Truth or Reputation?
My Answers will be in Red. Since Mrs. Bonds has chosen to go public with her story, I have been forced out of simple love of the truth to address her claims. Now, what is James talking about when he says “love of the truth”? I am really wondering if he is really writing this for the “love of truth” or his love for his reputation. I mean, his sister DID convert to the Catholic Church, a Church that James likes to attack. I really wonder WHY he really write this response. Liturgy can be very attractive, especially if one's experience of Protestant churches is that of merely attending, passively, services, without any deep passion for the truths of God. And, in so many churches today, the sermon is basically a warmed-over version of the same theme, the "4 Spiritual Laws" dressed up in another section of verses. If that has been your experience, I can fully understand why ceremony and liturgy would be attractive. However, please let me note something else: Roman liturgy holds no attraction for me. It can't, since I know what it *represents.* I come into the presence of God seeking to be changed by the proclamation of His truth. That is worship. Liturgical actions may, for a time, seem attractive. Talk to the hundreds of thousands who have fled Rome's liturgy and they will tell you it is as empty as can be. It may, for a while, seem "exciting," but mark my words: in a matter of time, maybe months, probably more like years, you will begin to realize that it no longer excites you the way it once did. And so at first you will just try to "recapture" the feeling by increasing your activity, going more often, and, for a brief time, it might work. But, eventually, you will experience, deep down inside, the realization that ceremonies, no matter how "new" they may seem to you now, cannot make up for the fact that they do not represent truth. That is a bold proclamation. Has James gone to a Mass before? He likes to attack Patty by saying “You didn’t read any of my books or hear my sermons!” Well, have James gone to a Mass? Participate in the prayers? I don’t think so. James doesn’t even want to say the Lord’s Prayer with Catholics. How does he know that the Liturgy gets boring? There are a lot of converts that LOVE the Mass still, and they will never lose their excitement. It is because Jesus IS present at the Eucharist. I can understand how you would be impressed: however, are you equally impressed with what Rome says is *happening* there? Is it impressive to you for people to bow before the host, worshipping it as God? Is it impressive to realize that these people believe they are approaching the very sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and yet, they do not believe that they are perfected thereby (contra Hebrews 10:10-14)? I must firmly and lovingly ask you: what impresses you, God's truth, or man's pageantry? Where are your priorities? And let me ask you: would you have been as much impressed by the simple ceremony of the Lord's supper in the Upper Room, with only a handful in attendance, no pageantry, no vestments, no priests? God IS impressive. God made Patty convert. God touched Patty somehow. And He touched her by the simplest thing; the Eucharist. Divinity is always a place where someone least expects it. And He was in that simple form of a bread. The accounting it gives of his easy defection from sola scriptura and sola fide only show that he must have known very little of these things as a Protestant, *or,* there is much more to the story than he is revealing. Easy defection? Well, who can blame the converts? There are no defined doctrines in Protestantism. Please don't be upset, but I'm glad you were. From what you have written above, you have bought into the "feelings" argument for Rome. It isn't based upon Scripture, nor upon a fair presentation of facts, but is instead designed to excite feelings of "newness" about the "ancient church." It works really well....for a while, anyway. But as with everything based upon emotion and not truth, it cannot last through the storms of life. So, if my book inserted a dose of reality into your jaunt across the Tiber River, I am most glad, and, if God is pleased to halt that trek and reveal to you again the importance of *the gospel of grace,* I trust you, too, will someday be glad. Everything is based upon emotion? Well, why would Patty be emotional in the first place? Because she found the Truth, that’s why. But how would James know what Patty is feeling? The people who Jesus healed had great joy. Would we say that they were just “emotional”? I guess we should have shouted at Jesus when He cried. I mean, He was too “emotional” wasn’t He? There is a difference between understanding and loving. You may understand what you just mentioned, but do you LOVE what you just mentioned? If you do not, then your desire for feelings may well over-ride those truths, leading you into abject error. Truth is not something we just understand. We are to LOVE it. Embrace it. Hold it as precious. If you don't, you'll be willing to trade truth for feelings of belonging, or feelings of fulfillment, even if they are based upon error. To love Truth is to embrace it as precious. I guess that means let’s debate debate debate debate debate and win win win win. Is that what it means? Because all I see is just words, but that’s it. Of course, Mrs. Bonds did not avail herself of any of my offers. Indeed, as I noted, in later months she would claim she had never been able to listen to my debates because I am so "mean." Has James gone to Mass? I don’t think so. But if he has, has he gone again? I mean, what if Patty listened to the Sola Scriptura debate between James and Patrick Madrid? Of course she would say that Patrick won on that debate. What will James say? He would say, “Listen to MORE debates I had!” But I knew others would be encouraging her to attach herself to me, and sadly, she has chosen to do so. Her conversion story was posted a number of weeks ago, and it identifies her as my sister. Even though she has often said I am not the issue, she has chosen to connect herself to her "anti-Catholic" brother (to use her own words). Yes. Her conversion story was posted in my website that is run by P and me. Not only we have Patty’s story, but we have Richard Bonds’ as well. I can tell you this. Patty has suffered when she converted, but it wasn’t a useless suffering. God made her suffer so that her whole family would come home as well. But what made it all the more poignant was my experience the evening before in the Coming Home Network chat channel. I had been told that Dave Armstrong, another Roman Catholic apologist, would be doing a live chat. The young Roman Catholic who posted my sister's story, who uses the nick "A," invited me to enter the chat. First of all, my name IS A. It is A.L. to be exact. I did, but used a non-descript nick so as to just sit and observe. Yes. James used “Chrissie” as a nick. Very smart. But anyone can just spy. Another Christian joined me. It was amazing to watch. I note in the following e-mail the personal attacks and insults that were posted at me: but what is not mentioned in the e-mail was the discussion of how they might be able to contact other family members of other leading apologists. Eric Svendsen's name was mentioned, and his wife in particular; I believe Bill Webster was mentioned as well. This was prompted, obviously, by the fact that Mrs. Bonds had just been in the channel herself. Bill Webster WAS NOT mentioned. Somehow, James isn’t sure if Bill was even mentioned. But Eric Svendsen was. Someone told me that I should get all the wives and daughters’ conversion stories. Now, was this guy serious? Of course not. I don’t even think James would take this seriously. But he is trying to to make it look as if we are trying to “use” family members to attack James. No one took that chat seriously. We even made fun of Steve Ray’s footnotes, but do we see Steve making a big deal out of it? (we also kind of teased Steve’s videos). Steve Ray wrote:
The only ones to be “blessed” would be those who are moved by emotionalism, not by God’s Word, to be sure. But I do have to wonder what you mean: if Mrs. Bonds wishes to ignore me, that is fine: but you might wish to ask her why, if she wishes to ignore me, she continues to use my name? This is funny. She does use his name. OOO wow. She is known as James White’s sister who has converted. Uh oh, this looks like an attack! Watch out! The actual term is “squirrelly.” Do not feel too bad, sir, I had to look it up, as I can honestly say I’ve never had occasion to use it. Your obvious ad-hominem aside, I can assure you, Mrs. Bonds does not scare me. Indeed, her own e-mails are filled with the accusation that *I* “intimidate” others, so why I would be “scared” of her is hard to say. James is obviously scared. I mean if someone calls someone scared, would the person admit it? He obviously is scared about his reputation. Why would he write this response then? For the love of truth or for the love of his reputation?
No, actually, I’m pushing 232 these days. :-) Must be IsoPure. But seriously, I truly am a little man. I am irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. But if that is the case, why do I find my name on all of YOUR websites? Why does Envoy print anonymous articles in response to footnotes in articles I write on other subjects? Indeed, if I am such a little man, why does Mrs. Bonds even bother attaching my name to her story? Why is it that such a little man can, without fear of contradiction, claim to have won *at least* half of the debates I have engaged in, and in all fairness, the vast majority of them? Why did such a little man completely (and in the opinion of every RC apologist I have met) defeat a credentialed Roman Catholic scholar and priest on the subject of purgatory last year? And why have I heard others refer to the “Tim Staples disaster” from July of 2000 in Fullerton? You are correct, I am a little man, but it seems it only takes a very little man to refute the errors of Rome. And why, if I am such a little man, Mr. Ray, do you refuse to defend your ridiculous claims regarding the Papacy in public debate against me? James loves himself doesn’t he? What if someone said, “James lost all the debates!” What would James say? James would say, “No I didn’t!” If these debates is for the “love of truth”, he wouldn’t have to say that he won the debates. He would have just let the people hear the debates by themselves. James truly loves himself. Everything is about *I*. Nothing about God. It is all about his reputation. And this story has made his reputation look bad. It is bad enough for him to be defensive when they talk about his doctorate. I mean having a title “Doctor” is a great place of honor. “Woe to you Pharisees! You pay tithes of and of rue and of ever garden herb, but you pay no attention to judgment and to love for God. Woe to you Pharisees! You love the seat of honor in synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! You are like unseen graces over which people unknowingly walk�Woe to you scholars of the law! You impose on people burdens hard to carry, but you yourselves do not lift one finger to touch them.” (Luke 11: 42-44, 46) Steve Ray wrote:
Last evening I sat in the Coming Home Network chat room (I was informed I just missed Mrs. Bonds’ presence in the same chat room) and watched at Dave Armstrong, P and others engaged in the same kind of diatribe. Every aspect of my personality was attacked and impugned. Interestingly, when I came back under a nick they would recognize, all was sweetness and light. The hypocrisy was almost too much to take. Yes. After James was spying on us, he came to the chat as “NA27”. Now, who was sweet to James? We were STILL joking around even though he was there. Every time you see a “hehehe”, that means we weren’t serious. Yes, I am the person that said James has no spirituality. I mean anyone can just preach a great sermon. Satan can even do that. But has James touched the poor? I doubt it. Why? Because that would be too emotional for him (I have a conversation a while back to prove this). It is rather funny how this would be too emotional. Jesus DID touch the poor, the sick, etc. But somehow, that is not too emotional for Jesus. If James DOES have great sermons, he obviously doesn’t show it. All he does is give out great words. I note this to point out that those who actually *engage* in hatred and anger (such as you yourself did in this e-mail) are the first ones to project their own attitudes upon others. I wrote to Mrs. Bonds to inform her that while I had, up to this point, replied only to those who had inquired, and that briefly, about her story, her decision to go on EWTN with her claims *forces* me, out of simple respect for the truth and love for the gospel of Christ, to explain why her conversion should actually cause the lover of truth to reject Rome’s errors. As I noted above, had I *not* done this, I would have been condemned for that, too. So it seems to me that you use a thoroughly worldly definition of love and hatred: the Bible tells us that we are to love God supremely. That means true spirituality does not compromise on His truth, His glory, His holiness, His revelation in His Word. It takes precedence over all human relationships, including familial ones. And when a member of one’s family engages in behavior that is directly condemned in Scripture (in this case, open and knowing apostasy) one is faced with a choice: honor God, or compromise and place relationship before one’s service to Christ. The early Christians knew this situation well. And you condemn me as hateful for following the biblical path. What does that tell you, Mr. Ray? Wow. Almost too emotional for me. But I wonder, if James does have peace with God, why doesn’t he have peace with others? Why does he have to call Phil and me his “enemies”? He obviously didn’t mean that he would love us more, because Scripture does say to love your enemies. He called us “persona non grata”. For someone to have peace with God, I don’t know why anyone would say such a thing. An Apologist is one who has reasons for his faith. But sometimes, he makes the reasons his faith itself. Apologetics is not a sport. James has made it that way with his longing for debates. Why does James love to debate? Is it for a greater glory of Christ? Or is it so he can say,
This is basically for his reputation. He has never examined himself. I do admit there are Catholic Apologists that do not have spirituality either. I sometimes make the mistake by making Apologetics my sport. But for the record. I do not know a lot about the Patty-James family history. But I do know ONE THING. Patty Bonds loves James very much. God love you p.s. I would love to be WRONG on all of the things I said about James. If James has changed his attitude, I will publicly say that I am wrong on all of the things I said. A.L. |
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links