When Catholics Represent Christianity

James White wrote a post about the poor apologetic support for the Assumption of Mary – I am sure most have you are following this discussion.

One thing he said rang true for me in light of a recent encounter a friend of mine had:

“Just look at how quickly Muslims, for example, assume Rome represents the Christian faith, and you will see how damaging her false teachings are to the promotion of true Christianity in our world today.”

This summer there was an intern in our department from the Middle East who was Muslim. I never had a chance to speak with him much, but my friend (a recent, former Roman Catholic) spent an hour one night talking religion with him.

Turns out that during his stay here in the US, he was rooming with a Roman Catholic who unfortunately ended up representing “Christianity". This Muslim young man was happy to learn from his new Catholic friend that they actually worshipped the same God and were able to come to a “I’m okay, you’re okay” consensus.

My friend did what she could to undo some of the damage, specifically in emphasizing the divinity and centrality of Jesus in the Christian message, but this man had already been warned by his Catholic friend to disregard “other Christians” who claimed Islam was incorrect. “Just tell them to see catechism #841” the Catholic had told him (he actually had the number memorized).

This is one of the many reasons that Roman Catholicism is worth opposing. Not only is Rome leading her own fold in the wrong direction, but she is a false witness to the one true gospel for those outside of her dominion. Personal experiences like this make it difficult to just stand on the sidelines and play nice as some would prefer.


"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims” CCC 841

Odds and Ends

Ends: This PDF article from Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis is fascinating: A Review of "EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong" . I wish I had more time to comment on it, but if you, like me, regularly watch EWTN, you'll find this article interesting.

Odds: On the other hand, a Catholic apologist has proved his own fallible interpretation of the Bible, "Explicit Biblical Evidence for Indulgences: Finding What I Want To In The Bible."

Catholic Piety vs. Superstition

A friend of mine (a former Roman Catholic) recently told me about the practice of burying a statue of St. Joseph in your yard when trying to sell your home. By burying the statue upside-down in your yard, your house is suppose to sell more quickly. You can even buy “St. Joseph Home Sale Kits” from Catholic Supply stores as well as read online testimonials from those who have used this practice “successfully”.

I have noted before that the majority of Roman Catholics (especially those I know in real life) are quite different than the online Roman Catholics I have met who tend to be more well-versed in their Church’s doctrines. Certainly this practice of burying a St. Joseph statue in your yard to sell your house would be frowned upon by well-catechized Roman Catholics, I thought.

So I was surprised to find the following excerpts on the Catholics United for the Faith website:

“The custom of burying a statue of St. Joseph for the purpose of selling one’s home can be in harmony with the teachings of the Church when grounded in prayer for St. Joseph’s intercession. At the same time, the Church cautions against superstitious beliefs such as attributing some power to the act of burying the statue.”

“Burying a statue of St. Joseph for the purpose of selling one’s home is an action similar to wearing a saint’s medal or a scapular…an external sign of their trust in St. Joseph as a powerful intercessor.”

“The Church neither encourages nor discourages this practice. She recognizes that different forms of piety and popular devotion can be beneficial to believers, helping them to grow in faith, trust, and personal holiness.”

However, Jimmy Akin disagrees with CUF as stated in his article on the same topic:

“While it is reasonable to ask St. Joseph for his intercession in helping buy or sell a home… the idea of burying a statue of him upside down has no plausible connection to any patronly interest he might have in housing.

Because an efficacy is attributed to a religious act that has no apparent rational basis, the act qualifies as superstition or a perverse excess of religion. The Catechism notes that "Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion" (CCC 2110).”

However, some of Akin’s commenters disagreed with him. So who is right?

Apparently this is an area of uncertainty for the Roman Catholic since there is no infallible judgment by their Church and an area of general disagreement as to whether the practice would qualify as “superstitious” or not. On the surface this doesn’t sound like a big deal until you realize that the catechism paragraph that Akin referred to (CCC 2110) deals with the first commandment and keeping the commandments is necessary in Roman Catholic soteriology (CCC 2068).

That leaves the Roman Catholic walking a thin line between honorable Catholic piety and potentially damning idolatry. Despite their possession of an infallible authority to provide certainty in matters of faith and morals, the only thing the Roman Catholic is left with in determining whether the simple matter (with heavy implications) of statue-burying is superstitious or not is their own private judgment.

Funny how that works.


On an interesting side note…in the post by Jimmy Akin, one of his commenters had this to say in response:

“Jimmy, I fear that your Protestant background has coloured your response to this person's inquiry. This practice is not necessarily superstitous, if by it the worshipper is simply intending to visibly manifest his prayer to Saint Joseph.”

If you have ever been the target of online Catholic critiques of your personal motives, you may find Akin’s reponse back amusing:

“You need to be careful in the kind of attributions you make regarding others' backgrounds. I understand the temptation on the part of some to ascribe anything you disagree with that a convert says to his prior religious background, but this is a very dangerous and unreliable thing to do.

It also won't win you friends as nobody likes having their motives psychologically deconstructed as a way of ignoring the arguments they've made.”

I Have NOT been Swimming in the Tiber

I have used the nickname "Tertiumquid" probably around 10 years or so. I picked it randomly out of a Latin glossary in the back of book when trying to pick a user name for an Internet service provider. I am the original Tertiumquid. When I began using it, I doubt anyone was using it.

Do not be fooled by this blog entry:

"Tertium Quid details a touching aspect of grace in his life after becoming Catholic. Check it out."

There is also a band that uses the name, as well as a poet, and bunch of other people as well. In regards to someone with this nickname swimming the Tiber, well, let's just say I would buy the band's CD and listen to the poet before I grant someone well-wishes for embracing sola ecclesia.

Habits resulting in death?

We all have habits both good, bad and indifferent. One of my habits that may fit into any of those catergories on any given night is that while channel surfing I see someone like Joel Osteen "preaching" so I stop and listen. I did this last night and just in time to h ear Joel's "This is my Bible.." confession. So I got to hear about how people are basically good and it's just our bad habits that we need to change.

Osteen mentioned a list of "habits" that most Christians would normally understand to be "sins" as my wife reminded me as she said as much while rolling her eyes at the TV. Osteen stated that people are basically good, but that our habits can ruin our lives. He even stated that "habits determine your destiny". If we take a look at a small section of Romans 6 and think of "habits" instead of sin it just doesn't fit.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. [NASB]

So how about we say that the wages of bad habits is death, but the changing of those habits is to change your destiny (eternal life)? To be fair, Osteen didn't specifically speak in terms of eternal life, but that is certainly the allusion given the overall context. He even told the old grandfather - grandson story about feeding the good and bad wolves. It's all about us and our habits and choices that guide everything...the ultimate religion of self and morality. I'm thankful in some ways though.

I am thankful that Joel Osteen is so clear in what he teaches. He doesn't hide his teaching at all and comes right out and tells you that it's all about you and your decisions. You don't have to peel anything back to understand where he is really coming from. It's about what you do as an individual and not about what Christ has done. I wish more preachers were as clear. I say this because there doesn't really seem to be that much difference between modern evangelicalism and Osteen's position. Some may even say that he is modern evangelicalism.

Whether you're asked to change your bad habits or make the right decisions in relation to the Christian life aren't these one in the same? Look to yourself and your habits and choices...it's the Theology of Glory. My proposal is that we make life changes and can only do so because of what Christ as done for us. The example of the Apostle Paul rings through when he looks at himself as the worst undeserving sinner only to be changed because of Christ. Paul looks back to the cross not to self.

How about to the observing unbelievers that may be present during said type of worship service? If the Gospel message that the unbeliever gets is that he must "make Jesus Lord and Savior" or "just ask Jesus into his heart" is the extent with no further application then what good is it really? As I see it in these terms the Christian life is reduced to: here is your Gospel card, carry it and be a good person. What message is that sending? The message of just make the right decisions and you'll be okay.

I'm going to close by putting today's altar call in a different in a different presentation instead of "asking Jesus into your heart" and simply making right decisions. How about telling the unbeliever that he doesn't doesn't deserve to walk the aisle and come forward. Just like the Christians in the surrounding pews don't deserve Christ as they are no better than he is. See, it's not about the decisions you make, but the one Christ made to die for sin on the cross for sinners like you and me and to rise again on the third day defeating death that those who trust in Him may live. If you walked through these doors today as an unbeliever and you now trust in Christ and His work on the cross then come forward. Understand that you are not coming forward to get saved, but because of the grace of God opening your eyes to believe so come forward so we all may humbling rejoice together.

One man's observations for now...

Mark

Video Overview on Islam, Featuring Dr. James White

James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Hour is featuring a segment on Islam. The clip runs about 10 minutes, and provides a good overview on the impact of Islam on our world. I mention this because Dr. James White is one of the featured guests in this segment explaining Islam.

View this clip here

Feature: The Religion of IslamWhat challenges of the Islamic faith are being imposed upon us? What is the mission of "Jihad"? Learn some of the startling and interesting facts about this religion. For years, Dr. Kennedy has spoken about the Islamic growth and the vital importance of understanding what this means! Tune in today to The Coral Ridge Hour and find out more about this critical issue.

An Introduction

A little about me…(unlikely to show up on the CHN testimony page).

About a year ago I wrote a post on my personal/devotional blog about my Catholic upbringing and my opposition to Roman Catholicism which in turn attracted some Catholic commenters and led to further posts on that topic. After many months I decided to start a new blog dedicated to exposing the false gospel of Roman Catholicism entitled But These Are Written after John 20:31.

If you have dealt with any Catholic e-pologists, you have likely heard John 20:30 used as a support for tradition: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book”. The implication is that Jesus did many things that are not written down therefore, there must be a relevant source of information regarding faith and morals outside of scripture (tradition). The absurdity of this proof-text for the necessity of tradition is ironically found in the very next verse: “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”. Hence, what has been recorded in scripture is sufficient for salvation and was recorded for just that purpose.

With John 20:31 as my blogging motto, I have set out to document the counter-biblical beliefs of Roman Catholicism and the logical shortcomings of their authority system. In my initial interactions with Catholic e-pologists I dealt mostly with protestantized-types (“separated brethren” types) who were inconsistent with their own Church’s teachings, so I spent a lot of time establishing historical Roman Catholic beliefs from Roman Catholic documents. As such, I enjoy finding quotes/excerpts from Catholic source materials to flush out true Roman Catholic beliefs. I hope to do more of that here.

I would like to thank James for the opportunity to join him here at Beggars All. My work is nowhere near the caliber of James’ (nor near the caliber of many of the commenters here), but I hope I can at least provide some interesting points for discussion. I have no theological or philosophical training, I am simply a believer that loves the gospel and opposes false teachings that deny it.

My focus here will be solely Roman Catholicism.

“Is everything that God taught in the Bible?

No, the rest is in tradition.

‘Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20:30)’"

Source: A Brief Catechism for Adults, Lesson 2

And Welcome....Continued

I’ve asked a few folks to join me here at Beggars All. My schedule now will be a bit intense until 2008.

The next to climb aboard is Carrie. I have been very impressed with Carrie's blog, But These Are Written... I like the fact that she digs into sources and finds excellent material, and then makes insightful observations about the truth claims of Roman Catholicism. This is the type of blog I typically enjoy reading, and on more than one occasion, I've thought, "Wow, I wish I made that point or found that quote Carrie posted!"

And Welcome....

I’ve asked a few folks to join me here at Beggars All. My schedule now will be a bit intense until 2008.

The first to climb aboard is John Mark. I’ve known Mark for quite a few years now. We originally met back on the CARM discussion boards. He’s been a good cyber-friend over the years. He probably doesn’t realize this, but he was one of the only people who would ever actually chat with me over on Prosapologian when I first started stopping by. I’ve read his blog for years, and he was actually instrumental (unbeknownst to him) in getting me interested in doing my own blog. He is a solid Christian man, well grounded in the truth, and has been a blessing to me.

He also runs his own blog, Sweet Tea and Theology. He puts forth excellent entries on Reformed issues (an area I generally don’t get a chance to get into). In fact, I’m thankful to actually veer away from Roman Catholicism at times (I never planned on spending so much time with Roman Catholicism), so John Mark’s contributions, on whatever issues and topics he chooses, will indeed be refreshing.

Acts 2:38

From the Pros Apologian chat channel, Marie the Uber-Librarian posted the following:

An elderly woman had just returned to her home from an evening of Church services when she was startled by an intruder.

She caught the man in the act of robbing her home of its valuables and Yelled,"Stop! Acts 2:38!" (Repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven.)"

The burglar stopped in his tracks. The woman calmly called the police and explained what she had done.

As the officer cuffed the man to take him in, he asked the burglar, "Why did you just stand there? All the old lady did was yell a scripture to you."

"Scripture?" replied the burglar. "She said she had an Ax and Two 38's!"

In Roland Bainton's famous biography of Luther Here I Stand, Bainton gives an example of how "Luther would pass directly from the sermon to the announcements." I've always found this example humorous, and I thought it was worth sharing:

The sermon on the 8th of November, 1528, was on the lord who forgave his servant: This lord, said Luther, is a type of the Kingdom of God. The servant was not forgiven because he had forgiven his fellow servant. On the contrary he received forgiveness before he had done anything whatever about his fellow servant. From this we see that there are two kinds of forgiveness. The first is that which we receive from God; the second is that which we exercise by bearing no ill will to any upon earth. But we must not overlook the two administrations, the civil and the spiritual, because the prince cannot and should not forgive. He has a different administration than Christ, who rules over crashed and broken hearts. The Kaiser rules over scoundrels who do not recognize their sins and mock and carry their heads high. That is why the emperor carries a sword, a sign of blood and not of peace. But Christ's kingdom is for the troubled conscience. He says, "I do not ask of you a penny, only this, that you do the same for your neighbor." And the lord in the parable does not tell the servant to found a monastery, but simply that he should have mercy on his fellow servants.

But now what shall I say to you Wittenbergers? It would be better that I preach to you the Sacks ens fie gel [the imperial law], because you want to be Christians while still practicing usury, robbing and stealing. How do people who are so sunk in sins expect to receive forgiveness? The sword of the emperor really applies here, but my sermon is for crushed hearts who feel their sins and have no peace. Enough for this gospel.

I understand that this is the week for the church collection, and many of you do not want to give a thing. You ungrateful people should be ashamed of yourselves. You Wittenbergers have been relieved of schools and hospitals, which have been taken over by the common chest, and now you want to know why you are asked to give four pennies. They are for the ministers, schoolteachers, and sacristans. The first labor for your salvation, preach to you the precious treasure of the gospel, administer the sacraments, and visit you at great personal risk in the plague. The second train children to be good magistrates, judges, and ministers. The third care for the poor. So far the common chest has cared for these, and now that you are asked to give four miserable pennies you are up in arms. What does this mean if not that you do not want the gospel preached, the children taught, and the poor helped? I am not saying this for myself.I receive nothing from you. I am the prince's beggar. But I am sorry I ever freed you from the tyrants and the papists. You ungrateful beasts, you are not worthy of the treasure of the gospel. If you don't improve, I will stop preaching rather than cast pearls before swine.

And now another point: couples to be blessed by the curate before a wedding should come early. There are seated hours: in summer, mornings at eight and afternoons at three; in winter, mornings at nine and afternoons at two. If you come later, I will bless you myself, and you won't thank me for it. And the invited guests should prepare themselves in good time for the wedding and let not Miss Goose wait for Mrs. Duck.

Here’s a great quote for all the ecumenical Roman Catholics who consider Protestants “separated brothers” rather than heretics:

“Do not be misled, my brothers: if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If anyone holds to alien views, he disassociates himself from the Passion.”

– Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3.

Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.179.

I will be off-line for a few days, which is a good thing. I'll probably continue rereading the Apostolic Fathers. It's been about 5 years since I read these writings, and it's interesting how different things jump out from the text that didn't jump out at me five years ago. I tend to write in my books, so it's interesting to compare my notes from five years ago to the current rereading.

Augustine (354-430):

"Our volumes are put up for sale in public; the light never needs to blush. Let them buy them, read them, believe them; or else buy them, read them, make fun of them. Those Scriptures know how to hold people guilty who read them and don’t believe."

Source: John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.20 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), pp. 195-196. WSA = The Works of Saint Augustine.

Quotable:

Saint and Sinner said...
"Well Dave, if the rest of your arguments are as bad as your exegesis, it's no wonder Dr. White doesn't respond to you.Trying to derive a proof-text against contraception from the parable of the sower will forever remain a classic! "

Here is detailed explanation of why I embrace sola scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, and also explains why I adhere to Reformed theology (aka: Calvinism). It also explains why I am not a Roman Catholic, and why I believe the Roman Church teaches a false gospel.

I don't do "awards" for blogs, but this blog would get my award for best Catholic blog of the year.

Google Books is like going through a good used bookstore, and finding things you weren't even looking for:

The Difficulties of Romanism By George Stanley Faber
Published 1829Towar & Hogan 293 pages

New Blog: Iron Sharpens Iron

I put together a blog for Chris Arnzen, host of the Iron Sharpens Iron radio show:

Iron Sharpens Iron

Take a listen to some of the MP3 shows, and add this link to your blogs and favorites. For those of you not familiar with Chris, you can see him in action here:

2 Clement vs Tobit

Catholic apologist Gary Michuta states there are "vague" "allusions" or "echoes" to Tobit 12:8 in 2 Clement 16:4. I seem to be missing the vague allusion, other than noting the word "prayer" and the similarity between "alms" and "charitable giving". Indeed, vague...

2 Clement 16:4

"Charitable giving, therefore, is good, as is repentance from sin. Fasting is better than prayer, while charitable giving is better than both, and 'love covers a multitude of sins,' while prayer arising from a good conscience delivers one from death. Blessed is everyone who is found full of these, for charitable giving relieves the burden of sin."Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.123

Tobit 12:8

"Prayer is good with fasting and alms more than to lay up treasures of gold... "(Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

2 Clement says "Fasting is better than prayer" while Tobit says, "Prayer is good with fasting."

2 Clement says "Charitable giving, therefore, is good" and "charitable giving is better than both [prayer and fasting]" and "charitable giving relieves the burden of sin."

Tobit says "alms more than to lay up treasures of gold".

I'm tempted to comment the vague "allusion" is more of a solid "illusion," but I'll check a few other translations, as well as Lightfoot.

On the Citations from Second Clement

I have a few more comments on the alleged Second Clement. There are plentiful citations from the New Testament, as well as a few from the Old Testament. In his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Catholic apologist Gary Michuta notes,

"Scholars do note a few points of contact between the [deuterocanonical books] and 2nd Clement. These allusions are a bit vague and may, again, have been quoted from memory. For example, Lightfoot believes the writer of 2 Clement 16:4 to have had Tobit 12:8 in mind. Likewise, 2 Clement 16:4 appears to be more of an echo of Tobit 12:8 than a direct quote or allusion." (p.64)

So, Michuta believes these "allusions" to Tobit imply that the writer of Second Clement considered the apocrypha to be sacred Scripture. However, read through these citations from Second Clement, and note what else was considered Scripture:

"...the Lord said, 'If you are gathered with me in my bosom, yet you do not keep my commandments, I will throw you out and will say to you: Get away from me; I do not know where are from, you evildoers.' " [Source unknown. It may be from the Gospel of the Egyptians]

Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.111

"Therefore brothers, let us turn away from life as residents in this world and do the will of him who called us, and let us not be afraid to depart from this world. For the Lord says, 'You will be like lambs among wolves.' But Peter answered and said to him, 'What if the wolves tear the lambs to pieces?' Jesus said to Peter, 'Let the lambs have no fear of the wolves after their death, and as for you, do not fear those who, though they kill you, are not able to do anything else to you, but fear him who, after you are dead, has power to cast soul and body into the flames of hell.' " [Sources of this series of quotations unknown; possibly from the gospel of the Egyptians, but for the individual sayings, cf. Luke 10:3; Matt 10:16, 28; Luke 12:4-5]

Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.111.

"For the Lord says in the Gospel: 'If you did not guard something small, who will give you something great? For I say unto you, whoever is faithful with very little is also faithful with much.' " [Source uncertain, possibly the Gospel of the Egyptians, but also Luke 16:10-12]

Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.115.

"For the prophetic word says: 'Wretched are the double-minded, those who doubt in their heart and say, 'We heard all these things even in the days of our fathers, and though we have waited day after day we have seen none of them.' Fools! Compare yourselves to a tree, or take a vine: first it sheds its leaves, then a shoot comes, and after these a sour grape, and then a full ripe bunch. So also my people have had turmoil and tribulation, but afterward they will receive good things.' " [Source unknown. The same passage (though without the final sentence) is quoted as "Scripture" in 1 Clem. 23:3. Lighfoot speculates it is from the lost book of Eldad and Modat mentioned by Hermas (Vis. 2.3-4)].

Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.117.

"For the Lord himself, when he was asked by someone when his kingdom was going to come, said: 'When the two shall be one, and the outside like the inside, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.' " [Source unknown. A shorter version of the saying (lacking and the outside...inside) forms part of a longer dialogue cited by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 3.13.92), who attributes it to the gospel of the Egyptians. Cf. also, however, the Gospel According to Thomas, saying 22, which preserves a longer form of the saying.]

Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.110.

"For the Lord says... 'Woe to him on whose account my name is blasphemed." [Source unknown].

Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.119.

Second Clement on Baptism, Advocates, and Purgatory

I've been reading An Ancient Christian Sermon commonly known as Second Clement. If you've read First Clement, it reads differently in content, tone, and style. It seems apparent this sermon was not written by the same author. The date of its writing? Hard to say, but scholars speculate anywhere from 98-170 AD.

Here was an interesting snippet:

"And the Scripture also says in Ezekiel, 'Even if Noah and Job and Daniel should rise up, they will not save their children' in the captivity. Now if even such righteous men as these are not able, by means of their own righteous deeds, to save their children, what assurance do we have of entering the kingdom of God if we fail to keep our baptism pure and undefiled? Or who will be our advocate, if we are not found to have holy and righteous works?"

Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.113

Well, I can just imagine a Roman Catholic reading this, and pointing out it is an example from the early church on baptismal regeneration. On the other hand, the quote asks a question "who will be our advocate?" Some may be tempted to think this is simply a rhetorical question, with the answer being: Christ. But as I work through the text, I don't think it is. This writer seems to be implying that Christians who sin do not have an advocate! Try harder! ...or else!

But this quote was even more interesting... so much for purgatory:

"So then while we are yet on earth, let us repent. For we are clay in the Craftsman's hand. For example: if while a potter is making a vessel, it becomes misshapen or breaks in his hands, he simply reshapes it; but if he has already put it into the kiln, he is no longer able to repair it. So it is with us: as long as we are in this world, let us repent with our whole heart of the evil things which we have done in the flesh, in order that we may be saved by the Lord while we still have time for repentance. For after we have departed from the world, we are no longer able there either to confess or to repent anymore."

Source: Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.115.

This is said to be the oldest extra-Biblical sermon in existence. Besides these examples, there are plenty of other things that could be pointed out about the text. I presented these examples for a few reasons:

1. An early church document needs to be allowed to say what it is saying, however muddled or clear it may be.

2. Simply because a writer is ancient, doesn't mean his theology is more Biblical than someone writing in 2007. In many ways, we are closer to the original writings of the Bible than whoever wrote Second Clement. We have a complete Bible. We have the Bible in its original languages. We may think that this writer has an advantage because he is chronologically closer to the time of the New Testament writing, but as you read such documents like this, it is apparent that this is fallacious reasoning.

Luther: Mary... [She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified.

Here's one of a number of quotes used as proof that Martin Luther was devoted and venerated Mary:

[She is the]highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

Documentation

This quote may have entered into cyber space via an earlier form of this article by a defender of Rome. This article says, “Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language.” The quote is used by Rome's defenders indiscriminately. For instance, Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid uses this quote in the exact form in his book, Answer Me This! (p.142) as proof that “modern-day Protestantism has drifted from its 16th century moorings” and how far “modern Protestantism has drifted from the fifteen centuries of the historic Catholic faith that preceded the Protestant Reformation.” Madrid’s documentation of the quote equals that as found in various cyber-articles (“Christmas Sermon, 1531”). In terms of documentation, this is far from helpful. What it points to is that some defenders of Roman Catholicism took this quote from a secondary source, never bothering to look it up in context. Had they looked it up, they would have discovered this quote is comprised of words from different sources... and some of the words presented in this picture are probably not a direct citation of Luther but are from a secondary source summarizing his words. This quote is a concocted Roman Catholic hodgepodge at best or a fabrication and propaganda at worst. 

 I suspect the secondary source this quote comes from is William Cole’s article “Was Luther a Marian Devotee?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, p.131). If I were to take the time to go through the Internet archive service, Cole states:

In a Christmas sermon of 1531, Luther speaks of Mary as the "highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ." He goes on to claim that "she is nobility, wisdom and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures” (WA 34, 2, 497 and 499).

Note, the quote as cited by Cole is actually two quotes from two different pages, separated by an entire page! Here is one of the reasons why context is so important, and for some reason, Roman apologists don’t seem to care. What was on that page that separated these two quotes? Roman Catholic apologists can’t tell you!

Conclusion
If you come across a quote like this, it’s not up you to provide the context. It’s the responsibility of those using it to provide a context. It’s up to them to prove they have used the citation correctly. Your first reaction should be, please provide a context. If they can’t provide a context, you should let them know they are not doing responsible research, particularly if they are publishing books with such material. If they want to be taken seriously, they should do serious work!

This entry was written in 2007. Since then, I've been able to dig much deeper into this quote now that more sources are available. See this in-depth blog entry here. 

I contend that only sentences #1 and #3 of the quotes are based on Luther's Christmas sermon of 1531 (often documented as WA 34, 2, 497 and 499).  Unless whoever originally mined this quote had a different edition, WA 34.2.499 is a potential documentation error. WA 34.2:500 is the correct page.

Sentence #2 appears to be from a different sermon ("She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified").  In a 1537 sermon found in WA 45:105 Luther states: "hochgelobt über allen Adel, Weisheit, Heiligkeit!" I've yet to discover a meaningful primary source for sentence #4. What complicates this even more is that in this typical English rendering, I believe sentences 2, 3, and 4 were not originally a direct citation of Luther, but rather a summary statement from a secondary English source (Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology). In essence, Roman Catholics have concocted a Luther quote to promote their version of Mariology.

When this quote is broken down into individual sentences, it demonstrates an over-the-top expression of Roman Catholic Mariology... said to come from the pen of Martin Luther.  Luther begins by calling Mary the "noblest gem" in Christianity, to then referring to her as the personification of nobility wisdom and holiness, then calling for her excessive honor... then weirdly qualifying all of this by preaching: do not go too far with these Marian facts. Not go too far? Think about it: Luther's just claimed Mary is almost as great as Jesus Christ, and like him, she's nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified! Luther also implies one should be in a perpetual state of honoring her... but... don't go too far in your honor and praise or you may injure Christ and the Bible! 

True, Luther does say flowery things about Mary in sentences #1 and #2. But a curious thing happens when the context of sentence #3 is displayed. Sentence #3 states,"We can never honor her enough." In context though, Luther states, 

24. Under the papacy only the mother has been praised and extolled. True it is, she is worthy of praise and can never be praised and extolled enough. For this honor is so great and wonderful, to be chosen before all women on earth to become the mother of this child. Nevertheless, we should not praise and extol the mother in such a way as to allow this child who has been born unto us to be removed from before our eyes and hearts and to think less highly of him than of the mother. If one praises the mother, the praise ought to be like the wide ocean. If either one is to be forgotten, it is better to forget the mother rather than the child. Under the papacy, however, the child has all but been forgotten, and attention riveted only on the mother. But the mother has not been born for our sakes; she does not save us from sin and death. She has, indeed, begotten the Savior! for this reason we are to wean ourselves away from the mother and bind ourselves firmly to this child alone! (Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 219).

Original text (WA 34.2:500)* 

A question needs to be asked of Rome's defenders: what exactly is Marian devotion? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to Mary, and what does it mean for Luther to be devoted to Mary? Are they the same? Roman Catholic apologists don’t tell you. They leave you thinking both are the same.

“Well,” They may say, “Luther’s devotion was that he preached on her feast days.” Yes, but if you go search out these sermons, more often than not, the sermon has nothing to do with Mary. “Well,” they may say, “Luther wrote hymns about Mary.” Yes, but if you go search out these hymns, you will note the absence of distinctly Roman Catholic Marian praise and find a strong emphasis on Jesus Christ. “Well,” they may say, “Luther venerated Mary.” Luther though abandoned the distinction between latria and dulia because biblically these words refer to the same thing. If you search out all the occurrences in which Luther used the word veneration, you will find an entirely negative meaning applied to the term (see this entry).

Challenge Rome's apologists to define their terms. They need to be able to tell you what Marian devotion is. They cannot be allowed to equivocate: Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of Marian devotion. Force them to provide an official statement from the Magisterium. Don’t let them make up whatever they want to. Then, apply that official statement to Martin Luther’s writings. I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but whenRoman  Catholics say honor or devotion, they mean something quite different than Protestants.

*The English rendering of this text utilizes the textual notes found at WA 34.2:500.

Revised March 2026

"For unlike most people I did not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth."- Papias

Source: "The Fragments of Papias" cited in, Michael W. Holmes, ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p. 565

Hmm...reminds me of a few bloggers.

Free Book: "Luther Examined and Reexamined" By WHT Dau

To the Right: The Title Page and Cover from my 1917 copy of Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation

A while back I mentioned this book: W.H.T. Dau, Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917) This is an extremely rare book- I was pleased to see that reprints were circulating for around $50.- $75 last year.

The book is now available online, here.

For any of you that engage in dialog with Roman Catholics about Martin Luther, you really should save a copy of this text and use it when aspects of Luther's life are brought up and blown out of proportion.

This book is one of the few that directly looks at Roman Catholic arguments against Luther "the person". It is a short book, and easy to read. What makes it important is that it interacts with some of the older "anti-Luther" material that is circulating around cyber-space (O'Hare, Grisar, etc).

From the preface:

"One may deplore the pathetic courage which periodically heartens Catholic writers for the task of writing against Luther, but one can understand the necessity for such efforts, and, accordingly, feel a real pity for those who make them. Attacks on Luther are demanded for Catholics by the law of self-preservation...

Rome has never acknowledged her errors nor admitted her moral defeat.The lessons of past history are wasted upon her. Rome is determined to assert to the end that she was not, and cannot be, vanquished. In the age of the Reformation, she admits, she suffered some losses, but she claims that she is fast retrieving these, while Protestantism is decadent and decaying. No opposition to her can hope to succeed.

This is done to bolster up Catholic courage. The intelligent Catholic layman of the present day makes his own observations, and draws his own conclusions as to the status and the future prospect of Protestantism. Therefore, he must be invited to "acquaint himself with the life story of the man, whose followers can never explain away the anarchy of that immoral dogma: 'Be a sinner, and sin boldly; but believe more boldly still!' He must be shown the many hideous scenes of coarseness, vulgarity, obscenity, and degrading immorality in Martin Luther's life...

An attempt is made in these pages to review the principal charges and arguments of Catholic critics of Luther...

This book is frankly polemical. It had to be, or there would have been no need of writing it. It seeks to meet both the assertions and the spirit of Luther's Catholic critics. A review ought to be a mirror, and mirrors must reflect. But there is no malice in the author's effort."

Churchmouse On The Air

My good cyber-friend Ray (aka "Churchmouse") made it on to this past Wednesday's Iron Sharpens Iron program to ask Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics a question. The next day, he sent an e-mail question to Iron Sharpens Iron which was read on the air (to which James White responded). I pulled both clips from the show, spliced them together as an MP3 file: Churchmouse On The Air.

Ray has been a good friend for many years now. He has his own blog, A Churchmouse's Musings. He has also contributed articles to this blog:

Guest Blog:Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha ?

Checking a Basil Quote

(Revised and extended 8/11/07)

I spent about 10 minutes looking for the context of this quote from Basil, as posted by Catholic apologist Steve Ray:

"The Church preserves many beliefs and practices that generally are accepted or publicly commanded. Some are taken from written teaching; others have been passed on to us 'in a mystery' by the tradition of the apostles. In relation to true religion, both of these have the same force." —St. Basil the Great (c. 330-c. 379)Father of Eastern Monasticism

Steve Ray comments,

"I just came across this quotation again. What a great reminder of the authority of the Church and the Apostolic Tradition! How did I fall for sola Scriptura back in my old life?"

If anyone has a link to the context, or can point me to a source, I would appreciate it. This weekend I will check through my Steve Ray books as well. I did a brief search of my Early Church Fathers collection, but I didn't find anything. I'm not saying the quote doesn't exist, I simply want the context.

Update:
Thanks to those of you who posted such helpful information. I initially read this quote (as cited by Steve Ray) a few minutes before heading out the door yesterday. I must say, I did have a suspicion that this Basil quote cited by Steve Ray either did not say what was claimed, did not support a denial of sola scriptura, or in context totally destroyed the modern claims made by the defenders of Rome.

First, thank you John Bugay for a link to the context. Thank you Carrie for locating a translation that may have been used by Ray.

Many thanks to Kepha for his citation of Orthodox writer Michael Whelton's Popes and Patriarchs: An Eastern Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims. If you typed all of it in, thank you. If you scanned it, thank you!

Kepha posted:

However, in spite of this, Roman Catholic apologist Stephen K. Ray, in his book Upon This Rock, claims that "Basil sees Rome as the caretaker of the troubled Eastern Churches," and amazingly uses Pope Damasus' support of Paulinus as clear evidence of Rome's supreme universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Church. [footnote, Ray, op. cit., p. 208.]

Ray briefly quotes St. Basil's letter to Terentius as saying that certain men were "carrying about letters from the westerners, handing over the bishopric of Antioch to them." From this Ray concludes: "How could Rome prove its primacy in any stronger terms than to hand the Antiochian bishopric over to someone of its own choosing? Obviously Rome had the right and duty of overseeing such ecclesastical matters, and Basil recognized this authority." [footnote, Op. cit., p.. 209.]

A more glaring case of quoting out of context would be hard to come by. However, I am sure Mr. Ray is quoting from another source and is thus unaware of the entire context of the letter. St. Basil's first real encounter with Rome was his clash with Pope Damasus over the episcopal succession at Antioch, and his letter to Terentius (when quoted in full context) clearly shows that he did not recognize Rome's authority in the East. In fact, a more explicit denial of Roman authority is hard to imagine. Here follows Basil's letter:

I hear moreoever, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerners, assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this. They are totally ignorant of what is going on here; the others, though they might be supposed to know, give an account to them in which party is put before truth: and it is only what one might expect that they should either be ignorant of the truth, or should even endeavor to conceal the reasons which led the Blessed Athanasius to write to Paulinus. But your excellency has on the spot those who are able to tell you accurately what passed between the bishops in the reign of Jovian, and from them I beseech you to get information. I accuse no one; I pray that I may have love to all, and "especially unto them that are of the household of faith;" and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or forge the Church which is under him, or to retreat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints. [footnote, St. Basil, Letter CCXIV, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII; emphasis Whelton's]

This clash centered on the person of St. Meletius, Bishop of Antioch (who was not in communion with Rome), and is thus knwon to history as the Meletian schism. St. Basil, along with the Eastern Church, supported Meletius as the rightful claimant to the see of Antioch over Rome's candidate, Paulinus. [footenote, Chadwick, op. cit., p. 149. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1972, Vol. 3, pp. 239-240.] The reverence the Eastern Church held for St. Meletius may be judged by the fact that he was made president of a council of 150 bishops convened by the Emperor Theodosius in Constantinople in 381 -- the Second Ecumenical Council. When Meletius suddenly died during the council, Rome's candidate Paulinus was still ignored in the election of Flavian to the now-vacant see of Antioch. (Whelton, pp. 120-122)


And to really put things into perspective, David King (author of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1) provided this examination:

The Basil quote is taken from His work On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, and the beginning of section 66. What is problematic for Romanists here is the fact that Basil goes on to name some of these practices (beliefs) and some of them are practices that Rome does not observe today. Here's what Basil says some of these practices/beliefs are...

Basil: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?"

If these unwritten traditions are indeed apostolic and so important to Romanists, why is it that Rome no longer practices all of these unwritten traditions that Basil listed? Do Romanists still turn to the East in prayer? Does Rome still practice triple immersion? If Rome doesn't, then what force are we to give to Basil's words when they cite him? It has the force of turning this whole apologetic on their heads, because they do not practice these very unwritten traditions that Basil lists.

Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta:

"The whole passage has frequently been misinterpreted by Roman Catholic theologians, who imagine that in it they have found something to prove the Tridentine dogma of Tradition, considered as an equal and distinct source of revelation. . . .
In reality, this passage of Basil, the beginning of which is a little vague and lacking in precision, cannot be considered as confirming the Tridentine dogma that doctrinal Tradition is a second fully distinct source of divine revelation. In order to be convinced of the falsity of such an assertion, one need only take the trouble to read the whole passage....In brief, in all his homiletic, doctrinal, ascetic and monastic works, Basil refers constantly, and almost in every line, to the Bible, quoting, expounding, or illustrating it, or drawing out in detail what it teaches without departing from the traditional doctrine of the Church. He leaves us in no doubt that he regards the Bible, especially the New Testament, as the sovereign and all-sufficient moral and doctrinal standard for all Christians, and particularly for the cenobites under his charge. Basil of Caesarea thus taught me a never-forgotten lesson." Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta, Rome and Canterbury: A Biblical and Free Catholicism, trans. Coslett Quin (London: Herbert Jenkins, 1962), pp. 140, 141, 143.

Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta is a former Roman Catholic who became a convert to Anglicanism. To be sure, de Mendieta emphasizes that he was no proponent of sola Scriptura, but he recognizes that in Basil no Christian dogma rested on the authority of unwritten tradition.

For an extended treatment of this quote by Basil, see William Webster, Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 2001), Vol. 2, pp. 142ff.


So, I did as David suggested, and I reviewed Holy Scripture Volume 2. William Webster makes some excellent points:

"...[W]hile Basil did affirm the existence of apostolic tradition handed down through the Church independent of scripture, his statements are rarely given in context. The importance of so doing is that Basil defined what he meant by apostolic unwritten tradition." [Holy Scripture Volume 2, p.144]

"A second point needs to be made regarding Basil's claims, and is true for all references by Church fathers to oral tradition with respect to customs and practices. These claims cannot be proven. The fathers only assumed that these practices were apostolic in origin, but there is no way to validate this. The importance of this is underscored by the fact that the early Church witnessed many contradictory claims of apostolic tradition within various segments of the Church. The mere assertion of a claim does not make it true. There are instances...where claims for apostolic tradition are made by one section of the Church, which were repudiated by another." [Holy Scripture Volume 2, p.145]

"A third point is that Basil's defense of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was not based on unwritten tradition exclusively sense. He appealed to the primacy of Scripture and demonstrated that the particular practice or custom was in conformity with Scripture. In referring to his appeal to the tradition of the fathers he made it clear that he was willing to receive their teachings only because they expressed the overall teaching of Scripture... Basil was clear. Tradition apart from Scripture is not sufficient for the establishment of doctrinal truth. The authority of the teaching of the fathers was directly contingent on their conformity to the teaching of Scripture." [Holy Scripture Volume 2, p.145-146]

Webster cites Basil:

"But it is not sufficient for us, that it is the tradition of the Fathers. For they also followed the mind of Scripture; having taken their first principles from the testimonies which, a short time since, we placed before you, from the Scripture."

An Ancient Voice For The Day #21

Julianus Pomerius (wrote around the end of the 5th century):

"Let the pursuer of the contemplative life, then, approach his Creator to be enlightened in heart; let him watchfully serve Him by contemplating Him and untiringly enjoying Him; let him desire Him continually; for love of Him let him flee all that could turn Him away; let him rest all his thoughts and all his hope on his pleasure. Let him take time for holy meditations on the Sacred Scriptures; let him, being divinely illumined, delight in them. There let him consider his whole being as in some gleaming mirror; let him correct what he sees disordered; let him hold to what is right; reform what is deformed; cultivate what is beautiful; preserve what is sound; by careful reading strengthen what is weak. Let him not tire of reading the commandments of his Lord, love them without growing weary, fulfill them efficaciously; and, being adequately instructed by them, let him understand what he should avoid and what he should pursue. Let him devote himself to an examination of the mysteries of the same Divine Scriptures, read of Christ there prophesied, see Him represented, understand the perdition of the reprobate people according to prophecy, mourn its fulfillment, rejoice in the salvation of the Gentiles. Let him hold fast the things predicted and accomplished in the past; let him trust future promises."

Source: Mary Josephine Suelzer, trans., ACW, Vol. 4, Julianus Pomerius: The Contemplative Life (New York: Newman Press, 1947), pp. 27-28.

For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.

Gerry Matatics Interview

Iron Sharpens Iron will have Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics on today at 3PM. This is a live show, so if you want to call in and talk to Gerry, here is your chance (I won't be able to listen live or call in, but if I could call in, I'd ask Gerry where the tapes are he promised to send me last year when I went to his lecture). The station is AM 1440, and can only be heard on Long Island, other parts of NYC, and Connecticut. Fortunately, this radio station also live-streams online. Their webpage can be found here. Their Real Player broadcast link is here.


"GERRY MATATICS, the very first minister ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) to convert to Roman Catholicism (see http://www.gerrymatatics.org/aboutgerry.html), who at one time was one of the most highly sought after apologists, debaters and conference speakers within "mainstream", conservative Roman Catholicism (having worked along side such renowned Catholic apologists as Scott Hahn, and other well known apologists affiliated with Catholic Answers), will address his most recently embraced theological position "SEDEVACANTISM": the theology of a sector within "Traditional" Catholicism that claims THERE HAVE BEEN *NO* LEGITIMATE POPES FOR OVER 40 YEARS TO THE PRESENT (and that all those who have claimed to be within the Papal Succession of Pope Pius XII to the present are not even to be considered genuine Roman Catholics). Mr. Matatics, along with other "sedevacantists", also reject all those professing to be priests ordained since Vatican II as *illegitimate* priests and *false* Catholics with no genuine power or authority to administer the Sacraments of the "true" Catholic Church. Those who may be most well known today connected with this extremely controversial movement are Academy Award winner Mel Gibson and his father Hutton. Gerry Matatics is also featured as a commentating theologian on the DVD for Mel Gibson's blockbuster film "The Passion of the Christ, Director's Cut"."


Don't forget also, tomorrow's show will be a review of this interview by Dr. James White:


"DR. JAMES R. WHITE, renowned author, Bible scholar, debater and Founder & Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries (see www.aomin.org), a theologically Reformed, Evangelical Protestant apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, will conduct a "REVIEW OF WEDNESDAY'S INTERVIEW WITH GERRY MATATICS" (see above). Dr. White is perfectly suited to provide commentary due to the fact that he debated Gerry Matatics on the subject of the Papacy in Denver during "World Youth Day" in 1993 (he had previously debated him on the subject in 1990 in Tempe, a debate moderated by Scott Hahn). According to Dr. White, it remains one of the clearest refutations of Rome's claims to papal primacy offered by Alpha & Omega Ministries. A full seven hours worth of debate (real debate, not radio programs with callers, commercials, and the like, debate---the real thing) during which Mr. Matatics defended the very institution he *now* claims is in apostasy. For those interested, I would direct anyone to every single one of the debates Dr. White has done on the Papacy in general, and papal infallibility in particular, which includes debates against Catholic apologists Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis, Tim Staples, and Mitch Pacwa, offered at www.aomin.org. Gerry Matatics has agreed to have some interaction with Dr. White during this extremely controversial, live broadcast."

UPDATE
The first show can be found here. An MP3 of the followup show with Dr. White can be found here. On the first broadcast, my good friend Churchmouse made it on to the air as a caller. When I get a chance, I'm going to find that call and post it as a separate MP3 file.

Radio Interview: "Luther Myths"

Here's the link to the Iron sharpens Iron radio broadcast on "Luther Myths":

Luther Myths and Our Very Own TQuid

Many thanks to Chris Arnzen for having me on.