By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive)
Catholics Who Died Defending The Jews During Nazism Are ALL GOING TO HELL. So proclaimed the strict Calvinist James White, the president of Alpha & Omega Ministries who attacked an article we wrote which expressed a positive view of Catholics helping the Jews during Nazism:
So if a Catholic died in Hitler’s furnace believing he was serving Christ in carrying his cross, dying as a martyr to defend the Jews, according to White, that Catholic is bound to hell, just as the homosexual pastor goes into the pit with him.
And what Catholic thought he is going to heaven because “how he died”? It is why he chose to give his life as one of Christ’s spiritual brethren and by emulating Christ carrying their cross and defending and dying for His physical brethren, the Jews.
But why pick on only the Catholics as the only group going to hell? What about, let’s say, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, which represents Eastern Christianity?
What about the Coptic Church, Ethiopian Church, Chaldean, Byzantine Church … and then we have Eastern Orthodox; Russian, Estonian, Greek, Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Cypriot, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Latvian, Moldavian, Ukranian … all these who suffered the yoke of Islam or Nazism (or even both), have what Mr. White considers “heretical views,” in which he would consider non-negotiable to enter heaven!?
Lest we forget the Armenian Christians, the first nation in history to declare itself a Christian nation, who has suffered under the yoke of Islam more than any other, they too must go to hell:
Forget these cries you see in the video above, its simply the same “weeping and gnashing of teeth” that Christ will say to these Armenians: “depart from me, I never knew you, you doers of iniquity”.
After all, they too, like Catholics and Orthodox are not Calvinists who by the way even agree with Muslims on their denunciations of all these Christian groups, who after all, believe in absurd theological ideas as the “bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus”, “Icons” (God forbid, Icons are idols), “the sinlessness of Mary”, “her bodily assumption”, that she is the Theotokos “Mother of God”, “prayer to saints”; so the millions of martyred Armenians who were butchered by Islam—in fact all Orthodox Christians—are also bound to hell, including but not limited to even the Catholics who even gave their lives to die in Hitler’s oven defending the Jews!
That is, if we agree with White’s judgment since he knows the Bible more than all these and a myriad of theologians, martyrs and historians all put together.
Sorry Armenians, the White hath spoken!
So lets see the Catholic priests during Nazi Germany whom White “damned to hell” in his clip in comparison to Protestant pastors during the same time who are “going to heaven”.
By the late 1920s, the Catholic Church in Germany claimed some 20 million members who were outnumbered by the 40 million Lutherans, but the vitality of the Catholic community was manifested in the 20,000 priests (compared to the 16,000 Lutheran ministers). Yet out of a total of all clergy recorded as imprisoned at Dachau, the overwhelming majority, some 94.88% were all Catholic. (1)
White cannot refute the historic facts that Hitler, like him, was anti-Clericalism. The cultural and educational leader of the Reich, Rosenberg had something more in common with the Protestant, not Catholic, Rosenberg was not notoriously anti-Luther, but staunchly anti-Catholic. (2)
And we ask the way Jesus asked; if all the Catholics were of the devil, why would the devil kill the devil?
British historian Paul Johnson has called Luther’s On the Jews and their Lies the “first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust.” (3)
Hmm, this is no small accusation.
The line of “anti-Semitic descent” from Luther to Hitler is “easy to draw,” according to American historian Lucy Dawidowicz, in her “The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945”, she writes that both Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the “demonologized universe” inhabited by Jews, with Hitler asserting that the later Luther, the author of On the Jews and Their Lies was the ‘real Luther’.
In the course of the Luthertag (Luther Day) festivities, the Nazis emphasized their connection to Luther as being both nationalist revolutionaries and the heirs of the German traditionalist past. An article in the Chemnitzer Tageblatt stated that “[t]he German Volk are united not only in loyalty and love for the Fatherland, but also once more in the old German beliefs of Luther [Lutherglauben]; a new epoch of strong, conscious religious life has dawned in Germany.” (4)
The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther “the first German spiritual Führer” who spoke to all Germans regardless of clan or confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his “Old Fighters” were mostly Protestants and that it was precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland” in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther’s birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: “Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity in Germany.” Precisely because of Luther’s political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both “to church and Volk.” (5)
Even the Yad Vashem, the authority on the Holocaust published that in the 1920s and 1930s, Catholic leaders made a number of forthright attacks on Nazi ideology and the main Christian opposition to Nazism had come from the Catholic Church. (6)
Boy that’s a whopper argument to refute.
Yet, none of the denominations that stemmed from Rome are “saved”? Copts, Serbs, Greeks, Russian Orthodox who fought Communism, Assyrians under the yoke of the ISIS … anyone who is not of Mr. White’s theological persuasion are bound to hell?
When Jesus in Matthew 25 judges the Church on the basis of persecution, He will say that Calvinist apologists and Reformed Baptist apologists will enter heaven, while the rest are damned to hell?
So now having said all this, are you going to post some silly comments that I am now anti-Protestants?
But before you carry out your little slanders sitting comfortably behind a screen, please continue.
I have watched enough head-spinning debates (see James offer to debate in the Appendix) between Christians in which one sophist argues with another, and both sound like they make sense, until, of course, I go to the original sources and make up my own mind, or I try to use Jesus’ simple method and look at the whole movement and ask; what fruits (good works) has this movement produced, how is the devil attacking such group, any martyrs and heavy persecution by Nazis and Muslims against such group? After all, the devil kills, and at times even the heretic, just because he is a human being, but in the long run, the devil does not fight himself, but he uses Cain to finally slaughter the true Abel.
Who today is killing the ones “Saved by TULIP” in a major way (which TULIP is supposedly the gospel), rather than how the Bible defines the gospel: the incarnation, redeeming death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, which we Christians of so many backgrounds believe?
While we all argue, rightfully, why do we not occasionally unite under certain circumstances to save our brethren suffering the Muslim scimitar, instead of condemning the suffering as to which one of them go to heaven or hell?
And we also ask; why do the Absolute Predestination Calvinists have a common agenda with Islam in its utter hatred of Roman Catholicism? Why does Calvin’s “absolute pre-destination,” is so similar to Islam’s Al-Aqada Wal-Qadar, which is not only heretical by Catholic standards, but by Evangelical as well?
But perhaps better yet, that such Calvinist should have first compared the Catholic shortcomings to Luther’s or Calvin’s or even to himself, before he attempts to take the spec out of his Catholic brother’s eye. For we must confess, that Luther’s blasphemies we should all hate. “Christ”, says Luther:
“Committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom Saint John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: `Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died” (7)
Did Catholics ever teach this?
And as far as John Calvin’s predestination, it resulted in some utterly demonic influence. In his debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson, James White was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” To which Mr. White replied:
“Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose… and God is responsible for the creation of despair… If He didn‟t [decree child rape] then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.” (8)
In other words, God brought evil to such a child, but it was for a redemptive purpose.
And this is not only White’s view. His brother in the same conviction, the famed Calvinist John Piper writes:
“So when I say that everything that exists — including evil — is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly, I mean that, one way or the other, God sees to it that all things serve to glorify his Son.” (9)
But all this does not stem from Piper or White, it stems from John Calvin himself, the so-called reformer who decreed, like in Islam, that a rapist should not be punished, but that his victim should marry him:
“Glossing Exodus 22 and a parallel passage in Deuteronomy 22, Calvin argued that, if the father of the woman victim consented, the parties should be compelled to marry and the man deprived of any right to divorce her thereafter. Calvin had no difficulty with compelling the man to marry, for this was more merciful than coercive. After all, the rapist had exercised his free will in choosing to rape the woman. Properly, he should be executed for his offense. But that would only compound the harm to the young woman who could now be left ravaged, stigmatized, and without ongoing support if her father dismissed her. So, the rapist had to marry his victim, to pay the full marriage price, and to live peaceably with his wife thereafter — and consider himself lucky to have escaped with his life.” (10)
What utter depravity, that a woman must suffer more rape throughout her life as an ordinance by God when in reality such ordinances are of the devil.
Such heresies is what Mr. White’s sister, Mrs. Patty Bonds, had to endure after their Calvinist father was predestined to molest her for years, and instead of consoling her, Mr. White condemned her. why? She committed the utter abomination, worse than her being raped by the father, since she decided to convert to Catholicism.
As St. Thomas More before Protestants beheaded him for his Catholic views, once said of such Calvinist wretches:
“Of what use will all laws be? And what would become of all good order among people, if every disordered wretch could claim that his wicked deed was his destiny? If free will serves for nothing, and every man’s deed is his destiny, why do these men complain about any man? Unless they will say they do it because it is there destiny to do so. And why, then, will they be angry with those who punish heretics, unless they will say it is there destiny to be so? For if they will hold them to the beliefs of their own sect and say people do them wrong to burn them for their heresies since it was their destiny to be heretics, then they could be well answered with their own words—as was done to a member of their sect in a good town in Germany. When he had robbed a man and was brought before the judges, he could not deny the deed, but he said it was his destiny to do it and therefore they could not blame him. And they answered him in line with his own doctrine, saying that if it was his destiny to steal, and therefore they must hold him excused, than it was also there destiny to hang him, and therefore he must as well hold them excused right back.” (11)
There is little difference between the Muslim predestination they call Al-Qada Wal-Qadar and such Calvinist theology as Absolute Predestination, attributing all sin as created by God, and if the Muslim worships the devil disguised as God, than the Calvinist who believes in Absolute Predestination—as James White and Piper do—are not that far off.
As Hilaire Belloc, the great historian wrote on Calvinism:
“So much for the doctrine [Aryanism] and for what its rationalistic tendencies would have ended in had it conquered. It would have rendered the new religion something like Mohammedanism or perhaps, seeing the nature of Greek and Roman society, something like an Oriental Calvinism”. (12)
Belloc was brilliant. He was correct to equate Islam as to some sort of Oriental form of Calvinism. But to such a wretch like White, Belloc committed the crime of being Catholic. So he, as well as G.K. Chesterton, two of our greatest Christian thinkers, according to the ‘Almighty’ White are predestined to hell.
But could it be perhaps that who predestines Catholics to hell are themselves speaking from the pit of hell? Belloc also stated:
“There is thus a very great deal in common between the enthusiasm with which Mohammed’s teaching attacked the priesthood, the Mass and the sacraments, and the enthusiasm with which Calvinism, the central motive force of the Reformation, did the same. As we all know, the new teaching relaxed the marriage laws-but in practice this did not affect the mass of his followers who still remained monogamous. It made divorce as easy as possible, for the sacramental idea of marriage disappeared. It [Islam] insisted upon the equality of men, and it necessarily had that further factor in which it resembled Calvinism-the sense of absolute predestination, the sense of fate; of what the followers of John Knox were always calling “the immutable decrees of God.” (13)
Luther has also uttered many heresies. The Luther one meets while reading his works is completely and utterly different from the Luther we were taught in both Fair Oaks Baptist, as well as North Creek Church, where John McNeff was our Calvinist pastor who baptized Theodore Shoebat. And since White speaks of “scholarship,” the legend of Luther does not really exist any longer in the world of scholarship once one reads his works in which God, seemed to Luther:
“a master armed with a stick”. “God did mischievously blind me”; “God often acts like a madman”; “God paralyses the old and blinds the young and thus remains master”; I look upon God no better than a scoundrel”; “God is stupid” (14)
HOW THE SOPHIST OPERATES
The sophist doesn’t only try to make others look stupid, but will also levy such accusations on God Himself whether directly as Luther did or indirectly as the Calvinist does when he attributes sin to stem from God’s plan.
It is essential therefore, to understand the art of the debate-loving-Sophist, which is the technique of making deliberately invalid arguments by simply displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone. The sophist always tries to convince the laity by boosting his own self-esteem through attempting without fully explaining in detail, to paint the other side who disagrees with his views by accusing them of being “dumb,” “ignorant”, “deceptive,” “dishonest,” “incapable,” “absurd,” “unscholarly,” “unreliable,” “laughable,” “grossly flawed,” “pathetically weak,” “anachronistic,” “incoherent,” and “simplistic”; the milieu of Whites tirades always includes such words and seem to be his little booklet-dictionary, a niche he uses in many of his explanations, in hope that the unwary, the Ahistoric and the laity will take his bait hook-line-and-sinker.
The Sophist banks on his opposition’s minor shortcomings, which everyone has, but according to White such spec findings are used to seemingly show that he totally debunked the jest of his opposition’s message and is why you will find a litany of posts and clips by his followers with titles as “debunked” and “so and so owned so and so”, a tactic Muslims love to do.
For example, one of our shortcomings is that we used a photo from the book of Revelation showing that “666” was in the Codex Vaticanus when in fact it was in Codex 1957. But the photo of the codex we showed came off an error, not made by us, but by others whom we pulled it from. The error we made is that we trusted the photo image provided by someone on the web:
Or that the Greek letters representing 666 are Greek and not Arabic, a thing we all are fully aware of, but that it’s an interesting observation to see a similarity between the two. And we ask; if the Greek symbols somehow were posted on foreheads and arms, would that convince them it’s the Mark of the Beast? It would still read in the Arabic as well as Greek and at some point in time we will all see it since God has spoken it.
So now, according to James, its “walla,” everything we taught on the Mark of the Beast, the Name of the Beast, and how Islam’s blasphemies emulate what John warned us about, is all now a falsity. None of the other evidences we present are valid any longer.
This is what a Sophist does best; he finds the specs while him sending an array of Christians to hell is no major log. A sophist nitpicker is always proficient in finding specs while missing logs.
Another example is that to paint the crusaders were simply all bad and that anyone who posts their positives are even worse “Islamophobes” “militant bent on Christian Jihad”. These are the labels White tried to portray us with, that our call for Christians who are persecuted and have the right to bare arms as reminiscent to Muslims calling on aggressive Jihad.
Would Mr. White dare accuse Israel carrying arms and fighting, or the U.S., bombing the hell out of Dresden, Heroshima and Naghazaki, as wrong?
Have the anti-Crusaders ever wondered why the liberal, the Muslim and the Calvinists are all anti-Crusaders? While it is true that the Crusaders did err, the bulk of their efforts were justified.
It’s like saying that everything Protestant was bad. Is that valid? Especially since it is also true that historically speaking, Protestants stood and fought alongside the Muslim Ottoman Antichrist of the day at the Battle of Lepanto. Are all Protestants then bad? This seems to irk this group, of course, and we do not blame them; truth hurts. Indeed, Protestants historically fell for the lie that they can find commonality with Muslims during the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Mehmet II and the unification of the Middle East under Selim I, Suleiman the Magnificent, the son of Selim even managed to expand Ottoman rule to the Balkans through the help of the Protestants. The Habsburg Empire thus entered into direct conflict with the Ottomans whom the Protestant Reformation—while it was taking root in northern and central Europe—considered various forms of cooperation and rapprochement in not only commercial and military, but religious cooperation with the Muslim world, a thing the Catholic Church never did at the time, just to stand in opposition to the Catholics. (15)
This was never discussed from the pulpits of our churches or in our Sunday school classes, except of course, and God forbid, to say that the Crusaders did some good is an anathema.
Ever wonder how fast we can turn a Calvinist into a liberal and even pro-Muslim? It takes 5 minutes, just bring up the Crusaders and enjoy the sophism.
And today, at times we see both the Catholic Church as well as a milieu of Protestant churches pussyfooting with Islam. Should such spiritual prostitution stop us all from uniting as individual Christians?
God already declared, that it’s how Christ sifts the wheat from the chaff and in the end its by what we do for the Christians and the Jews during their suffering is how He knows the true followers in Matthew 25. “My Brethren” are the ones who were spiritually adopted, the suffering Christians, and the Jews are His literal brethren.
How dare anyone judge the Catholic who defended the Jew in Hitler’s crematoria?
To be fare, James White responded to this article, here is his video clip response:
Would James be gracious to post in full our article here on his website?
He tries to soften his position by saying that “Catholics can be saved despite being Catholic”. But such is an oxymoron example and is an attempt of a sophist, Mr. White. How can one be Catholic and non-Catholic at the same time. And when did we ever teach that one is saved by purely good works, but that works are the evidence of true faith. Then Mr. White scrambles to find a response by saying that how one sacrifices themselves to die for others as meaningless. By that he makes Christ’s own words invalid: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”.
When Christ comes, Mr. White, He will not give a James White sermon on Works vs. Faith salvation, but that WORKS on saving the lives of His brethren would be the measure to test FAITH.
As to the question as to what denomination we belong to, you ask “are you Catholic?” and we answer such question with a question, Jesus style; since when do Protestants allow themselves the right for an inquisition? Why not ask if we were Copts? Greek Orthodox, Russian Eastern Orthodox? Why only Catholic? Or is this America’s only accepted prejudice and for us to be Catholic, its an anathema, a label, a scorn of insult, just as you portrayed us as “dangerous promoters of Christian Jihad”.
Its the tyranny of cliches.
So here is my response as to which denomination I belong to; to the Pharisee, I speak as a Samaritan about the Good Samaritan, and to the Samaritan I speak of Nicodemus who was a great man of God and a Pharisee.
Take a chill pill James, and here listen to great song on Christian Militarism:
This should give you ample statements for your ridicule of us on your next program. But before you do, you need to argue that an American has no right to bare arms and fight the wickedness of Nazism, Communism and Islam. Tell the Christians worldwide that they have no right to fight the ones who rapes their women and daughters. Tell Israel it has no right to combat terrorism.
And who is promoting aggressive Christian Jihad? You slander. We promote Christian DEFENSIVE wars. Just look up The Lions of The Cherubim and tell us, the Syrian Christian has no right to defend his church?
It was YOU who issued a request to debate and when you knew the subject was too hot to trot, you bailed out of site. As I said to you in my email, “the debate already begun” and you sir, have broken your word since you also promised “not to debate” when in fact, you are debating … already.
(2) Alan Bullock; Hitler: a Study in Tyranny; Harper Perennial Edition 1991; p219″ Also see William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p. 240
(3) Johnson, A History of the Jews, p. 242.
(4) Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945
(5) Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.138.)
(6) The German Churches in the Third Reich by Franklin F. Littell, published by Yad Vashem
(7) Table Talk, 1472 (W2, 107).
(8) White, James. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-it-is-important-to-go-back-to.html Mr. White stated to the Bible Answer man in 2003 when he was asked: “When a child is raped, is God responsible, and did He decree that rape?”
In which James White responded with the exact statement:
“If He didn’t, than that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose. What I am trying to point out. Yes, because if its not, than its meaningless and purposeless and though God new that it was going to happen, He created it without a purpose. That means God brought the evil into existence knowing it’s going to exist, but with no purpose, no redemption, nothing positive, nothing good. It has meaning. It has purpose. Suffering, all suffering has purpose. Everything in this world has purpose, there is no basis for despair. But if we believe that all this is going to happen, but with no decree He just created and all these evil is out there and there is no purpose and every rape, every situation like that, is nothing but purposeless evil and God is responsible for the creation of despair.”*
(9) Piper, John. Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 44
(10) John Witte, Sex, Marriage, and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva, ch. 4, p. 121
(11) Thomas More, Dialogue Concerning Heresies, IV.12
(12) The Great Heresies. Chapter II
(13) Ibid, Chapter III
(14) Table Talk, No. 963, W1, 48
(15) The Ottoman state and its place in world history by Kemal H. Karpat p.53. Also see Muslims and the Gospel by Roland E. Miller p.208
The article here is a result of a surprise after receiving an email from James White challenging us for a debate after his strict Calvinist followers went after Theodore, which initiated a heated cyber rattling fiasco.
We accepted their request for debates, on the condition that it includes the historic misinformation portraying Catholics as murders of millions of Bible believing Christians, a thing White knows that such numbers are historically false and that the Cathars were not Bible believing Christians as they promote. But taking on such a challenge would mean he would loose many of his followers who has never reviewed a debate on the history of the different sects that warred with Rome or the false and multitude of fabricated books claimed to be written by historians when in fact, they were not as you will see in the email.
As a result, and expectedly, I got an instant response that he declines since he finds my entire counter offer “rude” and that he finds Muslims to behave better than we do.
But our acceptance to debate still stands. His followers falsely stated that we retreated, but offer no evidence. Here is what we responded to James White in full:
So let me see, you write a cordial request to debate me publically in response to my son debating your sycophant, Mr. Sam Shamoun, in which Shamoun retreated and devised a master plan to have you barge in the scene?
Really? Is this how you guys operate?
I mean you must first admit it’s quite the tactic.
I do not mind doing a written debate with you anytime, specifically on the issues of Church history, which is more of my son’s specialty. I rarely ever do public debates. Perhaps we can do a brotherly debate on your comments on “Them Damned Catholics,” which you seem to have had an issue, with in which, you haphazardly critiqued on your show by picking and choosing a line here and a line there.
For example: on the Battle of Lepanto. It was the Catholic Alliance who defeated the Muslims while Protestants fought alongside the Muslims.
Care to refute that?
Perhaps we can do a debate between Shoebat.com and the Alpha and the Omega Ministries, you and Sam and me and my beloved son whom I assure you can deal with much of your arguments on issues on history.
One important issue we first need to resolve is your unsolicited attacks on me. You have stated that you doubt my testimony. This I would love to debate you on radio anytime. I must advise that you read all what is said about me by liberal media and also read my refutations first. Once you do this, I am sure that you will reconsider such statements as:
“I do not know either Kamal Salim or Walid Shoebat. I have never met either man, personally, or electronically. A few weeks ago I was asked to do a program … I declined … because I am aware of controversy concerning the testimony of both men.”
WOW. Instead of asking me directly, you shed doubt to the lay audience.
So I guess CNN is correct and I was never in prison in Jerusalem?
If you try to agree with such controversy, I am sure that you will not stand a chance since I have ample evidence to refute such nonsense.
The type of ‘doubt shedding’ and tactics that you have used is not new to me. My son was just approached by a Keith Thompson who raved how he will defeat my son on issues on history. He took him on immediately and did a recorded debate on the spot. It ended an hour ago with Keith Thompson finally hanging up in the middle of the debate and retreating.
I am sure you would not do such a thing as that, but for Sam to send his wrestler (you) is not going to go easy for him. He needs to fess up and keep his word first and then we will do what you request. No games, please.
This is what your friend Sam Shamoun did (as Keith did) with my son Theodore. He agreed to debate than he retreated and to save face, he devised a plan that he issued a debate with me and that, out of all things false, I retreated.
What utter nonsense and you as a mature debater must agree, right?
This is pure tactic and games I am aware of Muslims doing not Christians.
As far as the insults between my son and Sam, both were wrong, but you must first admit that it was your colleague Sam Shamoun who started the insults by calling my son “coward” and so the young lad gave it to him calling him your “b**ch”. It was wrong on both sides and I have reprimanded the young lad. Are you willing to at least admit that Sam started the insult and that my son added insult to injury so we can move on and debate? Sam Shamoun and you were addressing us and not vise versa. Correct? (please note, I would expect an answer on all my “?”)
Indeed, as you stated, and I agree, history is rarely debated regarding Catholic and Protestant. Such debates are rare because it is here where Protestants lack. The usual debates over Catholic vs. Protestant theology are redundant and old. But my issue is that I happen to like how Catholics dealt with Islam historically, it was much better than what Protestants do. They did a much better job than the Protestants who today if I quote most of your favorite modern theologians and apologists, there arguments are found wanting. I can give several examples from Dave Hunt to John MacAurthur who blatantly stated that the Catholic Church was responsible for the death of 50,000,000 Protestants. O, even better yet, that the Cathars are “Bible Believing Christians” and such nonsense.
Do you agree at least that such claims are nonsense? Have you handled this issue and tried to correct what goes on in Protestant circles?
Example: your partner Sam Shamoun had a written debate with Dave Armstrong in which he stated “it is estimated 50-68 million were killed by Rome”.
Care to defend such nonsense coming from your colleague before you harp on my 666 errors? I might be wrong on several issues, but your colleague Sam’s claim is a claim made by loons, not Christians.
But such statements are not made by only Sam, whom I must say got Islam right but raped history, such statements are made by formidable Protestant and Evangelical theologians today and during the last centuries.
After noticing the outlandish quotes like Sam’s, I attempted to investigate even further as to what historian with his sane mind would declare that the Papacy murdered 50, 60 or 100 million people. I finally found the source from a book, Who Are These Three Angels, by Jeff Wehr, P.p. 31-32:
For professing faith contrary to the teachings of the Church of Rome, history records the martyrdom of more than one hundred million people. A million Waldenses and Albigenses perished during a crusade proclaimed by Pope Innocent III in 1208; beginning from the establishment of the Jesuits in 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed; one hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inquisition in 30 years; within the space of thirty-eight years after the edict of Charles V against Protestants, fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, or burned alive for heresy; eighteen thousand more perished during the administration of the Duke of Alva in five and a half years.—Brief Bible Readings for Busy People , No. 8.
The source used by Wehr, as it turned out, was from an insignificant booklet titled A Brief Bible Studies for Busy People (page 16), which was by Frances L. Carroll.
Carroll wasn’t even a historian but a housewife.
You heard me right.
It even gets worse, she was a Jehovah’s Witness serving with her husband as full-time volunteer traveling ministers of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Carroll, the housewife, simply plagiarized a quote from Dowling and simply inserted her own “one hundred million”.
But this is only taking a couple of quotes randomly that I was able to find a monumental fraud and outright slander. The Protestant World Christian Encyclopedia says that Roman Catholics killed 4.9 million Christians.
Of course, such source lumps the Manichaeans, Arians, Cathars, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles, Waldensians, Albigensians, Lollards and Hussites as ‘Bible believing Christian’. Eliminate these heretics and the numbers go down drastically. The “millions” figure is not supported by any serious historian, but perhaps you might do your best to refute but I doubt it. It is difficult to manipulate history without notice and is why such authors resort to theologians proclaiming them as historians.
That is, these are self-ordained historians.
I had even tracked countless publications to only find out the main sources for such false information was not credible. Here are several examples:
Peter De Rosa (aka Neil Boyd) was not a historian but an X-priest, novel writer and Professor of Metaphysics.
John Wesley was not a historian but a theologian.
Alexander Hislop was not a historian but a Pastor of East Free Church of Arbroath in Scotland. Care to debate Hislop’s sloppy scholarship?
Schmucker was not a historian but a Professor of Theology.
William Craig Brownlee was not a historian but a reverend and an American clergyman and professor of languages.
Joseph Martin McCabe was not a historian but an x-Catholic priest.
Charles Buck was not a historian but a reverend and author of Theological Dictionary.
Vergerius was not a historian but a religious ‘reformer’.
Thomas Armitage was not a historian but a Protestant theologian.
George Bourne was not a historian but a pastor.
Cushing B. Hassell was not a historian but a writer.
Dr. M. Geddes was not a historian but a Chaplain.
John B. Wilder was not a historian but a writer.
Taylor Bunch was not a historian but a Prophecy author.
Nathaniel Crouch (pseud. Robert Burton) was not a historian but a writer. (16)
Henry Southwell was not a historian but a reverend.
John Wylie was a not a historian but minister of the Free Church of Scotland.
J. M. Carroll was not a historian but a Southern Baptist minister.
Avro Manhattan was not a historian but a British writer.
Charles Chiniquy was not a historian, but a Canadian x-Catholic priest who was twice suspended from his priestly ministry (for moral turpitude).
R. W. Thompson, was not a historian but a politician.
John William Bowden was not a historian but theologian.
Walter j. Veith is not a historian or a “world acclaimed international lecturer” but a zoologist.
Frances L. Carroll, was not a historian but simply a housewife.
I could go on and on and on with so many names that circulate the Evangelical community and it’s a shame, you as a reputable person should not be silent on this. Show me where have you addressed in detail such nonsense? And I mean in detail.
I have listened to clips from your debates, one I liked was with Chris Pinto which Theodore referred to me in which I must say you beat him hands down. My son Theodore also had a debate with him on Church history and he was clueless.
In conclusion: the issues with Sam Shamoun is an issue of a person who addresses the issues of this dispute by acting more like Muslims do. I clearly showed him the exchange between him and Theodore, yet he purposefully edited and never posted the exchange in full. Is this a proper method?
As it seems, you and Sam are not interested in handling my son’s issues, which was the original problem, but instead, seem to be anchoring on the issues as a stepping stone to take a shot at me.
You two need to deal with the issue at hand, that is, Sam already accepted to debate Theodore, he in turn realized the folly of such a decision and than turned to you for help.
Neither will you help Sam and neither will I help Theodore, let them get in the ring and may the best arguments win and the world will see that Sam Shamoun knows little about Church history.
These two need to hash it out on a debate, which we will love to air on Shoebat.com.
And since you have written several lines to show-off your success, may I remind, the Alpha and Omega has 312,000 global rank and 102,863 in the U.S., which shows that your only attracting a small audience. It seems that we are reaching far more audience. We rate 10,000 in the U.S. So I suggest we have a written debate and post it on my website which will give you a much larger audience and exposure, but first, you must mediate—as a brother—with the issues of Sam Shamoun who behaves more like an inquisitor and a brawler rather than a brother. His rhetoric of us is more of the rhetoric of Simon Altaf, who is a mental case and a cultist. When Sam writes to me words like “Secondly, as a shameless coward that you are …” is absolutely unacceptable. He says that he refuses to debate Theodore because of his mouth and yet he shows the same thing and he expects me to debate him? We will debate the both of you in writing as the debate already begun.
As far as trying to label me as an “agent of the Pope” as your colleague attempted to do, many tried in the past, I have read such nonsense that I even was a “Jesuit spy”.
Such slander permeates the Evangelical circles by large with no accountability whatsoever. Catholics err, Protestants err, Jews err, but the real Christian first acknowledges the errors of his own ilk.
Let me make myself clear, my dream is to reconcile the People of the Good Book while keeping the spirit of discussion in ironing differences. My personal view is that rescuing Christians is a much better ministry than Alpha and Omega apologetics. Christians are being killed and you are asking me to devote time to debate Catholic history?
My dream is to help my fellow Christian Arab to see that his enemy is not Israel, but that Islam desires to conquer all of us: Jews, Catholics and Protestants.
My dream is that Catholics could be as zealous to learn the Bible as Evangelicals do and that Evangelicals learn history as Catholics do and the Jews learn about Jesus as we all do.
Any other endeavors are of minor concern to me, including your desire and Sam’s war-drumbeat to hum and drum about how bad the Catholics are.
Having said all this, I would expect you to post in full your request and my reply and do not behave like Sam in which he edited, eliminated, cut and paste and blocked. And now he is calling me a “snake”.
Such behavior is of the devil.
But I must add, the debate already begun, so please attempt to refute.