising and posting on their websites photographs of large statues of four 16th-century Calvinists (example).

Ironically, one of the sculptors of the aforementioned "Reformation Wall" in Geneva (built in 1909) was Paul Landowski (1875-1961): a Frenchman of Polish descent, who also collaborated in designing the famous 1931 Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro: one of the New Seven Wonders of the World. The other sculptor was Frenchman Henri Bouchard (1875-1960).

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TCI_M0HLg3I/AAAAAAAAC3c/6pLu4ajy-Ww/s1600/ReformationWall.jpg

Yet some of the anti-Catholics would have us believe that the statue of Christ is an evil idol, while the statues of Calvin, Farel, Beza, and Knox (made in part by the same sculptor) are glorious wonderworks of Protestant devotion and most fitting for the purpose of thankful appreciation for the Protestant Revolution.

Go figure . . .

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

C. S. Lewis' Belief in Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead Documented From Five of His Works

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TCEbwjH5jkI/AAAAAAAAC3M/Xe3f6bOTzTk/s1600/CSL27.jpg

In his fictional book, The Great Divorce (New York: Macmillan, 1946, 39), Lewis portrays the damned (including some near-damned, as it were) making a trip to the outskirts of heaven. One of the spirits is told: "You have been in Hell; though if you don't go back you may call it Purgatory." This theme was expanded later in the book (p. 67):

"If they leave that grey town behind it will not have been Hell. To any that leaves it, it is Purgatory. And perhaps ye had better not call this country Heaven. Not Deep Heaven, ye understand." (Here he smiled at me). "Ye can call it the Valley of the Shadow of Life. And yet to those who stay here it will have been Heaven from the first. And ye can call those sad streets in the town yonder the Valley of the Shadow of Death: but to those who remain there they will have been Hell even from the beginning."

Here is Lewis' most explicit, extended treatment of the topic of purgatory, followed by an interesting short exposition from his famous semi-catechetical work, Mere Christianity:

Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to Him? . . .
I believe in purgatory. Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on "the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory" as that Romish doctrine had then become. . . .
The right view returns magnificently in Newman's Dream. [1] There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer "With its darkness to affront that light." Religion has reclaimed Purgatory.

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, "It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy"? Should we not reply, "With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first." "It may hurt, you know" -- "Even so, sir."

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. . . .

My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am "coming round," a voice will say, "Rinse your mouth out with this." This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure.

(Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 107-109)


"Make no mistake," He says, "if you let me, I will make you perfect. The moment you put yourself in My hands, that is what you are in for. Nothing less, or other, than that. You have free will, and if you choose, you can push Me away. But if you do not push Me away, understand that I am going to see this job through. Whatever suffering it may cost you in your earthly life, whatever inconceivable purification it may cost you after death, whatever it costs Me, I will never rest, nor let you rest, until you are literally perfect — until My Father can say without reservation that He is well pleased with you, as He said He was well pleased with me. This I can do and will do. But I will not do anything less."
(Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan, 1960, 172)

Lewis wrote about purgatory after the death of his wife, Helen:

How do I know that all her anguish is past? I never believed before -- I thought it immensely improbable -- that the faithfulest soul could leap straight into perfection and peace the moment death has rattled in the throat. It would be wishful thinking with a vengeance to take up that belief now . . . I know there are not only tears to be dried but stains to be scoured. . . .

But suppose that what you are up against is a surgeon whose intentions are wholly good. The kinder and more conscientious he is, the more inexorably he will go on cutting. If he yielded to your entreaties, if he stopped before the operation was complete, all the pain up to that point would have been useless. But is it credible that such extremities of torture should be necessary for us? Well, take your choice. The tortures occur. If they are unnecessary, then there is no God or a bad one. If there is a good God, then these tortures are necessary. For no even moderately good Being could possibly inflict or permit them if they weren't.

Either way, we're for it.

What do people mean when they say, "I am not afraid of God because I know He is good?" Have they never even been to a dentist?

(A Grief Observed, New York: Bantam, 1976, 48-51)

In a letter to Sister Penelope, C.S.M.V., written on 17 September 1963, only nine weeks or so before his death, Lewis stated:

If you die first, and if "prison visiting" is allowed, come down and look me up in Purgatory.

(W. H. Lewis, editor, Letters of C. S. Lewis, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1966 [revised and enlarged Harvest edition edited by Walter Hooper, 1993], 509)

* * * * *

[1] Here is the passage from Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman's poem The Dream of Gerontius (1865) that Lewis refers to (from "§ 4. Soul"):


Angel [partial stanza]

So is it now with thee, who hast not lost
Thy hand or foot, but all which made up man.
So will it be, until the joyous day
Of resurrection, when thou wilt regain
All thou hast lost, new-made and glorified.
How, even now, the consummated Saints
See God in heaven, I may not explicate;
Meanwhile, let it suffice thee to possess
Such means of converse as are granted thee,
Though, till that Beatific Vision, thou art blind;
For e'en thy purgatory, which comes like fire,
Is fire without its light.

Soul

His will be done!
I am not worthy e'er to see again
The face of day; far less His countenance,
Who is the very sun. Natheless in life,
When I looked forward to my purgatory,
It ever was my solace to believe,
That, ere I plunged amid the avenging flame,
I had one sight of Him to strengthen me.

Angel

Nor rash nor vain is that presentiment;
Yes,—for one moment thou shalt see thy Lord.
Thus will it be: what time thou art arraign'd
Before the dread tribunal, and thy lot
Is cast for ever, should it be to sit
On His right hand among His pure elect,
Then sight, or that which to the soul is sight,
As by a lightning-flash, will come to thee,
And thou shalt see, amid the dark profound,
Whom thy soul loveth, and would fain approach,—
One moment; but thou knowest not, my child,
What thou dost ask: that sight of the Most Fair
Will gladden thee, but it will pierce thee too.

Soul

Thou speakest darkly, Angel; and an awe
Falls on me, and a fear lest I be rash.

Angel

There was a mortal, who is now above
In the mid glory: he, when near to die,
Was given communion with the Crucified,—
Such, that the Master's very wounds were stamp'd
Upon his flesh; and, from the agony
Which thrill'd through body and soul in that embrace,
Learn that the flame of the Everlasting Love
Doth burn ere it transform ...

***

Monday, June 21, 2010

The Documentary Theory of the Authorship of the Pentateuch: Collection of Critical Articles


Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)


"In the last two decades of Pentateuchal scholarship, the source-critical method has come under unprecedented attack; in many quarters it has been rejected entirely. . . . [various factors] have led scholarship to the brink of abandoning the four sources, J, E, P and D. "

--- The Tam Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University (Spring 2009 Calendar of Events)


Catholic



The Documentary Hypothesis (Mark A. McNeil)

Crisis in Scripture Studies (William G. Most)

Critique of the Documentary Theory (William G. Most)

Dialogue on the Documentary Theory of Biblical Authorship (JEPD) and of Dissenting Liberal Hermeneutics Generally (Dave Armstrong)

Documentary Hypothesis (Catholic Answers forums discussion thread)

JEDP theory (Catholic Answers forums discussion thread)

Documentary Theory: True of False? (Catholic Answers forums discussion thread)

Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD) from Catholic perspective? (Coming Home Network discussion thread)

JEDP refutations (Joseph Blenkinsopp) [link for cited book]

"The Genesis of a Commentary": Review of Genesis, by Jewish scholar Nahum M. Sarna (Jimmy Akin, This Rock)

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911): "Pentateuch"

What Is Biblical Criticism—and Should We Trust It? (Peter Funk, O.S.B.; This Rock)

What Is the Documentary Hypothesis? (This Rock)

Jesuit Bible Scholar on Source Criticism and Exegesis [Dennis J. McCarthy] (John Bergsma)


Protestant

Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'? (UK Apologetics)

The Documentary Hypothesis: Its History and Present Status (Glenn Giles)

The Torah in Modern Scholarship (Rev. Kenneth W. Collins)

Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical (Eta Linnemann)

Does the triple tale of Gen. 12, 20, and 26 support the JEDP theory? (J. P. Holding)

Do Genesis 15 and 17 support the JEDP theory? (J. P. Holding)

Does Genesis 21 support the JEDP Theory? (J. P. Holding)

Midianites or Ishmaelites? (Genesis 37) (Eric Vestrup)

Does the "water from rock" double tale support the JEDP theory? (Ex 17:2-7; Num 20:2-13) (J. P. Holding)

Does Numbers 16 support the JEDP theory? (J. P. Holding)

Deuteronomy and the JEDP Thesis (J. P. Holding)

Contradictions in the David and Goliath Story Examined (1 Samuel 16-18) (J. P. Holding)

On the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Glenn Miller, Christian Think Tank)

Was there not enough time for Hebrew to have developed? (Glenn Miller, Christian Think Tank)

The Making of the Old Testament Before Moses (Glenn Miller, Christian Think Tank)

A brief note about the Documentary Hypothesis (Glenn Miller, Christian Think Tank)

Good questions on JEDP (Glenn Miller, Christian Think Tank)

A Brief case for Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch (Glenn Miller, Christian Think Tank)

Was the Pentateuch "adulterated" by later additions? (Glenn Miller, Christian Think Tank)

New Directions in Pooh Studies: Überlieferungs- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Pu-Buch (satire of JEDP principles)

Did Moses Write the Pentateuch? (Don Closson)

The Genuineness and Mosaic Authorship of Genesis (Dr. Timothy Lin; PDF file)

Documentary Hypothesis: The Subjective Approach to Biblical Criticism (Graham Apologetics; PDF file)

The Documentary Hypothesis (list of scholars of various religious persuasions who reject it) (Alice C. Linsley)

My Trouble with the Documentary Hypothesis (+ Part Two) (Agkyra website)

Genesis: Before Abraham Was and the Documentary Hypothesis
(+ Intro, Parts Two / Three / Four / Five / Six) (Stephen Rives)

Another Good Critique of JEDP (Matt Kennedy; + long discussion thread)

Response to Rolf Rendtorff's "What Happened to the Yahwist? Reflections after Thirty Years" (David J. A. Clines, Society of Biblical Literature)


Jewish

On the Documentary Hypothesis (Rabbi Yosek Reinman; Biblical Archaeology Review)

The Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures (Umberto Cassuto)

Jewish Responses to Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis (Abraham Jacob Berkovitz)

The Documentary Hypothesis – a Critique (Jacob Stein)

On Bible Criticism and Its Counterarguments: A Short History (Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo)

Documentary Hypothesis Debunked: An Analysis of Bible Criticism (Rabbi Shlomo Cohen)

"Dialogue Central": Complete Listing of Internet Theological Dialogues by Dave Armstrong (Part 2: Non-Protestants)

Go to Part One of this Index for the following (Protestant) categories:


PROTESTANTS

Anglicans
Baptists (Including Reformed [Calvinist] Baptists)
Church of Christ
Evangelicals
Liberal / "Progressive"
Lutherans
Methodists

Reformed (Calvinist) / Presbyterians

* * * * *

ORTHODOX (EASTERN)

Perry Robinson


CATHOLICS

Orthodox Catholics

Anonymous



Mike Breslin


Eric G.

Stephen Hand


"JS" (Thomist)


Jonathan


John Lowell


Multiple


"Nordskoven"


Dr. Alexander Pruss (philosophy professor)


Rory


David Schütz


Liberal, Dissident Catholics




"Traditionalist" Catholics (Self-Defined)

Anonymous



"Boniface"





David Palm




HERESIES AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION



Judaism

Ari G. (Orthodox)


Mormonism

Dr. Barry R. Bickmore


Tom

SEXUAL AND LIFE ISSUES


Dialogue: Is Premarital Sex Wrong? (vs. C. Jack Elliott)




Dialogue on Contraception (vs. multiple opponents: Orthodox, Anglican, and evangelical Protestant)



Dialogue on Homosexuality (vs. Sogn Mill-Scout)

Dialogue With an Atheist on Homosexuality
(vs. "drunkentune")


Dialogue With a Bisexual Agnostic on Homosexuality (+ Part II, which includes very extensive medical/scientific data)



ETHICAL, SOCIAL, POLITICAL, MISC. ISSUES

 




Debate on the War in Iraq (vs. "Secret Agent Man")





ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS

Dave Van Allen

Anonymous


Dr. Jim Arvo


Edward Babinski

Debate With an Agnostic on the Meaning of "Last Days" and Whether the Author of Hebrews Was a False Prophet

Critique of Agnostic Ed Babinski's Post: "The Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga and Victor Reppert" (the "Emotional" Argument From Evil)

Objections to Some Atheist / Agnostic "Proof Texts" of an Alleged Flat-Earth Biblical Cosmology


How and Why Discussions With Agnostics and Atheists Often (Sadly) Collapse / The Many Logical Fallacies of Ed Babinski and Friends (Was [and occasionally still touches upon]: Discussion on the Psalms) (vs. Ed Babinski and Pals)

Postscript to Dialogue With Agnostic Ed Babinski on the Psalms, Etc.: Ed's Attempt to Enlist an Ancient Near East Scholar in Support Backfires (Dr. James Roger Black vs. Ed Babinski; compiled and additional commentary by Dave Armstrong)


Second Reply to Agnostic Ed Babinski on the Supposed Irrationality and Immorality of the Psalms and the Christian Worldview

Reply to "The Problem of Pain and the Egomania of the Psalms"


S. Burgener






 













Dr. Ted Drange (philosophy professor)





"drunkentune"


Matt Fahrner

Theresa Frasch

Matthew Green


Mike Hardie

Dialogue With an Atheist on the "Problem of Good" and the Nature of Meaningfulness in Atheism (+ Part Two) (The Flip Side of the Problem of Evil Argument Against Christianity)

Joe E. Holman

Bob Hypes

Jon


Charlie Kluepfel


John W. Loftus

Is God in Time?


Serious Christian Treatments of the Problem of Evil and Breezy Atheist Dismissals of Them Sans Rational Argument



Reply to Former Christian John Loftus' "Outsider Test of Faith" Series 

The Essential Silliness and Hypocrisy (Even Duplicity) of Atheist John Loftus: Webmaster of Debunking Christianity

"Jittery John" Loftus Again Throws a Hissy-Fit When I Simply Critique His Argument Against the Biblical, Timeless, Transcendent God 

Critique of John W. Loftus' "Deconversion" Story From Church of Christ Pastor to Atheist

Atheist John W. Loftus and His "Deconversion" Story: The Strange Saga Continues and the Plot Thickens

Census and Jesus' Birth in Bethlehem: Atheist John W. Loftus' Irrational and Uninformed Criticisms of the Biblical Accounts


John W. Loftus: "Blood Out of a Turnip": Getting Nowhere Trying to Persuade an Active Atheist Polemicist to Defend His Own Positions Against Critique


RubySera Martin


Daniel Morgan

Multiple







paul


"ProfMTH" / Mitch




Dr. Jan Schreurs



Sue Strandberg


Go to Part One of this Index for the following (Protestant) categories:

PROTESTANTS

Anglicans
Baptists (Including Reformed [Calvinist] Baptists)
Church of Christ
Evangelicals
Liberal / "Progressive"
Lutherans
Methodists
Reformed (Calvinist) / Presbyterians


Last updated on 30 June 2011