Tur8infan
Mr. William Albrecht (aka GNRHead) is an apologist promoted and endorsed by Steve Ray (a lay
apologist and pilgrimage tour guide who frequently appears on the ”Catholic
Answers” radio program). By way of background, I should point out that
I am not usually this harsh in my criticism of Internet videos. I recognize that a lot of folks
slap such videos together in a hurry. So, before presenting this critique, I made sure that
Albrecht was aware that this was coming, and offered him the chance to withdraw or clean up his
video in advance.
Naturally, he refused. I didn’t expect otherwise. I encourage everyone, before they read
this article to listen to the November 4, 2008, edition of the Dividing Line (link). Mr. Albrecht called into the show and
discussion ensued between him and Dr. White.
With that background, I proceed to address a video by Albrecht. I’ve provided a full
transcript in seven segments from the following video source (source). Albrecht doesn’t have the
clearest enunciation of his words, so in some places I have been forced to make an educated guess
as to what he was trying to say. Also, I have tried to eliminate unintentional stutters and/or
filler (”umm” etc.) in the interest of simply providing what
Albrecht was trying to say.
For those unwilling to read the entire 5,000 word article, here is the summary. The video was
long on rhetoric short on substance. The few matters of substance raised are easily dismantled,
because Albrecht’s methodology is (apparently) to simply insult and denigrate those who
disagree with him, rather to present a cogent and coherent argument. Finally, a lie on
Albrecht’s part with respect to the historical facts of the Dividing Line (DL) is
exposed.
Segment 1
Albrecht said: Alright, alright, alright, well, well, well, anyone that saw the Dividing Line, I
must say I doubt you are surprised. Before the Dividing Line show in which I appeared, I
predicted just what would occur: Mr. White would sidestep the question, delve into other topics,
and mute me, and even hang up on me, which of course, he did do.
Rhetorical Critique:
This was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. What Albrecht fails to point out is that what
he means by Dr. White ”sidestep[ping] the question,” is
answering the questions Albrecht posed in any other way than that which Albrecht wanted. What
Albrecht fails to point out is that Dr. White ”delve[d] into other
topics,” because Albrecht raised other topics. What Albrecht fails to
point out is that Dr. White muted him because he was trying to interrupt and talk over Dr. White.
What Albrecht fails to point out is that Dr. White accidentally hung up on him at the very end of
the show. Albrecht had the opportunity to talk with Dr. White from around 18 minutes into the
show, to the accidental disconnection in the 58th minute (around 57:19 or so) of the show.
Unfortunately, a transcription like the one above doesn’t capture the tone of the video,
but it should become more evident in further segments.
Mr. Albrecht’s comment regarding ”anyone that saw the Dividing
Line,” is – of course
– a bit odd, since the Dividing Line was presented in audio only.
Perhaps Mr. Albrecht is simply not precise at expressing himself.
Substantive Critique:
Well there isn’t any substance in this segment, so it is not really possible to provide a
substantive critique. It’s all rhetoric. Once Albrecht gets into the substance, the
substantive critique sections will be more meaty.
Segment 2
Albrecht said: Unfortunately for James, he refuted himself. He admitted to logical (of course)
and biblical distinction between latria and dulia, but his cop-out was, ”Oh, oh, but
there’s no distinction with reference to religious usage.” Of
course, this make no sense, because, as I attempted to point out many times over, we don’t
give dulia in a religious worship usage to any saint. I tried to hammer this point home to James,
but he only yelled and yelled and yelled and muted me. I think it particular bothered James that
Acts 7:7 was a prime example that his position is completely superfluous. After acknowledging the
two distinct words, James simply says this cannot be a viable usage, because dulia is not a
religious context.
Rhetorical Critique:
Notice how Albrecht starts by claiming victory. He starts by saying that Dr. White refuted
himself. Of course, Albrecht does not refer to him as Dr. White, but instead as
”James.” It is interesting to recall (you did listen to the DL
as I requested, didn’t you?) how hot under the collar Albrecht got when Dr. White pointed
out to him that Albrecht had refuted himself (around 25:30). The difference is that Dr. White
first demonstrated that Albrecht refuted himself, he did not simply claim it.
In fact, even after Albrecht claims that Dr. White refuted himself, he does not back it up.
Albrecht seems to think that the fact that latria and dulia are two different words that are
often used in different ways is an important point (more on that in the substantive section
below). However, Albrecht refuses to consider Dr. White’s clarification, calling it a
”cop-out.” A cop-out, however, is not a self-refutation. Even
if it were a cop-out, which it is not, it would not be a self-refutation.
Furthermore, in addition to calling it a cop-out, Albrecht claims it makes no sense. His
explanation for why it supposedly makes no sense is to change the subject (see Segment 1,
Rhetorical Critique, above) to what he thinks is the application of the issue to his religion. Of
course, even if the point made no sense (although in fact it did make sense), it would not be a
self-refutation.
Albrecht claims that he tried to hammer his point home to Dr. White, but that Dr. White yelled
and muted him. Albrecht, however, forgets to inform the reader that he tried to hammer this point
home while Dr. White was talking. That is to say, Albrecht attempted to interrupt Dr. White,
forcing Dr. White first to talk a bit louder – and then when it was
clear that Albrecht wasn’t taking the hint to wait his turn, eventually mute Albrecht so as
to be able to return to a more normal level of volume. ”Yell,”
of course, is an exaggeration, but it is true that Dr. White tried to help clue Albrecht into the
fact that Dr. White was still talking, by raising his voice.
Albrecht’s comment regarding why Acts 7:7 would bother Dr. White is a bit odd too. As the
reader has probably noticed, ”superfluous” is just not the word
Albrecht is looking for. Something superfluous is something extra. A position cannot really be
superfluous, so it becomes clear that Albrecht simply let the four-syllable word get away from
him. Advice to Albrecht: make sure you know what the word means, before you use it.
It’s a bit like his attempt to characterize Dr. White’s position in the very next
sentence. Albrecht claims that Dr. White’s position is that ”this cannot be a viable
usage, because dulia is not a religious context.” In fact, however,
Dr. White’s point was that the use of a form of dulia in Acts 7:7 was dulia in a
non-religious context. Thus, it is not a relevant usage.
Substantive Critique:
Substantively there is not a lot here. Albrecht’s basic point is and was that there is a
difference between the words latria and dulia. As Albrecht noted we agree that those are two
different words.
Nevertheless, in a religious context, Albrecht is unable to substantiate any relevant difference.
In a religious context, both latria and dulia are (in the Bible) inappropriate for things that
are not God. In a religious context, both are encompassed by the broad term
προσκυνέω (proskuneo). Proskuneo in a
religious context, giving religious reverence, is only for God. The idea that mere religious
dulia (or religious hyper-dulia) is acceptable while only latria is forbidden is simply without
Biblical foundation.
Albrecht either mistakes his own church’s position or is throwing up a red herring when he
states, ”we don’t give dulia in a religious worship usage to any
saint.” Catholicism does admit to giving dulia in a religious context
to the saints, and ”hyper-dulia” to Mary. It is in the context
of religious worship, although it is claimed that God receives the worship (see more discussion
on that below, where Albrecht claims that the reverence goes directly to God). If Albrecht is
attempting to point out that today this dulia is not labeled
”worship,” he is providing a red herring with such a statement
– or simply begging the question. After all, the issue is whether
dulia in a religious context is to be considered worship biblically, not whether Catholicism
acknowledges the Bible’s teaching on the point.
Acts 7:7 doesn’t help Albrecht. The dulia mentioned there is not in a religious context, as
Dr. White pointed out during the DL. Accordingly, the idea that dulia of someone other than God
is permitted in a non-religious context is an irrelevant point. We acknowledge that dulia can be
rendered to the creation outside the religious context. We insist that all religious proskuneo,
whether latria or dulia, is improper if directed to anyone but God.
Segment 3
Albrecht said: Of course, when I then asked James to give me one lexicon in support of his
thesis, he couldn’t even give me one. Instead he named the Bauer, Danker, Arndt &
Gingrich but he didn’t even say that that gives the distinction. Notice his little verbage
that he comes up with, ”Oh, it doesn’t even deal with
it!” Well James, the reason I asked you that pointed [?] question in
the Greek lexicons, is because, on my laptop [pointing to a laptop over his left shoulder] right
back there you can see, well James, I’ve got all of the standard lexicons popped right up
onto my screen. Any type of Biblical software that exists, James, I run it, James. The software
that you use, I use. Any kind of software that you’ve ever used, I’ve got every
single version, James. The reason being, is because, you know, I realize you love to use
lexicons, you love to bring up the Greek, and I would agree the Greek is quite important, but
when you do what you do, you know, the gymnastics you do on the Greek language, it’s almost
laughable. There isn’t a single scholar, or a single professor of Greek, that would say
there is no biblical distinction between latria and dulia as you do. It’s quite laughable,
James. Coming from somebody who claims to know Greek so well, it’s almost a joke. It really
is.
Rhetorical Critique:
It’s a little hard to believe that Albrecht has literally every Greek software package and
every version thereof ever made. I suppose with enough funds one could accomplish such a thing,
but I’m not sure why one would go beyond buying the most recent versions of the most
popular and/or most high quality materials.
Obviously there is also a fair bit of mocking in this segment – but
it is hard to make sense of the rambling monologue here. While Abrecht concedes that the Greek is
important, and has apparently invested (or had invested for him) a considerable sum of money in
obtaining every software package ever made, he accuses Dr. White of
”gymnastics” and suggests that Dr. White’s claims to know
Greek are not founded. On the other hand, no evidence of Greek gymnastics is presented, and Dr.
White’s credentials with respect to Greek are readily open to serious question
– particularly in view of Albrecht’s admission on the DL that
Dr. White knows Greek much better than he does.
Additionally, although Albrecht makes the ”couldn’t give me a single
one” claim, Dr. White did in fact identify lexical support for Dr.
White’s position. As a final rhetorical note, although Albrecht uses the term
”verbage” he probably should have used the term
”verbiage” in this particular context, though certainly
”verbage” would be the more pejorative expression. Verbage
usually refers to unnecessary wordiness, as opposed to verbiage, which can refer simply to a
manner of expressing oneself in words.
Substantive Critique:
As noted above, we agree that latria and dulia are two different words. Dr. White’s failure
to bring up a Greek lexicon against his own position is simply a matter of internal consistency.
Although Albrecht tries to re-characterize Dr. White’s position, Dr. White’s position
remains that attempting to justify ”dulia” as opposed
”latria” of the saints (two forms of proskuneo of the saints)
is without Biblical warrant. Pointing out that the two words have different semantic ranges,
while certainly of lexical interest, is not relevant to the discussion, without some further
argumentation: argumentation that Albrecht is either unable or unwilling to provide.
Segment 4
Albrecht said: There is only one person who would agree with you. That is correct, only one. Not
even Luther. Not even Zwingli. Not even Wycliffe or Huss. Or Augustine or Jerome or anyone
– only John Calvin, the creator of your religion. The same person who
rejected the early Christian writings because of their Catholicity, claiming them to be spurious.
Something not even you would do, James. James was wise in avoiding that question, very wise. Even
wiser in sidestepping whether an early father was devoted to Mary viewed their devotion as
latria. Very, very, very intelligent, James. Putting me on mute and being able to try to slam
down on me. Too bad everybody heard the show, James, whether you put me on mute or not, everybody
heard. The sinking of the ship of Protestant beliefs was on show for the world.
Rhetorical Critique:
Albrecht lets drama get the better of him here. His outrageous claims regarding the teachings not
only of the church fathers but also some of the Reformers and proto-Reformers is a bit absurd.
Likewise, his claim that Calvin is the ”only one person” that
would agree with Dr. White is just silly.
It is interesting to note that the issue of ”whether an early father was devoted to
Mary” is an issue that was not the main issue under discussion.
Recall how Albrecht previously complained that Dr. White would turn his attention to other
issues. Here he complains that Dr. White did not follow him down a rabbit trail. The
double-standard is glaring.
It’s also interesting to see that Albrecht thinks that the issue of whether some father or
other held some non-Reformed position is the sinking of the Protestant ship. Perhaps Albrecht is
simply unaware that the Reformed position just lets the fathers be the fathers. The Reformed
position recognizes that men err, and leaves room for error even in the most renowned of church
fathers.
The ”even you” jab is an interesting tactic. It is apparent
that Albrecht views Dr. White as radically reformed, but not quite as radically reformed as
Calvin. Since he views this ”reformed” characteristic as
something bad and stupid, he naturally doesn’t think twice before making a comment in which
the implication is ”even you [stupid as you are] wouldn’t say
that.” This is ironically reinforced by Albrecht’s mocking
”wise, very wise” remarks.
Calling Calvin the ”creator of your religion” is obviously
intended as an insult, but is simply so far from the truth, that only Albrecht’s most
diehard supporters would find it compelling. In fact, I expect that most readers would see
through this comment with great ease. Of course, the ”creator”
of our religion is God himself, who through Moses, the prophets, and the apostles provided us
with the Word of God by which we know how to worship and serve him and him only.
Substantive Critique:
There is not much here of substance on the topic. Essentially the argument appears to be that the
view that ”dulia of the saints is bad” originated with Calvin.
This claim is false.
To take but one example, the Waldensians of the 15th century were recorded by the papists as not
giving honor to the saints, working on saints’ days, not revering the statues or images of
saints, and not praying to them. Indeed, Claude de Seyssel (who wrote a work against the
Waldensians) identified this issue as their ninth error. Claude died in 1520, when Calvin was
only about eleven years old. Consequently, one can reasonably suppose that however late the
Waldensians may have come to reject the practices designated
”dulia” – they certainly held that
view before Calvin did.
We could also add that Calvin did not ”reject[] the early Christian writings because of
their Catholicity, claiming them to be spurious.” In fact there are
two confused concepts in this criticism. Calvin probably did (and rightly so) question the
authenticity of some of the alleged writings of the early Christians. One has only to look to
obvious forgeries that Rome has relied upon, such as the Isodorian decretals and the Donation of
Constantine, to recognize that the Roman see is not above forging documents of great importance.
We actually see the same thing today with Romanists citing questionable sources in support of
their positions (example
1, example
2). In fact, we even see this problem in the works of leading Romanists, such as Cardinal
Lambruschini (link to
discussion).
With respect to the alleged ”Catholicity” of the early
Christian writers, but – as Calvin said: Honor to the Holy Church
Fathers: he among us who does not know them better than you, let him beware lest he mention their
names. Too bad that you are not more thoroughly read in them, otherwise certain references could
be of benefit to you.
It is too bad that Albrecht is so unfamiliar both with Calvin’s teaching as well as with
the teaching of the church fathers.
Segment 5
Albrecht said: Let me move on to White. He tried to argue about the assumption of Mary, then the
deutero-canonical books, then Sola Scriptura. It is clear James was lost on his dulia/latria
argument from the fact that bowing to a statue at the time of Moses was different than bowing to
a statue of Mary. James yelled, ”How? How? How?” so loud that
my brand new iPhone headphones nearly busted. He yelled so loud that I really didn’t want
to laugh at him, to be rude, but he was – phew
– I mean I don’t know if he was joking or he was really yelling
because he was upset, but I couldn’t help but laugh, I mean he went almost nuts. I mean,
come on, James. I don’t need to explain to you, we honor Mary, not a statue. The honor the
Israelites were giving to their statues was the honor due to a god, because that was their god.
They were not just honoring it, they were worshiping it. The Israelites were giving dulia and
latria to the statue. We give nothing to the statue, rather we give honor and respect to what it
represents: a creature of God. The respect goes directly to God. Get it James? I’ll draw a
cartoon for you, so you can get it even better. I have a friend who is a great artist.
Rhetorical Critique:
The mocking in this segment is pretty obvious, even without being able to hear the tone of voice
used. You’ll notice how Albrecht claims that ”James was lost on his dulia/latria
argument,” but Albrecht has great trouble in explaining why.
It’s ironic that Albrecht does not seem to understand that part of presenting an argument
is explanation. Albrecht seems to think that he can just claim whatever he likes, and if people
don’t agree with him, too bad. During the DL, Albrecht was either unwilling or unable to
support ”how” bowing to a statue in Moses’ day (giving
proskuneo to the statue or the thing represented by the statue) would have been different from
bowing to a statue today. Whether he even does so now, we’ll address in this substantive
segment below.
The cartoon comment here is somewhat ironic. One of Dr. White’s friends has actually
already drawn a cartoon to help folks like Albrecht ”get it”
with respect to trying to make overly nuanced distinctions. (link to cartoon
– note that the cartoon is under ©)
Substantive Critique:
In order to provide the critique here, we have to look at Albrecht’s argument without all
the rhetorical baggage. Dr. White had asked how bowing down to a statue in Old Testament times is
different from bowing down to a statue of Mary. Let’s explore Albrecht’s answer.
Albrecht’s explanation:
1) We honor Mary, not a statue;
2) The honor the Israelites were giving to their statues was the honor due to a god, because that
was their god;
3) They were not just honoring it, they were worshiping it;
4) The Israelites were giving dulia and latria to the statue;
5) We give nothing to the statue, rather we give honor and respect to what it represents: a
creature of God; and
6) The respect goes directly to God.
As to (1), this seems to be the ”our ancient ancestors were quite
stupid” argument. This is the argument that today people understand
that idols are representations of Mary, the Saints, Jesus, etc., but back then idolaters really
thought that idol was the god. But is this so? Of course not.
There may have been some ancient superstitions associated with idols, just as there sometimes
superstitions associated with Roman idols today. For example, today people sometimes bury statues
of Joseph upside down in their yards in a particular way if they are trying to sell there house.
This sort of practice is foolish. The statue is just an inanimate object. If it is made from
molded resin, it could have easily been a toothbrush. If it is wooden, it could easily been part
of your front door … and so forth.
But few people are so foolish as to attribute these powers to the statue itself. Instead, they
attribute the powers to the saint or deity that the statue represents. Consider the Greeks and
Romans. Now, granted that those were not the civilizations flourishing at the time of Moses, but
do you think their concepts were much different from those of Persians and Egyptians? The Greeks
at Ephesus did not think that Diana was the statue in the temple, or any of the copies that
brought so much profit to the metalworkers of the city. Instead, those statues represented their
goddess.
This kind of argument is just an insult to the intelligence of all of our idol-worshipping
ancestors. Does Albrecht think they were all so stupid as to think that the piece of wood to
which they bowed down was literally the god – or did they think that
it represented their god? Surely the latter.
Thus, (1) is not a difference but a similarity between the forbidden use of idols in the Old
Testament era and the forbidden use of idols in the New Testament era.
As to (2), this begs the question. It is true that Catholicism does not, at the present time,
refer to Mary as a god or goddess. That does not conclude the matter. It may still be possible to
give a creature inappropriate reverence – reverence that is proper
for God alone. Furthermore, even if it did solve the problem with respect to Mary, it
wouldn’t solve the problem with respect to Jesus – Christ is
considered to be God by the followers of Catholicism.
As to (3), again, this begs the question. It is true that Catholicism today does not tend to use
the English word ”worship” to describe the reverence for Mary
(though previous generations have not been so concerned about using such a description.
Furthermore, it is plainly a part of the worship of Catholicism to give certain honors to Mary.
Likewise, the difference between ”worship” and
”veneration” in Catholicism is just a rehashing of the very
latria/dulia issue already being discussed.
That is to say, the question remains: why couldn’t an Old Testament Israelite simply say
that he was ”honoring” the statue if Moses caught him bowing
down to it? I guess one could say that the Israelites hadn’t thought of the
”honor/worship” distinction, but that basically admits that
modern Catholicism invented it.
As to (4), the question is why Albrecht insists that this is the case. Why couldn’t the
Israelite caught bowing down to a statue just claim he was only giving dulia to it? The answer is
fairly obvious: no one would have considered that a legitimate excuse. To simply insist that the
Israelites were giving both latria and dulia to the statue is not a valid answer, unless there is
some reason that modern Catholicism can split the two up, which could not have been claimed by
the ancient Israelites.
As to (5), this is already addressed under the ”stupid
ancients” discussion above. One must think that the ancient peoples
were incredibly stupid if one thinks that the ancient peoples thought their idols were the gods
themselves, not representations of the gods.
As to (6), to say that the respect goes directly to God is an odd claim. Clearly a certain amount
of reverence is shown for the representation, which is transferred to the thing it represents.
Even if the reverence to – for example –
Mary is eventually transferred to God, it does not go there(...)
)
and reject those that you are not interested in
(
)
Recommandations
