Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Batman Unmasked


At the last two Islam debates in Queens New York, I spotted a few Team Apologian T-Shirts being worn. At the earlier debate in May, my friend pointed to a guy wearing the shirt and said, "You've finally become a rock star." This past time, I ventured over to a guy wearing the shirt and jokingly said, "I'm much better looking in person." I do appreciate that someone supports aomin by purchasing the shirt. I admit though, it is an odd experience to see a complete stranger wearing a T shirt with your own face on it.

Here are a few recent personal similar tidbits.

First, my good friend Algo sent this one over to me from the Envoy boards:

Do professional anti-Catholics (Swan, White, etc.) tend to think that Catholicism did not exist prior to the legalization of Christianity by Constantine in the fourth century or do they tend to hold the position that Catholicism was valid but simply went "off the rails" at some point prior to the Reformation? I ask because amateur apologists argue the former incessantly, but I'm wondering if the "big boys" concede the Catholic Church's existence from the Apostolic era and focus on other issues in their efforts to undermine the Church.-Randy + † + Tiber Swim Team - Class of '79

I am not a professional apologist, or a professional anti-Catholic. I'm a guy with a full-time job, with family and other responsibilities. As a matter of fact, compared to some of you who visit the blog (I had around 100 blog comments on Monday), I spend very little time on-line. I'm not on-line because I'm busy elsewhere. I know some of you are supposed to be at work WORKING, but you're reading blog articles and commenting. Stop that, it's stealing from your employer.

I'm just a guy with a blog. I make no income from the blog, nor do I think I deserve any. I don't link over to Paypal like some Roman Catholic bloggers do, who think they deserve money (they don't deserve money, some of them are just guys with a blog or a website- most guys sitting in front of the computer writing blog or Internet articles doesn't deserve your money).

Second: Tim Enloe recently commented that my blog has Anabaptist tendencies, and was lacking a coherent Reformed worldview. I responded here, but this goes along with the previous tidbit. I wouldn't go so far as to say the blog is "ministry". I enjoy the subjects I write about, and I consider it a hobby. I try to do everything to the best of abilities to the glory of God, even my hobbies. It's a Reformed paradigm at work, so to speak.

Third: Here's a nugget from a Roman Catholic on the CARM boards:

As a certain Lord James Swan is very found of pointing out: Arguments that can be turned back on the one making the argument and used against them are invalid.

I've never claimed the title "Lord". I'm not even sure why this guy referred to me as such. I don't post on CARM often, but obviously I either interacted with him in the past, or he reads the blog. On the other hand, I have made the argument he points out, and I don't even take credit for the point. I got it from Dr. White, who has made the point repeatedly.

Fourth: I get e-mails from people I don't know, frequently. Here's a recent snippet:

"Hello, I came across your blog about the Reformation and I just wanted to point out that it seems like it is missing many facts. It appears to be that you've put your faith in Martin Luther, but have chosen to ignore the many evil things he taught. His writings seem to be totally ignored if not suppressed by those who have raised him as a guiding light in the history of Christianity."

As to placing my faith in Luther, I'm not even a Lutheran. Luther was just a man, and a sinner, just like you, just like me. His righteousness or holiness before God was Christ's righteousness, the only righteousness that will pass God's standard. I am committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:28, 4:5; Gal. 3:11), as well as the only infallible source of God's revelation extant today: the Sacred Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14-17), as were the Reformers.

Fifth: My co-blogger Alan sent this over from Articuli Fidei:

I'm seriously reading that thread over at Beggars all, and 'Loling'. I assume the owner of the blog is embarrassed by Rhology's 'dullness' (to put it mildly). But he won't say anything because he probably doesn't want to throw him under the bus. (plus traffic doesn't hurt).

I'm not embarrassed by anything my co-bloggers post. I picked them all specifically because I was impressed by their writing and materials, as well as their commitment to the faith. If I don't comment on something, it's usually the case I'm too busy to get into it. This even happens with my blog posts. I can't always keep up with the comments.

4 comments:

Rhology said...

All that said, it's pretty clear I am the weakest link.

Also, Tim might be right about Anabaptist tendencies on my part; I'm ignorant of all that so I couldn't say one way or the other, I am a Baptist and my local church does claim some continuity with Anabaptists. What I do is look at the Bible and try to mold my life around it. Any label someone might thus apply is superfluous compared to that.

Carrie said...

All that said, it's pretty clear I am the weakest link.

Not quite. I got ya beat.

Loved the t-shirt story, James!

James Swan said...

Also, Tim might be right about Anabaptist tendencies on my part; I'm ignorant of all that so I couldn't say one way or the other, I am a Baptist and my local church does claim some continuity with Anabaptists. What I do is look at the Bible and try to mold my life around it. Any label someone might thus apply is superfluous compared to that.

I know what Tim is getting at. If you haven't listened regularly to the white horse Inn, you should: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/

There is a tendency in the broad evangelical church to revert covertly back to a Romanist paradigm, and not even realize it.
Here are a few examples:

One is "spiritual" if one enters full time ministry. If you've got just a plain old job, you're not giving your all to God.

Creation is bad. Only the heavenly reality is good. Therefore, art, culture, etc, don't have as much value, and should be avoided.

Everything one does should have preaching the gospel as its goal. If you make music, it should be about the gospel. If you're on Facebook, it should be about the gospel. Enjoying either music or Facebook or whatever, simply for the sake of enjoying them is to not preach the gospel.

The response to this sort of stuff was shouted loudly during the Reformation. There aren't any super "spiritual" Christians closer to God by choosing full time ministry. Rather, even a person changing a diaper is just a close to God. One simply does everything they do to the glory of God. One can enjoy creation with sticking a bible verse sticker on it. Creation is good, because God said so. Therefore, we as Christians have every right to enjoy painting, the arts, or music without needing it to have preaching or the gospel as its goal. Facebook doesn't need to be just another platform for the gospel. It can be enjoyed for what it is: networking family and friends together.

this was just the super quick abridged version of a Reformed world view. Guys write entire books on this stuff. Of course, this isn't a license to ignore the gospel. No, as Christians were living proof of the gospel, and it can't help but ooze out from us.

I think Tim over-reacted a bit, but that's OK. I actually will be teaching in my church starting in January on the Reformed Worldview.

Carrie said...

I think Tim over-reacted a bit, but that's OK. I actually will be teaching in my church starting in January on the Reformed Worldview.

The overreacting comes from judging people from a few blogposts. For the most part, what people talk about on this blog is just one aspect of their lives.

Thanks for the explanation though, James. I wasn't quite understanding the criticism, but now I get it. It's a good message, just could be delivered better.