Jesus can't justify Himself

CrimsonCatholic has responded, and while I find his response quite foreign-sounding (which is probably my own fault), he said sthg that concerns me a GREAT deal. How ironic that I started out questioning the legitimacy of the link between Christology and justification, and now I'm following that trail! Oh well...

-Even a perfect human can't justify himself, not even Jesus, so the notion that Jesus saved us through His perfect obedience is likewise Pelagian.

I actually once heard a charismatic pastor trying to defend the idea that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues - "Jesus was born saved!" Strange to hear the same repeated by a Roman Catholic!

So, a few questions to flesh out the most important thing CC said here:
1) Why would a perfect human need to be justified? Do you mean b/c of the original sin?
2) If #1 is b/c of original sin, how could a perfect human exist at all?
3) If #1 is b/c of original sin, that human wouldn't be perfect, right? He'd have sin, wouldn't he? And therefore not be perfect?
4) Did Jesus have original sin?
5) Why would Jesus need to be justified?
6) If Jesus did not save us thru His perfect obedience, then why does the Scripture say this?
Heb 5:7-8 -

7In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. 8Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. 9And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation...

And especially,
Rom 5:18-20 -

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more...

7) Was it not, then, Jesus' actions that provided salvation for fallen humanity? If not, what?
8) Related to #7, are not Christ's passion, crucifixion, and resurrection actions that were performed in obedience to the eternal plan of God?

'Course, anyone is welcome to chime in. If you're RC or EOx, I'd also like very much to know your estimation of what CrimsonCatholic has said.

Linking justification with Christology

CrimsonCatholic has raised an interesting point and I'd like to ask a question about it, for discussion.
It began when Lucian made this interesting (and, uncharacteristically, not off-the-wall) comment:

I think it highly unwise to try to understand the Biblical concept of redemption, save through the prism of the Person of the Redeemer Himself: the God-Man Jesus Christ. ...I think there are at least 4 (possible options for a salvation concept) 1) 100% God, 0% man. 2) 100% man, 0% God. 3) X% God, (100-X)% man. 4) 100% God, 100% man.

A little later on, I wrote a post that ended up in 120+ comments where I contended that Ephesians 2:8-10's use of the two "works" provides unequivocal support for the idea of Sola Fide.
CrimsonCatholic stopped by and offered his thoughts, repeated in a recent post at his blog.
Here is what he said:

You once said that you rejected the idea that works could be both 100% God's and 100% man's, one of four options, because that option pertained to Christology and not justification.

In light of v. 2:10 and the rest of the book of Ephesians (espec. vv. 1:9-10, 22-23 and ch. 3), do you truly believe that Paul's doctrine of justification and Christian works is not Christological? And if the dichotomy between divine works and human works is false in Christ, why is it not false for those in whom Christ is working as well? Moreover, in the work of Christ, what cause do we have to boast of ourselves? (Compare Rom. 3:27 with Rom. 15:17-18, Gal. 2:20, Phlp. 2:13.)

So, leaving aside the fact that I also dealt with his question about boasting (which went unanswered), the central statement seems to be that, since Christ Himself is 100% God and 100% man, so must we regard our justification as 100% by the grace of God and 100% by the works of man.
This is interesting on several levels, really. My answers at the time were here and then here as a reiteration.

Eph 2:10 tells us that Christ created us for good works. Eph 2:8-9 tell us that it's apart from works that we are saved by grace thru faith. These works are the same works; the ones in v. 10 that don't save us in v.9 are what we do after we're created in Christ Jesus. Any distinction I make is what is made in the text; indeed, I'm forced into it. Nobody has yet dealt with that here.
What I hear you saying seems to me to be similar to the common RC argument about the Assumption of the BV Mary, that it "would be fitting" for Christ to show the honor shown to Enoch and Elijah to His mother as well. Ergo, she was assumed. Game, set, match.
Here, you seem to be saying that since Christ was 100% God and 100% man, it is fitting that our salvation might be 100% God and 100% man as well. But how can we justify that connection biblically? It's a just-so story, b/c *you* think it would be fitting that it be that way. But God apparently disagrees.

Just a sidenote - we don't find our doctrine in "linkages" that could be seen in between biblical passages when obvious statements are made about the same, such as Eph 2:8-10 and Rom 4:6-8. This is a hallmark of Roman Catholic apologetics, as the way they go about defending the Assumption of Mary demonstrate.

CrimsonCatholic's argument would seem to require that Christ working in us is like God working in Christ and hence the works are the same. To make his argument work it would need to be modified to 100% God + 100% (perfect) man. We do not qualify for the second half and hence we are unable to contribute to our justification. Only Jesus fills that holy place. But the Roman Catholic may object that it is Christ's work in us, so it is still God's work. But how can you meaningfully say that it is not our works when we used our hands and mouths to do the works even if they were from God's work in us? The works Jesus does in us are our works too, just as the works God did in Christ were Christ's works too.
Also, that response fails miserably in taking into account just how bad the human is. He doesn't seek to do good. He doesn't want to. He hates the light. This "100% man" thing would lead to our utter damnation, by logical consequence.

Now, CC's argument seems to me to be similar to:

• Since Jesus is the High Priest, then we are also co-high priests because we are in him.
• Since Jesus is the Mediator, then we are co-mediators in him.
• Since Jesus is at the Right Hand of the Father, we are also at his right hand.
• Since Jesus is the King of Kings, we too are king of kings.
• Since Jesus worked for our salvation, we too work for our salvation in him.
  

It is taking Jesus' uniqueness and distributing it inappropriately to the redeemed. I think it is a tighter argument if you say that it is appropriate to use the God-man as a prism to interpret salvation but CC's approach fails because it generalizes from the unique God-man to humanity, which is a major problem.

But I want to ask a different question as well: Why choose Christology as the link to justification?

Here's an example: Why not link justification to the Trinity? Is not the Trinity a direct consideration in the justification of the sinner?
Instead of justification being 100% by grace (from God) and 100% by works (from men) (as Christ), why not 100% from God the Father, 100% from Jesus Christ, and 100% from the Holy Spirit?
Another example: Why not link justification to the resurrection of Lazarus? It was 100% of Jesus.
Another example: Why not link justification to the resurrection of Jesus Christ? It was Trinitarian as well.
So I'd ask CrimsonCatholic and anyone else who is so inclined to defend that linkage in preference to the other examples posted.

Posted for Christ's Glory,

Warfield on 2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

I was just reading B.B. Warfield's article on "The Biblical Idea Of Inspiration," and his work on these verses, particularly the word "theópneustos" ("God Breathed"), the word translated "inspired".

"What it says of Scripture is, not that it is "breathed into by God" or is the product of the Divine "inbreathing" into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, "God-breathed," the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them. No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. The "breath of God" is in Scripture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word. "

By the word of Jehovah," we read in the significant parallel of Psalm 33:6, "were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." And it is particularly where the operations Of God are energetic that this term (whether ruah, or neshamah) is employed to designate them — God’s breath is the irresistible outflow of His power. When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture," or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine breath, "is God-breathed," he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation."

Source: B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (p. 133)

This is helpful information when dialoging on sola scriptura, because Roman Catholics typically say 2 Tim. 3:16- 18 only applies to the Old Testament, and therefore, Scripture alone is not adequate to equip for every good work, because Paul only has the Old Testament in mind- A second source of authority is needed: an infallible church. Scripture is therefore, insufficient. For instance,

"As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians, then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!"

But Paul's point is that Scripture is God breathed- "so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." It is not the canon of Scripture which is in view, but rather the all sufficiency of God-breathed Scripture. It is the nature of Scripture which is in view. Warfield says:

"It is to be observed that the apostle does not stop here to tell us either what particular books enter into the collection which he calls Sacred Scriptures, or by what precise operations God has produced them. Neither of these subjects entered into the matter he had at the moment in hand. It was the value of the Scriptures, and the source of that value in their Divine origin, which he required at the moment to assert; and these things he asserts, leaving to other occasions any further facts concerning them which it might be well to emphasize. It is also to be observed that the apostle does not tell us here everything for which the Scriptures are made valuable by their Divine origination. He speaks simply to the point immediately in hand, and reminds Timothy of the value which these Scriptures, by virtue of their Divine origin, have for the "man of God." Their spiritual power, as God-breathed, is all that he had occasion here to advert to. Whatever other qualities may accrue to them from their Divine origin, he leaves to other occasions to speak of."

Source: B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (p. 134-135)

It would be helpful for Roman Catholics to present a verse that says, "The Church is also God breathed, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work, in order to get past the weight of Paul's proclamation of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Catholic Conversion Stories

Here is a letter written to Chris Arnzen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron, and his response.

Mr. Arnzen, Why are there so many Protestant ministers, one after another, from all denominations continuously converting to the Catholic faith? Just tune into EWTN's, "The Journey Home" program (just one source) and you can hear one conversion story after another. What gets me is that these men and women are not just your run of the mill, Sunday going church folk, who you could argue were just misinformed, or duped into buying into the grandeur and allure of the RCC. No, these folks are more often than not degreed ministers, some with doctorates degrees and theologians as well? Why?

Thanks for your interest in my "Iron Sharpens Iron" program, and taking the time to write. As for your question, I could have just as easily asked you why did so many brilliant Roman Catholic priests and theologians, in addition to common laymen, risk their lives and at times endure torture and death (and that of their families) in converting to Protestantism during the Reformation (sacrifices no guest on "The Journey Home" ever faced)? I can also add that the many testimonies of conversion to Catholicism I have seen on "The Journey Home" have never even come remotely close to impressing me or to cause me in any way to rethink my conversion from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity 22 years ago.

I could also ask, specifically in relation to your question, why Catholics convert to Evangelical Protestantism even today in numbers hundreds if not thousands of times greater than the numbers of Evangelicals converting to Catholicism? Why is there an abundance of Evangelical ministers and a shortage and rapidly shrinking number of Catholic priests? Let's face it, the intelligence of those converting and the numbers of those converting in either direction proves nothing. There are Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Occultists and Atheists who are geniuses. Conversion is a matter of the Holy Word and the Holy Spirit, and a simple, uneducated man will often see and embrace Truth while scholars in their ivory towers often embrace a lie. As a Catholic you can certainly appreciate the phrase "Athanasius contra mundum," or, "Athanasius against the world." This giant of the Faith upheld as a hero by Catholics and Protestants alike stood nearly all alone against the entire leadership of the Church in his day defending the deity of Jesus Christ, so joining a "Journey Home" bandwagon of conversion to Rome is not the slightest temptation to me.

All I can tell you, as a former Roman Catholic who converted to what I now believe to be the Biblical Gospel of Christ, the more years that go by and the more evidence I continue to see from history and from Holy Scripture, the more I am convinced that Rome does NOT possess the true Gospel. That should not be taken as mockery by me of your faith, since, as you know, centuries before I was born, Rome dogmatically declared at Trent that the Gospel I now embrace is false, and that subsequently I am accursed, and Trent still stands today as an infallible council of Rome despite the infinitely more liberal public relations efforts of Vatican II.

Thanks again for your interest in my "Iron Sharpens Iron" program, and I hope you call in with a question sometime, especially when our topic is related to Roman Catholicism. I pray that you prayerfully and humbly continue to search the Scriptures until you discover true grace and peace from the true Gospel of Christ.

In His grip,

Chris Arnzen
"Iron Sharpens Iron", host

MO Southern Baptists: Towards an Unbiblical Position

johnMark

The annual Missouri Baptist Convention just wrapped up. Tim Townsend of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that there was talk and debate about the topic of, what else, alcohol. Now I don't know if alcohol was taking over the Missouri Baptists, but apparently, Rodney Albert of Hallsville Baptist Church has a great quote that made the article.

"2007 was the year Missouri Baptists became soft on alcohol abstention," he thundered to loud applause. "We must fight the alcohol fight and keep it out of the convention."

Boy, that'll preach! It sounds good and probably got the emotions flowing, but is that a biblical position for which to fight?

Interim executive director David Tolliver commented on the issue.

"I understand that the Bible does not say, never says, 'Thou shalt not drink,'" said Tolliver. "It is also true to say that the Bible does not specifically refer to drinking as a sin"

Now I can say Amen to that as it is an admission to what the Bible says. That's not the end of the quote though.

However, … the only Christian position in this 21st century Show-Me state environment that we live in is total abstinence!"

Do I read this statement correctly? We have a biblical position vs. a Christian position? I'm not really sure how that works. Maybe there is more to his words missing from the quote to clarify. Do we know better than the Bible?

Let's take a look at the Preamble to the Baptist Faith and Message.

(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

So Scripture and not a confession is admitted to have no authority over the conscience. Mr. Tolliver admits what Scripture says about alcohol and that, according to the Preamble, is what binds the conscience. How can he then vie for total abstinence which is, admittedly, against Scripture?

The Baptist Faith and Message also says under Religious Liberty.

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.

Again we have this part of the confession vs. the total abstinence position which is not the Biblical position as admitted by Tolliver and other SBC leaders. Is this a subtle admission that some people have more wisdom than the Bible?

What I found very interesting is a debate challenge that I'd like to hear.

...the Rev. Darrin Patrick, lead pastor of The Journey, approached Moran and challenged him to a public debate about the emerging church, moderated by Tolliver, that could be broadcast on the Internet. Moran did not immediately agree to the debate but later said that he and Patrick will meet privately to iron out the details.

This would certainly be an interesting debate and I hope it happens. There are other issues the SBC need to be concerned about including missing members and a topic I have blogged about at least a couple of times. Yes, it's a global issue too.

If the SBC wants to continue to bind the consciences' of men then they need to do it biblically. Many don't seem to care about that, rather, they want to do what seems right in their own eyes. There is obviously a problem with alcohol abuse today as there was in biblical times. This, like all sins, stem from the depravity of man not from the substance itself that is abused. Many times in this debate it's as if people blame the alcohol for problems that stem from its abuse.

Why isn't this done with the many other sins many find themselves in? If someone has a tendency to abuse food why not blame the accessibility of certain foods and ban them too? Look at the opposite sex lustfully then like some Muslim sects should we ban being able to look directly at the opposite sex? You get the point, I hope.

A good article I always think of on this subject which is worth a read if you haven't is The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life by Johannes G. Vos.

Cheers,

Mark

Martin Luther Quiz

Please identify who said the following about Martin Luther.The quotes are from the same person. Try not to Google search the quotes and cheat. If you do, you shouldn't post the answer.

Luther was a man of ''profound religiousness'' who was ''driven by the examination of eternal salvation.''

Luther was the theologian who ''contributed in a substantial way to the radical change in the ecclesiastical and secular reality in the West."

''Our world still experiences his great impact on history.''

''The rupture in ecclesiastical unity cannot be reduced to the lack of comprehension by Catholic Church authorities or solely to Luther's lack of understanding of true Catholicism, even if both factors played a role.''

Historical research ''that does not take sides, motivated only be the search for truth,'' to provide ''a true image'' of Luther and the Reformation should be pursued.

''Guilt [during the Reformation], wherever it exists, must be recognized, on whichever side it is found.''

Of the Reformation: ''It is time that we distance ourselves from historic events and assure that they are often better understood and evoked.''

Fan Club Testimonials

These are comments from the latest Feeding frenzy. I let these people speak for themselves. They are a reminder to all of us, "The things that come out of the mouth come from the heart."

"the issue is the double standard with which James Swan (and men like him who are also irrationaly biggoted towards Catholic personages of the past and present) operates. Furthermore, if James allowed quibbles to be quibbles when Catholics made them, then we would not be having this discussion. I agree that it comes across as petty, but there is a James Swan legacy of double standards here that is really irritating those of us who are aware of it."

"James, you make Bill Clinton look like a straight talker. Is the statement you made true or false. Never mind what you and Chris agreed to pretend it means. Did Luther "have a hand in the execution of Anabaptists?" You said "no." Do you stand by that or do you not? If you do then you should try and defend what you said. Saying that you and Chris have some secret squirrel code that caused you both to understand something different. Not only is that hard to believe but it is beside the point. You made a public statement. Words mean things."

"If I thought for one minute that the fact that he honestly misunderstood a plain English question would convince him that he might honestly misunderstand Catholic apologists or that he might honestly misunderstand medieval conciliar documents steeped in Thomist metaphysics he hasn't even studied, then I might agree with you. But expecting James Swan to actually learn any sort of restraint or common sense in his dealings with Catholics is like expecting a hungry lion not to kill a gazelle; unreasoning emotion isn't susceptible to reform by reasonable considerations. Consequently, the only service this can do is to point out the inconsistent quality of his critical thinking for those who might be inclined to uncritically take his word on the subject."

A Sinner's Testimony

johnMark

I've had many clicks on the 'My Testimony' link at the top of my blog. It's been empty for a while until now. I've written about the beginning of my journey. I say beginning because my testimony ends where my new life in Christ began which is when I came to faith in Jesus Christ. I didn't type, edit and re-type in any capacity. I just sat down and wrote it out. I just pray that it brings glory to God and, I say humbly, blesses the reader.

My Testimony

Believing the Gospel is the most important event that has ever happened in my life so I don't want to take this lightly. I am not sure where to begin so I'm just going to say it. I want the reader to understand the realness of my life before and after. My aim is that the glory of the Triune God is shown in the grace He's given in my life.

I was raised in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) which is now known as Community of Christ. The RLDS is not to be confused with the Mormons or LDS. If you'd like a better understanding of the differences Bill McKeever has a good article on this subject. I came from a long line of RLDS from my great grandmother on my mother's side to my grandmother and all of the relatives on that side of the family. My father's side didn't really have any religious affiliation. Both of my parents were eventually ordained RLDS ministers.

I was baptized in the RLDS church at 8 years old. I was raised to believe I had to be good to go to heaven as well as be part of the one true church which was the RLDS. I thought if I said a cuss word or had a drop of alcohol I was on my way to hell. I had no concept of salvation through Christ. I starting falling away from these beliefs in high school. Once I started slipping with the language that was it. I figured that was it and keep going forward away from religion. Being good still sort of stuck with me and I still believed there was a god, but that was about it.

Since I had been involved in karate and kick boxing since I was 14 years old and not knowing God I started being attracted to meditation and eastern religions. Again, there was that element of being good. I was looking for that mystical experience that would empower me and take me to that next plane of spirituality. All I really got were some empty, peaceful, quiet moments.

In college I still believed a god existed and that was about it. I lived in and loved the world. I was your typical lost college student living in the flesh. My life, in no particular order, was studying, partying and athletics. There's no need to go further. I do cherish the memories of my friends from that time and still keep in touch with many of them.

After college I was still a blind man. Now I just worked and partied though the partying was kept to a minimum. I had a different type of responsibilities now. This is where I started picking up self-help books and trying to better myself and get more out of life. I still could not find any satisfaction. I even joined the Masonic Lodge. I became a third degree Master Mason in the Blue Lodge and never went any further. There was a certain brotherhood and connection in the Lodge. I believe you get that connection by taking the same blood oaths while half-dressed in front of everyone. That experience will certainly bind you to other Masons. Not that the Masonic Lodge promised me anything spiritually, but I was still unsatisfied.

I moved to Atlanta, GA from the Savannah, GA area where I lived since I was 12. I also continued reading self-help and eastern thought types of books. I also continued seeking satisfaction in partying and all that goes with it. Only to wake up weekend after weekend empty.

Then, as I was driving around listening to talk radio as I enjoyed I came upon a Christian talk station. I started listening to preaching on the radio and got curious. A some point around this time I talked to or started talking to again my good friend Russ who was still living in Savannah. During that time, it had not been too long since Russ had come to faith in Christ. Russ and I went to middle school, high school and college together. After college we golfed together and one day on the golf course I can't forget. Russ was a Christian and I was not. Three of us who'd been friends from high school golfed that day. The other guy and I started giving Russ a hard time about Christianity. Russ didn't have the answers we wanted, but he was calm and listened to our objections. I can't forget the simple answers Russ gave which were basically, "I can't answer all of your questions right now. I just know what I believe and what the Bible says about Jesus." I have always appreciated his perseverance on that day as we poked fun and such.

So as I was driving around listening to sermons on the radio I wanted to read the Bible, but didn't know what to get. All I had was the RLDS Bible and I didn't want that one. I had no local Christian friends so I called Russ and another friend Heath. They recommended, if I recall correctly, to get an NIV and read the book of John. I did that and continued listening to sermons.

Now, I lived alone with no Christian friends. One night, sometime in Sept. or Oct. in 2000, the Lord opened my heart and gave me eyes to see and ears to hear. While reading the Bible I was convicted that Jesus Christ was the way, the truth and the life. I was convicted of my sin before a Holy God and came to faith in Jesus Christ on the spot. I knelt down with tears in my eyes and prayed. I prayed a prayer of repentance and faith. I repented of my sins and thanked Jesus for taking my sins on the cross and for saving me. I can't remember the exact date, but I remember feeling like the world had been lifted off of my shoulders. It was such a peace that I can't describe. I now knew the Lord and Savior.

Thank you Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and 4 that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

Another Survey on Catholic "Unity"

(larger view of table above)

A 1999 survey by National Catholic Reporter on American Catholic Beliefs (note, some of the beliefs are required dogma).

"The purpose of inquiring into Catholic identity is to describe more precisely this aspect of the actual lived faith of Catholics, which may or may not fit exactly with official teachings. All religious groups have elements of popular religion that develop among the faithful. The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed that the sensus fidelium -- the sense of the faithful -- is important.

Anyone investigating Catholic identity soon finds that being a Catholic has many possible facets. The Catholic tradition is old, rich, variegated, and for some, bewildering. There are saints, social reformers, relics, mystics, spiritual virtuosi, devotions, obligations, art forms, institutional rules and hundreds of moral teachings. What are the most central and the most important facets? What most defines what being a Catholic really means?"

"The table also shows attitudes broken down in three levels of education. Catholics with different levels of education differ on only two of the six ratings. On the fourth, concerning Mary, the Mother of God, the most educated Catholics have a lower rating than the others; the difference between the most and least educated groups is 16 percentage points. And on the sixth, concerning the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican, the most educated Catholics have a much lower rating than the others...[only 28% of those with a college degree said "the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican" is very important to them.]

Here is an indication of trends in the future. Since educational levels among American Catholics are steadily increasing, we may expect future Catholics to resemble the more educated Catholics today. Probably future Catholics will attach less importance to devotion to Mary and to church authority."

(23% of Catholics polled believe a person could be a good Catholic and not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. 38% of Catholics polled believe a person could be a good Catholic and not believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. 77% of Catholics polled believe a person could be a good Catholic and not go to Mass every Sunday. 72% of Catholics polled believe a person could be a good Catholic “without obeying the church hierarchy’s teaching on birth control".)

Aging Rock Stars Unite

Mid-life crisis time! I dyed my hair blond yesterday. I've got that aging rock star look, or as my wife stated, I've got the German terrorist look from those "Die Hard" type of movies.

The only camera we have is my wife's cell phone, so... that's the best quality of picture we can take. My siamese cat tolerated the photo shoot. This was around the 20th picture... the cat was done after picture 3, if you know what I mean.

The Reformation Polka

Don't mean to bump JohnMark, but...bump!

The Reformation Polka

by Robert Gebel
From here.

[Sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilistic-expialidocious"]

When I was just ein junger Mann I studied canon law
While Erfurt was a challenge, it was just to please my Pa.
Then came the storm, the lightning struck, I called upon Saint Anne,
I shaved my head, I took my vows, an Augustinian!
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

When Tetzel came near Wittenberg, St. Peter's profits soared,
I wrote a little notice for the All Saints' Bull'tin board:
"You cannot purchase merits, for we're justified by grace!
Here's 95 more reasons, Brother Tetzel, in your face!"
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

They loved my tracts, adored my wit, all were exempleror;
The Pope, however, hauled me up before the Emperor.
"Are these your books? Do you recant?" King Charles did demand,
"I will not change my Diet, Sir, God help me here I stand!"
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Duke Frederick took the Wise approach, responding to my words,
By knighting "George" as hostage in the Kingdom of the Birds.
Use Brother Martin's model if the languages you seek,
Stay locked inside a castle with your Hebrew and your Greek!
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Let's raise our steins and Concord Books while gathered in this place,
And spread the word that 'catholic' is spelled with lower case;
The Word remains unfettered when the Spirit gets his chance,
So come on, Katy, drop your lute, and join us in our dance!
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Reformation Day 2007: The Sinner’s Justification

Today, we don't hear as much about sin from the pulpit as was once popular. I'm not talking about just preaching hellfire and damnation either. I'm talking about our actual biblical stance as a sinner before a holy God. I know it's not PC to talk about sin in such a way because it's not peaceful, welcoming nor comforting to the unbelieving world. As the world listens we must tell them we are sinners just as they are while pointing to the cross. And there is nothing good in any of us to earn favor with God, but they, like us, must come to Jesus Christ by grace through faith relying only on His righteousness imputed to us that we may be just with God.

It is probably even more important that the faithful get back to preaching this doctrine of justification in light of our sinfulness. Not only preaching it, but living it out in our local churches. This must be done before we can be honest with the unbelieving world. How humbled our local fellowships would be as we'd have no choice but to focus on the cross of Christ with a total reliance on the Gospel.

In closing, I offer a couple of quotations from the 1866 lectures of James Buchanan.

The best preparation for the study of this doctrine is-neither great intellectual ability, nor much scholastic learning, -but a conscience impressed with a sense of our actual condition as sinners in the sight of God. A deep conviction of sin is the one thing needful in such an inquiry, -a conviction of the fact of sin, as an awful reality in our own personal experience, -of the power of sin, as an inveterate evil cleaving to us continually, and having its roots deep in the innermost recesses of our hearts, -and of the guilt of sin, past as well as present, as an offence against God, which, once committed, can never cease to be true of us individually, and which, however, He may be pleased to deal with it, has deserved His wrath and righteous condemnation. Without some such conviction of sin, we may speculate on this, as on any other, part of divine truth, and bring all the resources of our intellect and learning to beat upon it, but can have no suitable sense of our actual danger, and no serious desire for deliverance from it. To study the subject with advantage, we must have a heartfelt interest in it, as one that bears directly on the salvation of our own souls; and this interest can only be felt in proportion as we realize our guilt, and misery, and danger, as transgressors of God's Law. The Law is still, as it was to the Jewish Church, 'a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith;' and the law must be applied to the conscience, so as to quicken and arouse it, before we can feel our need of salvation, or make any serious effort to attain it. It is the convinced, and not the careless, sinner, who alone will lay to heart, with some sense of its real meaning and momentous importance, the solemn question

-'How shall a man be just with God?'1

No change is more striking or more instructive than that which is often produced instantaneously on all a man's views of the method of salvation, when from being a careless, he becomes a convinced, sinner. As a careless sinner, he presumed on mercy; as a convinced sinner, he can scarcely dare to hope for it: once he reckoned on pardon, or rather on impunity; now 'his heart condemns him,' and he knows that 'God is greater than his heart:' formerly he imagined that reformation of life would be sufficient to secure his welfare; now he feels that a radical heart-change is necessary, such as he is altogether unable to work in himself, -and immediately on this change of his views in regard to sin, there follows a change in all his views of salvation, and those very doctrines of free and efficacious grace, which he once despised or rejected as 'foolishness,' are found to be the 'wisdom of God.'2

Amen and Amen!

Mark

1. James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church and of Its Exposition from Scripture (Birmingham: Solid Ground Classic Reprints, 2006), 222-223.

2. ibid., 224-225.

The Iron Sharpens Iron interview went well. The MP3 can be found here. The topic was "MARTIN LUTHER: FACTS AND FICTION." I addressed the indulgence controversy, the historical understanding of sola fide in church history, and other facts and fiction surrounding Luther's life.

Special thanks to John Mark for calling in!

Radio Interview

I will be on Iron Sharpens Iron Tuesday, October 30, 3-4 PM. You can listen in live, or wait for the MP3 later in the day. The Iron Sharpens Iron website has information about the show, as well as some great archives of previous shows.

The topic will be "Luther and The Reformation Facts and Fiction." I'm going to talk about indulgences, justification, sola fide, the way Catholics and Protestants understand Luther, and maybe, if there is time to look at some other Luther myths & facts.

Surveys on Catholic "Unity"

The following post is one that I made on my own blog a few months back in response to some comments on another post on Catholic unity with regards to beliefs of the laity. The original comment said:

“We are unified in that there is a core set of beliefs (dogmas) that all catholics believe. There will always be people who disagree on this aspect or that one. But, our beliefs on these dogmas are resolute. Protestants, on the other hand, cannot agree on any aspect or teaching. They all claim Sola Scriptura, but that is all.”

Recently, "anonymous" had this to say on the Gerry Matatics post:

“go to 100 Catholic Churches, gather 500 people at random and ask them what are the roles of scripture, clergy, grace and the sacraments, then do the same with 100 Reformed Baptist churches and see what happens. There isn't a person reading this that does not know that the former group would be nearly homogeneous compared with the latter which would sport as many theories as a 9/11 Truther symposium.”

In response to these assertions on Catholic "unity", I am providing the following excerpts from surveys published on Catholic websites:

Catholic beliefs and practices: the challenge ahead for Australia

-Only 6.8 per cent of 20-24-year-olds attended regularly (down from 7.2 per cent in 1996) and 5.6 per cent of 25-29-year-olds (down from 7.0 per cent) attended [Mass].

-Acceptance of the virgin birth among Mass attenders ranged from 73 per cent for 18-24-year-olds to 81 per cent for those aged 56 or over.

-In the case of belief in the Eucharist truly being the Body and Blood of Christ. Only 46 per cent of 15-17-year-old Mass attenders accepted this doctrine, whereas 81 per cent of those aged over 56 did so. In between these groups the level of belief rose with age.

-Belief in God as the Holy Trinity again reflected age differences, with 51 per cent of 15-17-year olds accepting it, increasing to 78 per cent for over 56-year-olds.


Young adults’ lack of participation problem for U.S. Catholic Church, study says

-One of the main results of the new survey was to confirm and reinforce earlier findings that younger adult Catholics tend to have a looser, more tenuous relationship with the church than their older counterparts.

-The younger Catholics are less likely to accept church teachings on issues of sex and marriage or to consider the church's teaching role important in such matters, for example, and they are less likely to attend Mass regularly or to consider Mass attendance important for being a good Catholic

-Only one-fourth go to Mass on a weekly basis.

-Less than half believe that the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican is very important. A majority disagree with church teachings related to sexual and reproductive issues.

-And if a sizable number of young adults report that they do not understand their faith well enough to explain it to their own children, they have a problem, and so does the church.

The Cara Catholic Poll

-Seventy percent of Catholics believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist while 30 percent believe bread and wine are only symbols of Jesus.

Clearly all Catholics do not agree on the essential dogmas (and very clearly they don’t agree on general teachings like prohibition of birth control). A preemptive strike by a commenter on my introduction post said this:

"Are there dissneters in the Catholic Church? Sure. Does any Catholic claim we are 100% unified? No. Besides Carrie, what do you hope to accomplish? That Catholics are just as disunited as Protestants? So what?"

The answer is: parity is not good enough. Catholicism claims a superior position to Protestantism in matters of unity and certainty and yet those claims can not be backed up. The "so what, you're no better" answer does not cut it in these discussions.

Fan Club Testimonials

Here's a comment from someone called "Sexy Secularist". My blog entry on "Luther and Reason" was evaluated, and my review of a Luther quote was said to be a "fatuously windbaggish and unconvincing contextualization. "

[Luther said] "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but — more frequently than not — struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

(I should note here that the trouble in sourcing this quote is that we can’t be sure that Luther actually said it. It’s taken from Tabletalk, a collection of sayings attributed to Luther, transcribed by his friends and students.

A fatuously windbaggish and unconvincing contextualization of the quote can be found here— at one point the author reasons that Luther’s embrace of self-contradictory and irreconciliable [sic] beliefs was proof of his genius. But I digress.)

Rain

Rain. We try not to go out in it or drive in it if we can help it. We put on special water proof clothes and use umbrellas to keep from getting wet from it. But at the same time we can't live without the water it brings. Water is a sustainer of life and even the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ gives "living water" which brings eternal life. Like many here in the U.S. land of plenty who take this living water for granted dare I say we also take our everyday water even more for granted.

How often do we think about taking a long hot shower or excessively running the kitchen or bathroom water in light of water conservation? Probably not much. We're in the U.S. we can' t run out of anything. Normally, water is pretty much plentiful, however, not at this time. God has seen fit in His providence to limit our water supply in certain areas.

Psalm 147:8 Who covers the heavens with clouds, Who provides rain for the earth, Who makes grass to grow on the mountains

We must repent and pray that God has mercy on us. I refer to the need for God's grace in the current state of drought here in Atlanta and the other areas affected on the east coast as well as the fires in California. This plea has further implications than just this particular time of need. This speaks to the whole of the Christian life to call upon God and praise Him in all we have and don't have. To live a life of repentance for His glory.

Even though it's a different kind of trial Paul writes to believers showing us what we should do during these times. Pray for each other, trust in the Lord.

2 Corinthians 1:8 For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life; 9 indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; 10 who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us, 11 you also joining in helping us through your prayers, so that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the favor bestowed on us through the prayers of many.

James tells us also.

James 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Some of us can be thankful that we still have water left though not much. It's been devastating for those involved in the California fires. Let us pray for our brothers and sisters there and pray God may bring unbelievers to Himself through those events. A hard message both for us to tell and for unbelievers to hear are Jesus' words in Luke 13. To tell someone out of love that "unless you repent, you will likewise perish" using those who've died in a disaster as the example is tough. But we are called to share the Gospel and thank the Lord we live in a country were we can.

We have to understand that we are only in believers in Christ because of God's grace. And we continue to need God's grace to trust in Him and not worry about our lives. Though we continue to fall short He will provide for us.

Matthew 6:25 For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26"Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

I also want to thank Gene, Tom and Frank for the exhortations to pray and repent for the grace of God in a major time of need.

Many times it's the simplest things in life we forget to be thankful for whether it be the water He provides or the next breath we take.

Forgive us,

Mark

Rain

Rain. We try not to go out in it or drive in it if we can help it. We put on special water proof clothes and use umbrellas to keep from getting wet from it. But at the same time we can't live without the water it brings. Water is a sustainer of life and even the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ gives "living water" which brings eternal life. Like many here in the U.S. land of plenty who take this living water for granted dare I say we also take our everyday water even more for granted.

How often do we think about taking a long hot shower or excessively running the kitchen or bathroom water in light of water conservation? Probably not much. We're in the U.S. we can' t run out of anything. Normally, water is pretty much plentiful, however, not at this time. God has seen fit in His providence to limit our water supply in certain areas.

Psalm 147:8 Who covers the heavens with clouds, Who provides rain for the earth, Who makes grass to grow on the mountains

We must repent and pray that God has mercy on us. I refer to the need for God's grace in the current state of drought here in Atlanta and the other areas affected on the east coast as well as the fires in California. This plea has further implications than just this particular time of need. This speaks to the whole of the Christian life to call upon God and praise Him in all we have and don't have. To live a life of repentance for His glory.

Even though it's a different kind of trial Paul writes to believers showing us what we should do during these times. Pray for each other, trust in the Lord.

2 Corinthians 1:8 For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life; 9 indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; 10 who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us, 11 you also joining in helping us through your prayers, so that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the favor bestowed on us through the prayers of many.

James tells us also.

James 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Some of us can be thankful that we still have water left though not much. It's been devastating for those involved in the California fires. Let us pray for our brothers and sisters there and pray God may bring unbelievers to Himself through those events. A hard message both for us to tell and for unbelievers to hear are Jesus' words in Luke 13. To tell someone out of love that "unless you repent, you will likewise perish" using those who've died in a disaster as the example is tough. But we are called to share the Gospel and thank the Lord we live in a country were we can.

We have to understand that we are only in believers in Christ because of God's grace. And we continue to need God's grace to trust in Him and not worry about our lives. Though we continue to fall short He will provide for us.

Matthew 6:25 For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26"Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

I also want to thank Gene, Tom and Frank for the exhortations to pray and repent for the grace of God in a major time of need.

Many times it's the simplest things in life we forget to be thankful for whether it be the water He provides or the next breath we take.

Forgive us,

Mark

Luther Listens To the Staples / Slick Radio Discussion

Galatians 3:11 "Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the Law; for the righteous shall live by faith."

Another argument, derived from the testimony of the prophet Habakkuk. It is a very weighty and a clear authority that Paul sets against all the statements about the Law and works. It is as though he were saying: “What need is there of a long debate? Here I am producing a very clear testimony of the prophet, at which no one can carp: ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ If by faith, then not by the Law, because the Law is not by faith.” And Paul interprets the term “faith” in its exclusive and antithetical sense.

The sophists, ready as they are to evade the Scriptures, carp at this passage as follows: “ ‘The righteous shall live by faith,’ that is, by a faith that is active, working, or ‘formed’ by love. But if it is an unformed faith, it does not justify.” They themselves have made up this gloss, and with it they do injury to this passage. If they were to call “formed” faith the true and theological or, as Paul calls it, the νυπόκριτος faith (1 Tim. 1:5), which God calls faith, then this gloss of theirs would not offend me. For then faith would not be distinguished from love; it would be distinguished from a vain idea of faith, as we also distinguish between a counterfeit faith and a true faith. A counterfeit faith is one that hears about God, Christ, and all the mysteries of the incarnation and redemption, one that also grasps what it hears and can speak beautifully about it; and yet only a mere opinion and a vain hearing remain, which leave nothing in the heart but a hollow sound about the Gospel, concerning which there is a great deal of chatter. In fact, this is no faith at all; for it neither renews nor changes the heart. It does not produce a new man, but it leaves him in his former opinion and way of life. This is a very pernicious faith, and it would be better not to have it. A moral philosopher is better than such a hypocrite with such a faith.

If they were to distinguish between a “formed faith” and a false or counterfeit faith, their distinction would not offend me at all. But they speak of faith formed by love; and they posit a double faith, namely, formed and unformed. This noxious and satanic gloss I cannot help detesting violently. “Although infused faith may be present,” they say, “which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, as well as acquired faith, which we ourselves produce by our many acts of believing, nevertheless they are both unformed and must be formed by love.”  According to their opinion, faith by itself is like a picture or a beautiful thing in the darkness, which is perceived only when light, that is love, reaches it. And so love is the form of faith, and faith is merely the “matter” of love. In this way they prefer love to faith and attribute righteousness, not to faith but to love. For that by virtue of which something is what it is, is the same thing, only more so. Therefore when they do not attribute righteousness to faith except on account of love, they are attributing nothing at all to faith.

In addition, these subverters of the Gospel say that even infused faith, which has not been received by hearing or produced by any actions but has been created in man by the Holy Spirit, can coexist with mortal sin, and that the most wicked men can have it; and therefore, they say, if it is alone, it is vain and completely useless, even if it should perform miracles. Thus they deprive faith of its task and give this to love, so that faith amounts to nothing at all unless the “form,” namely, love, is added to it. According to this malignant figment of the sophists, faith, that miserable virtue, would be a sort of unformed chaos, without any work, efficacy, or life, a purely passive material. This is blasphemous and satanic; it calls men away from Christian doctrine, from Christ the Mediator, and from the faith that takes hold of Christ. For if love is the form of faith, then I am immediately obliged to say that love is the most important and the largest part in the Christian religion. And thus I lose Christ, His blood, His wounds, and all His blessings; and I cling to love, so that I love, and I come to a moral kind of “doing,” just as the pope, a heathen philosopher, and the Turk do.

But the Holy Spirit knows how to speak and, as the sophists wickedly imagine, could easily have said: “The righteous shall live by a formed faith.” But He purposely omits this and simply says: “The righteous shall live by faith.” Therefore let the sophists go hang with their wicked and malignant gloss! We want to retain and to extol this faith which God has called faith, that is, a true and certain faith that has no doubts about God or the divine promises or the forgiveness of sins through Christ. Then we can remain safe and sure in Christ, the object of faith, and keep before our eyes the suffering and the blood of the Mediator and all His blessings. Faith alone, which takes hold of Christ, is the only means to keep us from permitting this to be removed from our sight. Therefore this malignant gloss must be repudiated, and this passage must be understood of faith alone.

Source: Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 26: Luther's works, vol. 26 : Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (26:268). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House. pp.268-269

Fan Club Testimonials

The fans speak on my research into the Reformers Mariology:

"Oh don't worry, James Swan knows exactely how to minimize this and cover it up as if Luther had said nothing at all. Just wait and see-- he will be on here talking about how you have somehow taken Luther out of context, how you have misrepresented his views, how there is a 'fundamental misapprehension and misapplication' of the views of Luther among Catholics, and how Luther never had devotion to Mary, about how all of what you said is most likely an interpolation by a later Catholic trying to make Luther look bad, or in the end, if he cannot minimize Luther they way he does Calvin, he will basically just say "So what? Luther is not my pope. He can believe what he wants." or whatever he might like to say. Whatever he says, I am sure it will be interesting."

Assertions on Catholic Unity

The always-brave “anonymous” commenter had this to say on the Matatics post:

“Riiiight. One in 700 million people who profess Catholocism reject the Holy See and this compares with the fact that you're lucky to find any Protestant congregation of 40 or more where half of them agree on any half-dozen salvation-critical doctrines. Wonderful argument there.”

“go to 100 Catholic Churches, gather 500 people at random and ask them what are the roles of scripture, clergy, grace and the sacraments, then do the same with 100 Reformed Baptist churches and see what happens. There isn't a person reading this that does not know that the former group would be nearly homogeneous compared with the latter which would sport as many theories as a 9/11 Truther symposium.”

A similar assertion is made by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"That the mark of unity which is distinctive of and essential to the true Church of Christ is to be found in none other than the Roman Catholic Church, follows naturally from what has been said... Between no two of the hundreds of nonCatholic sects is there a common bond of union; each one having a different head, a different belief, a different cult. Nay more, even between the members of any one sect there is no such thing as real unity, for their first and foremost principle is that each one is free to believe and do as he wishes. They are constantly breaking up into new sects and subdivisions of sects, showing that they have within themselves the seeds of disunion and disintegration." Source

Bold assertions? Are Catholics really that unified in their beliefs?

I have some surveys of lay Catholics which I will be posting soon that will speak to this topic of unity.

Party Hearty Marty & the Protestors

For the upcoming Reformation Celebration, please review this link: Party Hearty Marty & the Protestors.

Staples vs. Slick

I haven't had a chance to listen to this yet, but Catholic apologist Tim Staples was on Matt Slick's Internet show: Matt Slick and Tim Staples Discuss Salvation. Slick is the founder of CARM, and, if I recall, he is also Reformed (a graduate of WTS). It's always interesting to listen to Tim Staples (as the Catholic Answers clips on the Dividing Line prove).

Update: I listened to almost all of the broadcast. My overall conclusion was that the dialog was not fruitful. I'm not one who appreciates conversations that wander all over the place, even though I realize the topic was "salvation" and that entails a lot of different related points.

Positively, Tim Staples was treated respectfully by Matt Slick, and I appreciated Matt's tone and demeanor. Matt asked some good questions, and sought to have Tim define his position.

But Matt did a less than adequate job of corralling Tim. Tim can speak quickly, and throw out a lot of content. I recall more than once hearing Matt say something like "No it isn't. you're wrong," and then Tim saying, "O.K. why am I wrong?" And then the discussion moved on to other points. In fairness to Matt, Staples is a very difficult person to do a radio dialog with. Just go back and listen to Staples on the BAM show with James White a few years ago. Hank would try to go to commercial, and Tim was still talking! Tim frequently would not stop talking to give the opposition a chance to speak.

I know some people like the free-for-all type of discussion, I don't. Probably what would have been helpful, would have been to pre-pick a particular passage of Scripture about salvation, and then discuss the text. A crucial passage to concentrate on would be Romans 3-4 (I think these verses only came up briefly, and the topic was salvation!). I think the structure of looking at a key text like this, and trying to stick with it would have helped the conversation stay coherent. Give Tim 5 minutes to state his case, then let Matt make his case, then try to set up some form of constructive dialog. Maybe let Tim ask Matt questions for 5 minutes, and then let Matt do likewise with Tim.

My gut feeling is this will be another one of those broadcasts Catholic Answers will sell like the the BAM show with Akin vs. White. Catholic Answers sells that set because Akin got most of the time. Dr. White was not given the opportunity to even respond to most of the points Akin brought up (in case your interested, Dr. White has gone through that old radio show, and proved this). They sell this set gleefully, knowing full well, that Akin would be bulldozed by Dr. White in a formal debate.... Best let the Catholic Answers folks have a James White (alleged) debate in which he isn't given time to respond to points raised.

In this case, Slick allowed Tim to make multiple points and use multiple verses, and simply didn't seem to be able to keep up with all Tim was saying. This is the type of stuff Catholic Answers loves to sell. They will say something like, "See, Tim made all these points that went unanswered!" "Swim The Tiber!"

Anyway, Matt if you read this- I respect you for doing this dialog, and for also standing up for the gospel, as well as not holding back what your position is on Roman Catholicism. But if you have Tim back, you better come up with a better strategy to dialog with him.

The Weight of Gluttony No More

johnMark

Not long ago I posted Southern Baptists and the Weight of Gluttony. And God has blessed me from that post through a commenter named Jane. She went through the course I listed in the above mentioned post and has a great testimony I thought should have it's own entry and I don't want to take away from that by saying too much. For your consideration I do want to provide two recent articles reporting on the effects of obesity: The Global Problem of Obesity and Brits Find Obesity Deadlier Than Smoking.

Let's read Jane's testimony that she has graciously allowed me to share that she wrote as she finished the Setting Captives Free Course.

Before starting this course, how much I ate seemed to me to be completely disconnected from my spiritual life. I would go to church or a Bible study and then go home or out to eat and eat a big meal without giving it a second thought. I would snack throughout the day (while listening to Christian radio as I did my housework) and never realize how I was turning to food instead of Christ. To my shame, it didn’t occur to me to give the Lord control of my eating habits and patterns.

I have never been thin, but I really packed on the pounds over the course of two pregnancies. This excess weight didn’t come off even during my children’s busy toddler years. Sadly, I had convinced myself that I would always be overweight and that it was an area of my life that I would just have to live with.

I was blind and I had bought a lie!

God started speaking to me through this course as I worked through the very first lesson. The fact that God wanted me to learn about how to eat and drink to His glory struck a deep chord in my heart. I was absolutely delighted that God was very interested in demonstrating His strength as I sought to honor Him in what I ate and drank.

While doing this course I have learned about when it’s okay for me to eat and when I should refrain. I have learned to use scripture to combat urges to snack. I have studied about the proper role that food needs to have in my life and have turned more often to the true source of real satisfaction and nourishment; Jesus Christ.

My eating habits have drastically changed. I seldom eat between meals. I almost never eat after dinner. And I am exercising regularly.

The bottom line is that food doesn’t have the pull on me that it used to have. I have been set free.

I have lost over 20 pounds and I have a lot more weight to lose. My outside will eventually catch up with the change that has happened on my inside. I am so thankful that God is teaching me these lessons at this time in my life. I could have been in bondage for who knows how many more years or additional pounds, but instead God has used the truths in the course to change me forever. God is good, and faithful, and committed to sanctifying me to His glory alone. Blessed be the name of the Lord!

Thank you Setting Captives Free!

Thank you for the blessing Jane,

Mark

The Uncertainty of Infallibility

The lack of a list of infallible teachings by the RCC has been discussed here previously. We are often told by RC e-pologists that we Protestants suffer from uncertainty in faith and morals due to the lack of an infallible organization to lead us, yet RCs cannot even define their own body of infallible doctrine. Additionally, a few weeks ago I posted on my own blog about an old dispute (in the Catholic community) over whether or not a particular papal decree by JPII was actually infallible. Ironically, the confusion was bore out in the comments section where it was clear two Catholic commenters were still in disagreement over what exactly made the declaration infallible (although I think they may have figured it out eventually).

The comments in James’ previous post on the authorship of the Book of Hebrews has flushed out another interesting principle in regard to infallibility. It appears that not all portions of conciliar decisions and papal statements are infallible. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

"But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."

The illusion of certainty in the RC position is quickly disappearing.

First, one must determine what documents and decrees could be considered infallible. Second, one must determine exactly what is or is not infallible within those documents/decrees. Is the determination of the above made fallibly or infallibly? And by whom is such a determination made?

(Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that a believer should know what is infallible before giving assent but we have yet to see an RC who can produce a list of all infallible statements. How can one assent to infallible doctrines that they can't clearly define?)

Gerry Matatics: Counterfeit Catholicism

James informed me that Gerry Matatics was speaking in my area this week, so I headed out Friday evening to attend one of his seminars. James attended one of Gerry’s seminars a year ago and wrote about his experience here. The overall content of the seminar wasn’t much different than what James described, but I thought I would add some additional details that I found interesting.

First, for those not familiar with Gerry, he was formerly an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) before converting to Catholicism where he became a mainstream Catholic apologist (formerly working with Catholic Answers and debating James White a few times in the early 1990s). More recently he has embraced Sedevacantism and seems to be devoting himself full-time to defending his beliefs (although he appears to not be too fond of the Sedevacantist title).

Gerry’s current “mega-tour of over 300 cities and towns”is focused on his current position that “a) the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church are the one true Faith and the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation (as both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition repeatedly affirm and as the Sacred Magisterium, or teaching office, of the Church has infallibly defined many times), but that b) that authentic Catholic Faith and that authentic Catholic Church are no longer found at the local parish, in the local diocese, or even ruling from Rome in our day.” Gerry’s seminar flier entitled “Counterfeit Catholicism” promised to share some “startling, eye-opening facts” over a 2 hour period follow with some Q&A time.

I am not sure if the particular seminar I attended would attest to the size (or makeup) of the sedevacantist following or not, but besides Gerry, there were 5 men and myself in the room. One man who was wearing what I believed to be a rather large rosary had his tape recorder but other than that, I was the only one taking copious notes (and the only one who brought my bible as suggested in the flier). Luckily, James had forwarned me about the opening prayer so I was prepared to not join in as “Our Lady” was called upon, followed my a Hail Mary, then some type of responsorial pray to Mary, followed by a rattled off list of saints to “pray for us” (I only caught St. Pius and St. Bellarmine).

Gerry then moved on to his presentation warning us up front that he would have to cut out some portions of his usual talk due to the time, but offering tapes for sale that cover the full material. After a quick joke he opened with 3 prophecies from “Our Lady of La Salette” (1846): “In the last days, Rome itself will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist ... the Church will be in eclipse". Gerry seems to believe these prophecies have come to fruition and goes on from here to support his belief from both biblical and more extra-biblical prophecies. He speaks quickly and covers a lot of material and rather than share my notes here, I would recommend you read a summary of the content of these seminars from his website (also briefly excerpted below).

It is clear that Gerry has spent a lot of time researching Church History, papal documents and I think he makes a good case that the Roman Catholic Church of today has broken away from many of her historical beliefs. I found it odd though that he seems to give a lot of credence to extrabiblical prophecies (listed under “fact #2 on his site). He spoke of “Our Lady of La Salette” more than once and also seemed intrigued by a supposed vision of Pope Leo XIII in 1888 which springboarded into accusations of freemasonry infiltration into the Church at the beginning of the 20 century (see Alta Vendita). At that point I began to wonder how many in the room really believe Oswald shot Kennedy.

For a small group, the Q&A was more lively than expected. Gerry’s presentation ended around 9:45pm and when I finally got up to leave at 10:50pm, the discussions were still continuing. I was disappointed that I didn’t get a chance to peruse Gerry’s book table as he had many sources there that he mentioned during his talk, but I did write down a few titles he particularly recommended and will list those books at the end of the post.

During the Q&A, Gerry claimed that there were a few bishops at the Vatican II council who refused to sign the documents and soon after retired, not agreeing with the changes made at that Council to “the faith”. He also mentioned that there are still some men living (but quite old) who were bishops under the reign of Pope Pius XII. Apparently Gerry has been tracking down these men and meeting with them to try and find one to step forward and reclaim the Church (denouncing Vatican II). While I don’t agree with his position anymore than the modern day RCC, I do have to give him credit for his persistence.

One of the questions during the Q&A mentioned the Dimond Brothers website which I decided to look up today. These guys appear to also be sedevacantists although they appear to have a beef with Gerry because he is a little soft on “baptism of desire”. Prior to going to Gerry’s presentation I came across this post from the Saint Benedict Center, a traditionalist group who while holding many traditional beliefs in common with Gerry, feel he has gone too far with his sedevacantistism. Looking around there appear to be a variety of Catholic splinter groups, some still in communion with Rome, who can’t seem to find complete unity in their beliefs.

To summarize, these are Gerry’s main points (excerpted from his site):

1. The Vatican II Church, though it has much in common with the Catholic Church, does teach doctrines, offer worship and sacraments, and promulgate laws that have all been previously condemned by the Catholic Church as being fundamentally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

2. The rise of such a counterfeit "church," successfully masquerading as the Catholic Church because a) composed of nearly all the former clergy and laity of the Catholic Church who lost their membership (and, in the case of the clergy, their offices) in the true Church by being spiritually seduced into subscribing to heresy, and b) possessing the real estate and controlling the infrastructure (chanceries, marriage tribunals, schools, colleges, universities and seminaries, publishing houses, etc.) formerly owned and operated by the true Church, has been foretold by numerous prophecies given, not only in Sacred Scripture but also by Our Lady and numerous saints -- including, Popes, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church.

3. …next in the talk we examine the beliefs of the men who have sat on the throne of St. Peter since the death of Pius XII in 1958: John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I & II, and Benedict XVI. An examination of their writings, speeches, and actions readily reveals that these men were not orthodox Catholics -- even before their elections -- but modernists and manifest heretics, Freemasons, and abettors of Communism (yes, even John Paul II) and Talmudic Judaism.

4. This in turn means that, as unlawful usurpers of the papacy, John XXIII had no authority to call, and Paul VI no authority to consummate, a lawful and valid general council of the Church. The therefore illicit and invalid council John XXIII and Paul VI did, respectively, call and conclude would not and could not enjoy the protection and infallibility of the Holy Ghost.

Summary: "the only possible conclusion is that what is found in Rome, in your diocese, and at your local parish is no longer the Catholic Church, but the above-mentioned clever counterfeit that God Himself has permitted to take over the infrastructure of the Church, in order to fulfill His prophecies and plans. One who denies this conclusion by arguing that, while these modern doctrines, worship, and laws are not fully Catholic, the Vatican II Church which offers them is nevertheless the Catholic Church, rejects the teaching of Pius XII (and other popes) that the true Church can never offer such aberrations. In thus rejecting the Church's authoritative teaching regarding its own fidelity and purity, such a person shows he is not a Catholic at all -- he himself has become a "counterfeit Catholic"."

Some books recommended by Gerry:
Tumultuous Times
The Popes Against Modern Errors
The Ottaviani Intervention