Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 31

Dialogue on the Immaculate Conception, with Lutheran Chuck Wiese

 
  Chuck Wiese (Lutheran) wrote an article on his blog ( The Lamb on the Altar ), entitled, "Dave Armstrong's Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception" (17 February 2013). I  shall cite it in its entirety below and reply to it, point-by-point. His words will be in blue.
* * * * *
The Roman church teaches that when Mary was conceived in the womb she was kept free from original sin and filled with sanctifying grace. It wasn't until 1854 that this doctrine became an official teaching of the Roman church. 

It is never sufficient to simply cite a "late date" and leave it at that. It's great polemics and propaganda, but lousy historical argumentation. First of all, it isn't as if the doctrine came out of thin air in 1854. It was believed, by and large, for many centuries. 1854 simply made it dogma at the very highest levels: de fide or ex cathedra (as the Catholic Church has many levels of authority of dogmas).

What must be determined is if doctrines that are defined at much later dates are consistent developments or truly innovative novelties, that have no legitimate historical precursors. The Immaculate Conception is the former, and is a straightforward development of the belief in the sinlessness of Mary, that was the consensus of the Church fathers.

To find doctrinal novelties and corruptions one must go to folks like the so-called "reformers": people like Martin Luther, who introduced (as I have documented) at least 50 novel doctrines in his treatises of 1520, even before he was excommunicated.  One can also point to sola Scriptura : the Protestant rule of faith, that was not taught by the Church fathers at all, as I have demonstrated numerous times. Nor can it be proven at all from Scripture. I've written two books about that (one / two). St. Augustine's teachings were Catholic, not proto-Protestant. I devoted an entire book to documenting that fact, too.

This teaching was not established by appealing to the Scriptures but rather by appealing to "implicit" teachings in the church fathers. 

To some extent that is true, but biblical arguments were also utilized, as in all Catholic argumentation in favor of particular doctrines. It was largely an argument from tradition, but then, this is perfectly permissible on the biblical, apostolic, patristic, and medieval assumption that sola Scriptura is not the rule of faith in Christianity. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both noted many times that a doctrine can legitimately develop from tradition alone, or primarily.

Unlike the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary which is not contradicted by the Scriptures and which is very strongly and unanimously taught by the church fathers, the immaculate conception contradicts the Scriptures and has very weak support among the church fathers. 

It doesn't contradict the Bible at all. Nothing in the Bible denies that Mary was or could have been sinless (like Adam and Eve were before the fall, and like the angels are), nor that she could have been conceived without original sin. It's one thing to assert that there is not explicit evidence of it in Scripture, or perhaps not even much implicit or indirect evidence; quite another to assert contradiction, which is a far greater claim, in need of demonstration.

As for the fathers, well, yes and no. It's not explicitly asserted, but its developmental kernels: Mary as sinless, the new ark of the covenant, and second Eve, all are repeatedly asserted by the fathers. Thus, this question goes back to the issue of development of doctrine.

Even in the middle ages significant theologians like Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas denied the immaculate conception. 

We always hear about this . . . First of all, St. Thomas didn't believe that the soul was united to the human body until 40-80 days after conception. He had a deficient understanding of biology and did not hold to the Church's current beliefs about ensoulment (i.e., a soul is supernaturally created by God at the moment of conception). Therefore, he could not have held to the Immaculate Conception as the Church does today, based on this false premise.

Secondly, Thomas believed that Mary was extraordinarily sanctified in the womb: just not at conception, per the above, and particularly sanctified at the time of the conception of Jesus.

Thirdly, he believed that she committed no actual sin. In all these things he was followed by Martin Luther, as I have documented (one / two / three). But none of these things are held by Lutherans today. Thus, St. Thomas was far closer to present Catholicism in this (and Luther) than to Lutherans or Protestants generally. I recently completed my book, The Quotable Summa Theologica , and devoted almost six pages to his teaching in these matters. I won't cite his teaching here, but if this debate intensifies, I'd be happy to produce them.

The doctrine most likely developed as an attempt to safeguard the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ but as Thomas Aquinas points out, if Mary were sinless Christ could not be her redeemer.

The Catholic Church wholeheartedly agrees that Mary was in need of a redeemer, like all human beings since the fall. She herself calls God her savior in the magnificat. We contend that she was saved by being prevented (by an act of God's grace at her conception) from falling into the "pit" of sin, rather than rescued out of it, as the rest of us are, if we are saved. St. Thomas neglected to draw this distinction, therefore made a fallacious argument (even he could do that on occasion). In this way, the Immaculate Conception is perfectly consistent with Mary's need of a savior, and to be rescued (in a special and unique act of God's grace) from the original sin she would have inherited, like every other human being.

But more recent Roman apologists in an attempt to win over evangelicals have tried to defend the doctrine immaculate conception from the Scriptures. On page 178 of  A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, Dave Armstrong discusses the use of the term "full of grace" and says:

It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.

In the book, Armstrong does not treat the above as a direct quotation from any particular source but he does provide a footnote that says

Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166; H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), sect 1852:b.

The book does not cite Blass and DeBrunner as a direct quotation . . .

All correct so far . . . 

. . . but if you search the internet, you'll find plenty of people quoting this as if it were a direct quotation from Blass and DeBrunner including Dave Armstrong on his blog. 

Sometimes folks utilize my materials incorrectly. I checked out Chuck's assertion that I myself cited it wrongly as well. I did find one 2011 paper where I made this mistake (my book above was completed in 1996).  I promptly corrected that and thank Chuck for directing my attention to it. Human errors can happen when one has written almost 2,500 blog posts.

But page 166 doesn't say anything that resembles what Armstrong is saying here. Blass and DeBrunner simply mention that the perfect stem is used to denote "a condition or state as the result of a past action." The passage cited by Smyth says, "Completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem." None of this sounds anything like what Armstrong is saying. The passage clearly says that God graced Mary but it's rather insane to try to derive the doctrine of the immaculate conception from that.

I love the use of exaggerated, dramatic rhetoric ("insane"). It is also important to note "what Armstrong is saying" in the first place. In my book, I didn't claim that Luke 1:28 and kecharitomene "proved" the Immaculate Conception. Immediately after my words above, that Chuck cited, I wrote:

Thus, in just this one verse, pregnant with meaning and far-reaching implications, the uniqueness of Mary is strongly indicated, and the Immaculate Conception can rightly be deemed entirely consistent with the meaning of this passage.

The Bible speaks only implicitly of many things that Protestants strongly believe, such as the proper mode of Baptism  (immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?). The Immaculate Conception is entirely possible within scriptural presuppositions.

The words "consistent" and "entirely possible" are obviously not the same as assertion of outright proof, or demonstration. Since my first book (written over 16 years ago) I have made additional scriptural arguments that are based on explicit texts, having to do with grace and sin. I would love for Chuck to take these on, if he is looking to have a biblically-based discussion of the Immaculate Conception. See:

A Straightforward Biblical Argument For the Sinlessness of Mary

Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations

Dialogue on the Exegesis of Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace"), and the Immaculate Conception (vs. Ken Temple)

The Annunciation: Does it Indicate that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an Extraordinary Human Being, Chosen by God, and Already in a Sublime State of Grace? (Dialogue with a Lutheran, . . .)

Mary as Ark of the Covenant, in the Church Fathers and the Bible (Steve Ray, Pat Madrid, and Others) [Links Page]

Biblical Evidence for the Patristic Analogy of Mary as the Ark of the (New) Covenant

 
The ever-virgin Mary can truly be called the Queen of Heaven. She was given the most important position of any human being by being chosen by God to be the Mother of God. 

Quite true.

But Mary was a sinner who needed Christ to suffer and die for her just as well all do. 

The second thing is not denied by Catholics. The first clause is an unproven assertion derived from mere traditions of men, and neither from the Bible nor the consensus of patristic teachings.


[cross-posted to my Facebook page, where further discussion may take place]


* * * * *

On the Definition of Sola Scriptura, and the Supreme Importance of Catholic Apologists Getting it Right

                                                                   Keith A. Mathison

What Protestants mean by sola scriptura is that the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals

---Evangelical Protestant apologist Norman Geisler (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178; co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie) 

It is important to notice that sola scriptura, properly understood, is not a claim that Scripture is the only authority altogether. . . . There are other real authorities which are subordinate and derivative in nature. Scripture, however, is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm.

--- Reformed Protestant Keith A. Mathison (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 260) 

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.

--- Reformed Baptist apologist James R. White (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59; italics his)

[see the Introduction of my 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura for much more elaboration on definition]

* * * * *


The following thoughts are derived from a friendly but lively discussion with a fellow Catholic apologist.

***
Definitions of things are super-important. This is a crucial issue in all apologetics.  I can't emphasize strongly enough how supremely important this is, because it has to do with the definition of a thing that is central in the "hottest" and most controversial issue in Catholic-Protestant apologetics.
 
I don't think sola Scriptura is a "bluff." This implies deliberate dishonesty, which is uncharitable. I certainly was not seeking to be dishonest when I was an evangelical Protestant. I think it is a matter of how things are properly defined within the framework of multiple broad Protestant traditions, and how the man on the street is largely unaware of same (just as Catholic men on the street often are, of our dogmas).

I don't think that because there is widespread ignorance, therefore, we shouldn't worry about matters of proper definition at all. The latter is always supremely important in any big discussion and controversy. This is not a minor matter in apologetics. We're talking about (by far) the most controversial and central issue in all of Catholic-Protestant interaction. It's #1.

All I'm saying is that we must define sola Scriptura according to how "official" Protestantism [at denominational levels] does, just as Protestants must define our doctrines and dogmas by what popes and councils and catechisms say, not based on the distortion of less educated folks. I should think that this is self-evident.

That much is clearly crucial and necessary. It seems like you want to say, on the other hand, "that doesn't matter at all; all we care about is meeting the man on the street, on a practical level." It's not either/or. We should note the definition as we know it to be, then deal primarily with how it works out in practice with Joe Protestant on the street.

If we are operating with inaccurate, mistaken definition of the very concept we are opposing, this violates the basic rules of all debate whatsoever: know thy opponent, and define basic terms at the outset. And it's uncharitable, because it appears like we are warring against straw men in some respects.

I've written way more on this than on any other topic (including two books, and part of a third). Countless times I've argued (and it's in my books) that sola Scriptura is self-defeating and unworkable in practice, that it is vicious, circular reasoning and can't be applied consistently in real life. But I take care to define the term and concept accurately, according to how educated Protestants see it. They themselves (particularly Mathison and Baptist scholar Bernard Ramm) despise the distortion of what they call SOLO Scriptura.

Ultimately, Protestants don't have to (by their own principles) be obedient to denominational authority, per Martin Luther and the internal logic of sola Scriptura (as I've argued a million times), but it's again beside the point. They define it a certain way and then ultimately contradict it. We still need to accurately define that which we oppose, and then proceed to show how it is self-defeating. I've done this a million times (see my Bible and Tradition page).

But Protestants obviously acknowledge non-biblical authorities. They only deny infallibility to them. James white, for example, would submit himself to his own Reformed Baptist tradition. He might theoretically be shown to be in error on some point, according to the Westminster Confession, etc. The average Protestant of his sort respects their own denominational sub-tradition. It's why they're there. It's why Calvinists squabble with Arminians: because they believe strongly in their own thing over against the other.

It's a weak form of tradition, by Catholic criteria, but it still is a lesser authority within Protestantism. We mustn't dismiss it as no authority at all besides the Bible. We can say it doesn't work, that it fails, that it is self-defeating (I do all that hundreds of times), but it still is authority in some sense.

Protestants believe in sola Scriptura. At the same time they don't properly think it through, to see that it is self-defeating. Lack of awareness and logical acuity is not dishonesty. 

All religions have a problem of the average adherent being ignorant on any number of issues. It's not like Protestants alone suffer from this. How many Catholics could articulate the difference between infused and imputed, forensic, external justification, or explain the proper relationship of grace and works, or give a biblical defense of transubstantiation or the Two Natures of Christ, or give any reason whatsoever for acceptance of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption?

The three examples given at the top of this post are the accepted definition of sola Scriptura. It's the Protestant's own definition, not mine or any Catholic apologist's, to define as I or we wish. We expect the same in critiques of our faith. If someone said they didn't give a fig about the definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I or the two papal statements about the Marian doctrines (1854, 1950), Catholic apologists would be quick to say that they can't do that. We'd say that they can't define our doctrine by what some drunk Catholic in a bar at 2 AM says about it. They have to go "by the books." And we have to do the same with them. It's the same intellectual standard and responsibility, both ways. Their definitions come from their own confessions and creeds.

Sola Scriptura is defined within Protestant ranks by scholars and bigwigs in denominations, following their own dogmatic creeds, confessions, systematic theologies, leading theologians, etc.  It's not all that different from how we do it: it just carries less total authority because of the nature of their system (in a word, it isn't infallible, as ours is).

Major terms (and doctrines) in theology always come from the top down, not from the man on the street. This is no different between Catholicism and Protestantism either. Theology isn't democratic, because it's based on revelation (the ultimate top-down notion).

Protestants have no central authority, but they have several prominent denominational authorities. If I am critiquing the Lutherans, I consult the Book of Concord. They bind themselves to that. For Calvinists it is usually the Westminster Confession, with Calvin's works being very authoritative, too, though not absolutely so (per sola Scriptura). For Methodists, Wesley would have a high place. For Anglicans, it is the 39 Articles. Etc., etc. This is elementary to understand in Catholic-Protestant apologetics.

Protestants don't disagree regarding sola Scriptura, at the level of theologians and scholars and pastors, etc. A few extreme fundamentalist groups go to a radical "Bible Only" or what has been described derisively by informed Protestants (notably, Mathison), as a solo scriptura view. They are more united on sola Scriptura than on almost anything else, because it is one of the few principles that is agreed by virtually all (of educated ones). Everything else for them is built upon this. This particular issue happens to have a large consensus within Protestantism.

If we don't go "by the books" in defining Protestant terms, by the same token, Protestants who critique Catholicism should be able to define Catholic soteriology in the manner that the average Catholic on the street does: that basically we have to be "good people" to get to heaven. I'd venture to guess that many (less educated and informed) Catholics would be semi-Pelagians in their theology, and some even outright Pelagians. If we don't care what a religion's "official books" say and just take a head count of folks on the street, then we'd have all kinds of "interesting" definitions.

The very enterprise of apologetics would become chaotic and absurd if we took that tack on everything. It would hardly even be possible. We'd be fighting straw men a good 90% of the time. I try to critique the views of the most intelligent and respectable Protestants, not the least intelligent ones.

This is what the fringe group of anti-Catholics among Protestants love to do with us. They immensely enjoy toying (in public) with a Catholic who doesn't know what he's talking about, and exhibits so many stereotypes of what they envision Catholicism to be. But when you or I meet them, all of a sudden they have far less time and interest, for some reason. Their goal is to mock and caricature Catholic belief, not interact with the real thing.

Protestants can be told they're wrong within their own flawed authority structures. But one can also make arguments from the Bible, as I specialize in. We can take their sola Scriptura and trap them with it, by showing them that the Bible supports our views, not theirs. They will take that seriously because they believe that the Bible is inspired, as we do. It's common ground, and so it is very effective in debates. Every debate must establish the best common ground between the two positions, and go from there. Otherwise, there is no interaction at all, if nothing is held in common.

Apologists must define things primarily "by the books." We don't accept otherwise when we are critiqued, and in charity we owe the same to our Protestant brethren.

When I find folks (anti-Catholic polemicists) botching Catholic definitions I have a field day and rake them over the coals, and broadcast it to all and sundry: "Look! So-and-so doesn't even understand the basic definition of X!" I've often done this with atheists who claimed that they understood exegesis back when they were lowly Christians (let alone now: yet they consider themselves such "experts" on the Bible). I prove that they didn't have a clue, that they were and are quite ignorant about it. We must properly understand what we are critiquing: all the more so regarding the number one issue in apologetics.


* * * * *  

Books by Dave Armstrong: Biblical Catholic Apologetics: A Collection of Essays

With fellow Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin at my house, in 2004
[ book in progress]

INTRODUCTION

As anyone who has followed my apologetics work through the years knows (I've been published in print since 1993 and online since 1996), I have a great number of posts on my blog (2,483, as of writing). Periodically, I collect many of these and re-read and re-edit them, for use in my books. The previous effort most similar to this volume was More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (Lulu, 2002), since it included multiple topics: sort of similar to a collection of newspaper articles from political commentators, compiled into a book. Several other books of mine, devoted to one general area, were mostly or wholly composed of existing blog papers as well.

The carefully selected "essays" presented here were originally written and posted on my blog between the years of 200? and  2013. I consider them to be some of my best: the "cream of the crop" of what has not yet been published in a book. A few have been condensed down from their original dialogue formats. Per the subtitle, I'd like this collection to be more along the lines of essays per se, with less written-out Bible verses: a bit more readable and flowing, so to speak. A good deal of my apologetics writing or research is more for the purpose of reference / documentation rather than "straight reading" .  The 27 chapters will be organized under seven broad topics. In order, they are: 1) Observations on Catholic Apologetics, 2) Bible and Tradition / Rule of Faith, 3) Justification and Salvation, 4) Sacramentalism, 5) Purgatory, 6) Prayer and the Communion of Saints, and 7)  The Blessed Virgin Mary.

I make no attempt to be systematic, and no necessary relation exists between one chapter and the next. This is, after all, a collection of diverse articles. But I think each one stands up on its own and has enough specific content and substance to warrant being included. Throughout, I presuppose in readers an above-average interest in apologetics and a certain amount of basic theological knowledge. Some particular chapters may not interest individual  readers, and can be skipped over.

As always, my goal is to present writing that is characterized by the "three E's": edifying, educational, and enjoyable. By God's grace, I hope I succeed, and I'd like to thank each reader from the bottom of my heart, for allowing me the privilege of sharing and defending the truths of the Catholic faith. Thanks especially to those who have followed my work for some time, and have purchased and read one or more of my books. You'll never know how much I appreciate that, but rest assured that I do, very much so. All glory to God!

DEDICATION

For all those who would be greatly blessed and made more confident in their faith, if they could only come into contact with Catholic apologetics. I pray that they will realize this, first of all, and then find the appropriate orthodox Catholic material to read. Knowledge is power. As someone stated, "the heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false." Nor can we appreciate and benefit from doctrines that we don't even yet understand. Apologetics is, therefore, crucial in the attainment and maintenance of a solid and robust faith.



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 [possibly to be partially revised as I proceed]

Dedication (p. 3) [read above]

Introduction (p. 5) [read above] 

OBSERVATIONS ON CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS
 1. Internet Apologetics and Practical Advice Regarding Evangelism

 2. A Defense of Lay Catholic Apologetics a la Chesterton and Sheed

 3. St. Augustine's Confessions: Prototype of Today's Conversion Stories

BIBLE AND TRADITION / RULE OF FAITH
 4. Luther's Lie:  Was the Bible Utterly Obscure Before His Translation? 

 5. Are All the Biblical Books Self-Evidently Inspired and Canonical?

 6. Did St. Athanasius Believe in Sola Scriptura?

 7. Does Extensive Use of Biblical Arguments Reduce to Sola Scriptura?

 8. Private Judgment vs. Vastly Different Catholic Epistemology

 9. Is Private Judgment Inconsistently Applied in Accepting Catholicism? 

JUSTIFICATION AND SALVATION
10. Justification is Not by Faith Alone and is Ongoing

11. St. Paul's Use of "Gift" as a Proof for Infused Justification

SACRAMENTALISM
12. St. Augustine's Acceptance of Seven Sacraments

13. The Irrational Antipathy of Luther, Calvin, and Others to Clerical Celibacy

14. On Ordination, Priests, and Vocations For Everyone

15. Sacramentalism and the Pious Use of Physical Items and Relics in Worship 

16. Does the Catholic Mass Re-Sacrifice Jesus Again and Again?

PURGATORY
17. John Wesley's View of Purgatory: a Classic Case of Ironic and Inadvertent Approximation of the Very Catholic Teaching Ostensibly Being Opposed

18. Martin Luther's Assertion That Purgatory is "Quite Plain" in 2 Maccabees

PRAYER AND THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS
19. Biblical Evidence for Prayers of the Righteous Having More Effect and Power

20. Does the Bible Forbid All "Talking to Dead Men"? Lazarus and the Rich Man as a Counter-Argument

21. "Vain, Repetitious Prayer": Jesus Illustrates What This Does Not Mean

22. Should we Invoke Mary at Our Death, and Does This Minimize Jesus?

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
23. Catholic Mariology and its Biblical Basis: Reply to a Lutheran Scholar

24. The Annunciation: Proof that Mary was Already in a Sublime State of Grace?

25. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Argument from the Analogy to "Holy Ground"

26. A Biblical Defense of the "Our Lady of Perpetual Help" Devotion

27. Theosis and God's Exalted Role for the Blessed Virgin Mary


 Uploaded on 13 February 2013.

***** 

 

Does the Bible Forbid All "Talking to Dead Men"? Lazarus and the Rich Man as a Counter-Argument for this Mythical False Premise of Critics of Catholicism

 The prophet Samuel appears (after he died) to Saul
One of the key premises lying behind Protestant hostility to the traditional Christian practice of asking saints and angels to intercede, is the notion of a supposed scriptural prohibition of "talking to dead men" altogether. This is held, even if it is granted (as it sometimes is; e.g., by Luther and the Lutheran Book of Concord) that saints in heaven do pray for us on earth. The reasoning works as follows:

1. The Bible forbids us to talk to dead human beings.

2. Asking saints to intercede is a particular example of talking to dead human beings.

3. Therefore, because #2 falls under the prohibition of #1, asking saints to intercede is forbidden, and indeed, blasphemous.

Usually, the objection is also collapsed into an illogical and unsubstantiated equation of all such communication with seances, necromancy, and the like. I've written about that in the past:

Why Invocation of the Saints is Essentially Different From the Sin of Necromancy

Invocation of Saints: Dialogue on Various Objections to the Biblical Arguments

For many more arguments of all aspects of the communion of saints, see my web page on the topic: especially one paper where I summarize the biblical evidences.

But this bottom line notion of "we are absolutely prohibited from communicating with (saved) dead men (in heaven or otherwise in the afterlife)" is simply an unbiblical idea. It's a false premise, and clearly so (as I will demonstrate). Why, then, is it so common in Protestant ranks? Thus, in a recent thread where an anti-Catholic, Alan Maricle (aka, "Rhology") mocked Catholic pro-lifers who pray the Rosary, saying that this makes "demons laugh uproariously," he asserted in the discussion, several times, the false notion under consideration:

. . . how pathetic and useless against the powers of Hell a prayer to a dead human being is. [link]

Jesus gave me peace. Somehow I don't think I need anything from a dead woman. [link]

I've never denied that people in Heaven pray for people on Earth. But the Scripture teaches that they intercede in some way and also that people living here on Earth are not supposed to talk to dead people and are certainly not supposed to offer to dead people or angels actions that are worshipful, no matter the intention and motivation behind them. Scripture teaches both. [link] [bolding emphasis my own]

. . . "intercessory prayer with the communion of saints" is a simple euphemism for talking to dead people. [link]

Now how Maricle would explain the numerous biblical examples of precisely "talking to dead people" remains to be seen:

1. The prophet Samuel appears after his death to Saul and talks to him, predicting his death in battle (1 Samuel 28:15-16). Some Protestants try to dismiss this as a demonic impersonation, but most biblical commentators reject this, since Samuel spoke the truth,and his prophecy came true (whereas demons are liars and deceivers).

2. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appeared and talked to Jesus. The text doesn't say that they talked also to the disciples, but it is by no means implausible that they did or could have done so (Mt 17:1-4; cf. Mk 9:2-5; Lk 9:29-33).

3. Resurrected bodies appearing after Jesus' death:

Matthew 27:50-53 (RSV) And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

We aren't informed of communication, but it is entirely reasonable to surmise that it took place, since these people "appeared to many."


4. The "two witnesses" of Revelation 11:3-12.  They preached for three-and-a-half years! The actions of the two witnesses echo those of Moses before Pharaoh, and Elijah; especially the turning of water into blood, and the plagues (cf. Mal 4:4-6; Matt 17:11, Transfiguration accounts). As for the stopping of the rain, cf. Elijah: James 5:16-18. Elijah also went up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Ki 2:1,11). Many Church fathers thought they were Enoch and Elijah, because Enoch, like Elijah, never died (Gen 5:24; Sir 44:16; 49:14; Heb 11:5). The consensus of commentary, then, is that they were either Moses and Elijah, or Enoch and Elijah, returned to earth: more dead guys talking to those of us on the good ol' earth.

5. Peter and Tabitha. Peter not only talked to a dead person, but also simultaneously prayed for Tabitha, saying, "Tabitha, rise" (Acts 9:36-41). He prayed for a dead person, and then directly addressed a dead person. Doesn't he know that he's not supposed to do that? If only we could send Alan Maricle in a time capsule to go see Peter, before he starts blaspheming all over the place and acting like a despised papist Romanist . . .

6. Jesus and Lazarus. Our Lord Jesus does the same thing with regard to Lazarus. He prays for Lazarus (a dead man: John 11:41-42) and then speaks directly to a dead man (in effect, "praying" to him): "Lazarus, come out" (John 11:43).

The Bible tells us that other disciples raised people from the dead (Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22) and records Jesus telling them that they would be able to do so, and should do so (Matt 10:8). Presumably, they would follow the model of Jesus (and later, Peter), both of whom "prayed to" the dead person by addressing them while they were still dead, before raising them from the dead. That means, by direct deduction or implication, that all Christians could potentially "pray to" (or at any rate, communicate with) a dead person.

7. "Parable" of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

Luke 16:19-31 "There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. [20] And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores, [21] who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.[22] The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; [23] and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom. [24] And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' [25] But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' [27] And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, [28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' [29] But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' [30] And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' [31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'" 

Commentators have observed that this is not technically a parable, because it uses real names, and appears to be a literal historical account. Even if it were a parable, however, it remains true that Jesus wouldn't promulgate false theological notions in it. Whatever is illustrated by it represents true theology and ideas, and not falsehood. That said, a number of things relevant to our present discussion are established by this:

1. The rich man makes a petition (essentially a prayer) to Abraham, rather than God (16:24). He is practicing both invocation ("Father Abraham . . .") and intercession of the saints ("have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus . . ."). He casually assumes that Abraham in some capacity, can fulfill his request. God is never mentioned in the entire story. Abraham doesn't rebuke the rich man merely for asking at all; he simply refuses the request and explains why.

2. The rich man then petitions Abraham again, with a different request, that he assumes he is able to answer: that Abraham actually has the power to send Lazarus back to life, to meet his brothers (16:27-28). Thus, a theoretical, possible occurrence is described, whereby a dead man (Lazarus) would interact with those on earth. Again, Abraham doesn't rebuke the rich man for asking, per se. Nor does he deny that such a theoretical is possible, or state that it is forbidden. He explains, rather, that it would be futile to do so, since if they didn't believe Moses and the prophets, they would disbelieve even in a man who rose from the dead. The emphasis was on lack of faith, not some supposed prohibition of interaction of dead people with those on earth.

3. We have to remember that this was told by Jesus (and is now recorded in inspired Scripture). Therefore, everything in it is a true principle. If indeed no one could ever ask anything of a creature (petitioning, praying, asking their intercession or intervention), as opposed to asking God directly, then this very thing could never have appeared in the story. Jesus would be guilty of lying to us. According to many Protestants, He must be doing exactly that. A tough pill to swallow . . . the story presupposes that we can petition people other than God, and that they have the power to fulfill requests, including possibly sending a dead person to earth (the exact thing that Maricle claims could or should never happen). Of course it is assumed (I would argue) that this power is delegated by God. But it is there, in the people. God uses His creatures to do His will. We know that, from numerous biblical examples. Evangelism itself is an example of it.

We know it's possible for people in heaven or Hades / Sheol (in this instance) to appear on earth again, from the above examples. This story of Jesus presupposes that, and thus supports the notion. If such things were forbidden, on the other hand, the story could not possibly read the way it does, with presupppositions of all these things that horrify so many Protestants. As Lutheran sociologist Peter Berger brilliantly observed, "Protestants cut the umbilical cord between heaven and earth." The pretense is that those who have passed on are no longer part of the Church, and have no doings with the earth at all. Nor can we (we're told) ever ask them to pray for us.

Perhaps those who think so radically unbiblically, as Maricle does, ought to persuade Jesus (Whom they are permitted to pray to) to attend a good fundamentalist anti-Catholic seminary, so He can get up to speed in His theology and forsake His distressingly "Catholic" teachings.


* * * * *

How Anti-Catholic Apologists "Argue" and "Reason": Documentation of James Swan's Avalanche of Childish Personal Insults and Ridiculous Flat-Out Lies About Yours Truly

This is a shortened version of a formerly removed post, dated 30 June 2010. It has now (mostly) been restored, for reasons that I discussed at the beginning of my other "archive" post today, entitled, Am I a Psychotic Madman? Diagnoses from Reformed Protestant Anti-Catholic Polemicist James Swan. Many of the links are probably now defunct, because Swan is in the habit of deleting incriminating statements that he has made on his own site in the past and never retracted: especially if I ever documented them. But some are on other sites. The links I preserve below were verified as still active.

Because he refuses to cease his glaring, breathtakingly hypocritical double standards (see the paper above), in condemning mild and fully justified harsh descriptions used by Catholics, to describe anti-Catholic bigotry and misinformation (some merely and clearly humorous or "tweaking"), I felt that he should be called on his past behavior; thus I restored this paper that had been removed.

Eventually, it will no longer be available even at Internet Archive, and anti-Catholics habitually deny any shortcomings that they exhibit in this regard, so I want to bring it back, for the record. People must be held accountable for their words. If they are retracted, that's one thing. I'm happy to remove such comments forever. But Swan has not retracted virtually all of these insults.
"This will probably be the last time I mention Dave for a while, unless something comes up of interest." (2-22-06)
"I am not obsessed with Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong . . . probably the amount of times I've responded to Dave's blog is a number between 20 and 30." (3-17-06) [Dave: by four years later it had reached 150+] 
* * * * *
[citations from posts at James White's blog are indicated by an asterisk: *]

 Charges of My Allegedly Lousy, Incompetent, Dishonest, or Nonexistent "Research"

Armstrong and I definitely approach research differently. . . . So many problems can be avoided by actually having the source of the quote one is utilizing. . . . In fact, Armstrong provides very little ad fontes evidence for his position. Read through his papers on Luther and Mary for yourself. (2-18-06)

Now, I'm not trying to relentlessly pick on Dave, only challenge him to a higher standard in research. His work is taken seriously by many Roman Catholics- I think my challenges to him to produce contexts and ad fontes sources can only help his apologetics career. . . . Dave won’t do the ad fontes work before he posts stuff like this. It’s up to us to do it. (2-22-06)

. . . unless requesting he stick to ad fontes research qualifies as “distorting” his writings. (3-9-06)

I will not though [sic] cease provoking Dave Armstrong to ad fontes research. (3-23-06)

A plea to Dave Armstrong to use ad fontes evidence in his Luther and Reformation research. (6-8-06)

Dave accuses me of nitpicking over tedium like this. He wants to be taken seriously as a Catholic apologist. If it were my book going to print making historical claims, I would make sure that I actually read and understood the material presented. (4-26-07*)

. . . one wonders if Dave reads what he cites. All is not as it appears. (4-27-07)

A look at the difficulty in engaging Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong in dialog. Dave's now publishing books with facts he probably hasn't even researched. (5-9-07)

. . . perhaps we should make sure Luther holds what Armstrong says he does. If he doesn't, then certain conclusions follow as to the value of Dave's research. . . . If you've read my blog or any of my Luther papers, I have stated often that Dave Armstrong has trouble with Luther. The quote he uses once again proves he does not carefully consider his information before hitting "publish" on his blog. (6-18-07*)

Simply go back and check Armstrong's earlier Luther "work" (if you can call it that) of poor documentation and reliance on "shock" sources, and his recent efforts to document information more helpfully. I'm not the one publishing books and attempting to define my very being as an "apologist." If these men wish to be taken seriously, I suggest they do serious work. (12-22-07)

. . . . his attempts at research. Mr. Armstrong, . . . also now is claiming actual research. (12-29-07)

Now that Mr. Armstrong's research has produced what I claimed all along, one would think an apology of some sort would be given. No, Mr. Armstrong does what he does best, continue to insult and obfuscate. He's put together two blog entries filled with his usual meandering reasoning . . . (1-4-08*)

Mr. Armstrong should know by now, I do not use his blog for Luther research (like he uses mine). I do not approve of either his methods or abilities, so it would be inconsistent for me to speak negatively about his work, while using his work. (1-8-08)

I question Dave's research because [in] my earliest introduction to [his] work [I] noticed very poor methods. (1-9-08)

This is something I simply don't understand about Dave Armstrong's methodology. Given all the countless hours of Google searches he does, one would think he would actually join me in pursuing truth via research. (7-1-08)

. . . the myth perpetuated by such Romanists like Ben and Mr. Armstrong who struggle greatly with research and contexts. (9-13-09)

Shame on you Dave Armstrong for not doing a basic Google search to locate the quote before using it it to malign Luther. If anything is "comically surreal" it's the effort you put in to your research. (12-21-09)

Your "work" though, finds an audience, so unless I stop coming across Romanists linking me back to you, I'll keep looking up your "research." You've put forth enough bogus "research" to keep me busy for a long time, if I so choose. You tend to be the recent Romanist with the most Luther stuff, so your "work" get's scrutinized the most. (2-26-10)

DA still won't address his own "research" or lack thereof. . . . If anyone is presenting shoddy review of history, it's Armstrong and those like him. (2-26-10)

It appears though, Mr. Armstrong isn't willing to check his facts before publication. (2-27-10)

This is a great example of how the author reads a text. He argues about a point Calvin isn't even making at the moment. If the author really wanted to respond to Calvin, he should at least respond to the argument being made. (3-29-10)

I'm not against Mr. Armstrong's book simply because they are self-published. I'm against the ones I have because they're simply awful. I've reviewed parts of a few of them, and the material is horrendous. Let's take two of DA's self-published books as an example: his books on Luther and Calvin. If I recall, neither are endorsed by anyone substantial. So, when I say the material is substandard, I can back up what I'm saying with facts. . . . I'm against self-published books that are pathetic. (4-13-10)


Claims of My Supposed Butchering of, or Complete Neglect of Context
Got a context Dave? . . . I don’t mean just a snippet or partial context, I mean an actual context. . . . Get me a complete context, and then we’ll talk about this quote. Ad fontes Dave. . . . For me to take Armstrong's position on Luther's view of the Immaculate Conception seriously, I need ad fontes work. I need to see the context for myself. (2-18-06)

. . . in situations in which you can a provide a context, don’t chicken out. Provide the context. (3-17-06)

You can’t ignore the context of the Luther document you’re quoting from that says the opposite of the point you’re making- and so on. (3-23-06)

I've been asking Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong a very simple question lately. It all has to do with one of Armstrong's books. Dave cites one of the Reformers, and I've simply been asking him if he's actually read the Reformer he's citing, in context. . . . Even in material readily available, one wonders if Dave reads what he cites. (4-26-07*)

I have demonstrated once again, Dave Armstrong struggles with context. (6-18-07*)

See No Context, Hear no Context, Speak No Context [mocking picture of three monkeys] (12-22-07)

Well, Dave Armstrong 2008 appears to be a lot like Dave Armstrong 2007. Dave didn't prove anything except what I originally stated. This means, Luther was taken out-of-context. (1-4-08*)

. . . that's the point isn't it?... The immediate context. . . . The issue is the immediate context. . . . The immediate context is here for all to see. (1-9-08; his bolding and link)

One would think he would be interested in contexts and the historical development of Luther's Mariology. One would think, on such an important topic to his brand of Catholic apologetics, he would want to use caution before posting Luther quotes without knowing the context. How many times will we have to go through this? Haven't I shown him enough times to actually read Luther, before citing Luther? (7-1-08)

One should be able to make out Luther's argument, more-a-less [sic] from his citation. Armstrong though isn't providing this quote to explain Luther's argument in context. . . . Luther's actual point gets buried by Armstrong's polemical context. (9-16-08)

Armstrong's use of this quote, once again proves, context is not his friend. (12-21-09)

Once again, Armstrong should read something in context before publishing. (2-13-10)

I highly doubt Armstrong looked up any of the contexts of any of the quotes he used. He relied on second hand sources that are typically classified (even by Roman Catholics) as belonging to a period of Roman Catholic research that sought to vilify Luther rather than be fair with Luther . . . My favorite of the bunch was the quote he put together from two different sources. Context? Who cares? Let's just string Luther's words together to make him say whatever DA wants him to. (2-26-10)

A Professional apologist should know not to Post things without a context. . . . I've been putting DA's Luther quotes back in context, even before Google books. (2-26-10)

You should've known better, even in 2003, that to quote Luther without a context is setting yourself up for a fall. (2-26-10)

Dave, I'm sure you would very much appreciate it if I didn't look up the quotes you mishandle and put them back in their proper context. (2-26-10)

Those who care about truth will benefit from contexts and will find your "work" substandard. (2-26-10)

Rather then simply admit you didn't read Luther in context and subsequently put forth propaganda, you'd rather talk about your favorite subject: Dave Armstrong. (2-26-10)

Simply admit you never read the quotes in context that I reviewed, and that your "editorial" comments were not justified based on the quotes when put back in context. It's very simple. I doubt Edward will be swayed by your explanations as to why you quote Luther without actually knowing what Luther said in context. (2-26-10)

Once again, we see an evasion of context. (2-26-10)

Yet, we find Armstrong repeatedly promoting imbalance by what he leaves out, and how he chooses to direct his "editorial" comments. Luther's sermons repeatedly make the point left out by DA, and some of the quotes I reviewed do as well. . . . we're given out-of-context Luther quotes . . . (2-27-10)

. . . people like Armstrong . . . won't even look at a context from a quote they've used. Sound familiar? That's what happen when you take a statement and make it sound the way one wants it to. (2-27-10)

Will he explain why the quotes he used don't say what he says they do in context? No, he probably won't. The show must go on. Notice the selective citing of this very dialogue posted on his blog today. He sees what he wants to. He leaves out details when he needs to. (2-27-10)

Simply explain how the context of those quotes supports your editorial comments, and stop all the nonsense, smoke & mirrors. . . . Yes indeed, I do find your shenanigans quite odd behavior. However, as I've stated repeatedly while I think you're wacky, other people take you seriously. . . . Again, put your Luther quotes back in context, and deal with it. It's a simple thing. (2-27-10)
That you won't answer simple questions about context really does make one question your honesty. (2-27-10)

Well, I guess we're not going to get contexts out of Mr. Armstrong. (2-28-10)

I suggest in the future to avoid similar embarrassment, use the Internet to at least attempt to locate a source before you publish. If you can't find a context, don't use the quote. (3-1-10)

Almost anyone in Junior High School could probably put a quote back in context. All it takes is a library and the Internet. With a context, correcting your poor research and misguided editorial comments of the quotes doesn't take much intelligence. It does though take time. Fortunately for you, probably most of your supporters don't take the time to check your work. (3-1-10)

If Dave is the Roman Catholic Superman, the contexts of those quotes are like kryptonite. (3-1-10)

I proved my point, once again, about how you are with a context. (3-1-10)

Is the romanist author's analysis of Calvin accurate? No, he completely misses Calvin's argument, and the historical context in which the argument was made. (3-23-10)

As to quote #2, the Roman Catholic author probably didn't read IV, 10:27. (5-6-10)

A regular on my blog, Adomnan, perfectly summed and sized up Swan's tactics with all this "out-of-context" business:

You, Dave, accurately quote Luther saying A. Swan digs up the texts where Luther said A (or some other text he sees as related), and notes that he also said B, C, D and E, the "context" of A. Swan then claims that because Luther said B, C, D and E, none of which contradict A, it follows that he didn't say, or didn't mean, A. This is false on the face of it and, in my opinion, deserves no response other than perhaps a curt dismissal.

Swan Doesn't Take Me "Seriously" (Despite His Obsessive 150 Papers or So About My Work)
It should be no mystery that I don’t take Catholic apologetics all that seriously. My writing will reflect that. (3-23-06)

It was simply an example of "shock" apologetics, . . . No wonder I have a hard time taking Dave seriously. He's not doing serious work, as this little historical inquiry into Melanchthon shows. (5-22-06)

After Dave Armstrong reviewed my paper Luther’s Theology of Mary, I provided this detailed counter response, which took months to write. If I recall, Dave Responded in about a week or two (I’m sure he’ll post the dates). Dave’s counter-responses to this paper are the reason I don’t take his work with great seriousness. (6-8-06)

I'm somewhat polemical with DA, simply because his comments and behavior usually provoke me to be so. I have a hard time taking him seriously, as will be expressed in my responses to him. (10-19-06)

Ok, I tried to take Dave Armstrong seriously and I got back exactly what I expected. Once again, Dave has given me an entire response filled with mocking and silliness, mixed in with attempts at fruitful dialog. Ok, back to not taking Dave Armstrong seriously. That was a nice exercise in futility. It reaffirms exactly what I decided a few years ago. (3-28-07)

Indeed, I don't take you seriously as a "professional" apologist, . . . (2-26-10)

Welcome to an example of what I've gone through with him for years. There is a reason why I've often said I don't take his work seriously. That is, when I read it, I know I'm not getting the insights of someone looking honestly or in-depth at an issue involving Luther. (3-1-10)

And, I’ve repeatedly said that others do take you seriously, so I critique your “work”- especially since you write on Roman Catholicism and the Reformation, subjects that interest me. Part of looking over your “work” and commenting on it is nothing else than showing why you shouldn’t be taken seriously. (4-18-10)


Accusation of My Allegedly Unethical, Cynical Editing of Opponents' Words
The link was an edited down version of my discussion with Dave from the CARM boards. I recall reading it and thinking, “I said a lot more than this!” I went back over to CARM and I posted something like “Watch out when Dialoging with Dave Armstrong” …“because when you do, he takes the discussion, edits them down, and makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.” The CARM moderators were none too pleased and threatened to ban me if I kept up my complaint against Dave. I never forgot this episode with Dave Armstrong. (3-9-06)

Dave thinks that his “edited down” dialogs are fine examples of ethical discourse. I disagree. (3-17-06)

Then you edited to suit your needs. This was my gut reaction. It stands now as a challenge for me in my own work to rise above and beyond such a low standard in documentation with people I dialog with on the Internet. (3-17-06)


My Alleged Profound Narcissism
I wouldn't want my favorite Catholic apologist to think I'm ignoring his hard work and skillful apologetic materials he consistently puts out by not publicly referring to this recent blog article. Dave thrives on recognition, so thank you Dave from my heart to yours. Remember, heart speaks to heart. (12-17-07)

So, to aid Mr. Ray, the Catholic-apologetic-Knight-in-Shining-Armor has arrived! Three Cheers!And here for a brief moment, I thought Steve Ray could actually rise above the silliness that goes along with the pop-Catholic apologetic approach. Nope, we're back to the Cochlaeus level, perpetuated by well....the one who craves attention. (12-22-07)

How can Armstrong add stuff to a Bible, collect cash from it, when he doesn't know Hebrew and Greek? That is arrogance. Why would someone knowingly sell a book containing blatant truth and error at the same time? Mr. Armstrong is a theologian of glory. It's all about the glory of DA. (4-14-09*)

It does get a bit painful to watch Matthew in battle against not only us heretics, but also against the upper echelon of Catholic apologetics [i.e. the blog that has refuted everyone everywhere]. (6-30-09)

The sooner you realize it's all about Dave, the quicker it is you won't be offended by my comments. This blog post was never about Dave. (8-4-09)

Should I post such positive responses every time someone pats me on the back? Wait a minute.... that would be like....something Dave Armstrong would do. (2-26-10)

But well done with this diversion, now that we're talking about your favorite subject (you), you don't have to explain contexts that you never read. (2-26-10)
 Accusation of Constant Dishonest Tampering With My Own Blog Posts
If you visit DA's blog, you know his entries can appear, disappear, or change hour to hour. . . . I think Dave will probably edit his use of Luther in this instance, . . . Dave's blog is often now you see it, now you don't. (6-18-07*)

A Roman Catholic recently blogged a large amount of material on John Calvin. I held out reading any of it and waited to see what he'd put forth in a published book. So I recently received his book on Calvin. Material on a blog can be edited or deleted as if by magic. A published work though sets one's opinion and research concretely. (3-22-10)


Charge That I Am Dishonest and/or Cynically Revise Past History
Unless you've had a few years of interaction with DA, and see how the past is like a bit of putty in his hands, molded how he wants it, selective citations of one's own words, and a lot of insults and rhetoric (he said)left out, I'm sure the whole thing seems absurd. (8-22-09)

If all of Armstrong's work on the Reformers is geared toward proving they were at least as bad the Catholic morality of the sixteenth century, I question if such a motivation is honest, and if perhaps throwing mud on the opposition takes the spotlight off the mud on the Roman Catholic Church. If Armstrong and Ben would simply read Luther in context and write honestly, maybe they would produce better historical research. (9-13-09)

You are fundamentally dishonest, and as your mentor DA would say, . . . (9-15-09) [strongly implied]


Accusation That I Am Unethically Motivated by Filthy Lucre, Without Principle
How to Make $$ Perpetuating "a serious problem for millions of Catholics" [title of a post] (4-13-10)

If it were me that was involved in such a project, I wouldn't affiliate my work or name with a potentially problematic book. Perhaps in his zeal for a royalty check, DA didn't bother to do the necessary research for this project. . . . If one is going to claim to be a professional Roman Catholic apologist, and also continue to advertise an alleged "study Bible" that has notes that are more than problematic to the position one defends, I have to ask... why? . . . My opinion is that the NCAB is junk. The inserts are the same old pop-apologetic stuff one could find on the Internet or on the Catholic Answers website. The book is bogus: throwing in a bunch of Watchtower-esque inserts and then calling it a "study Bible" is something P.T. Barnum would've done if he were a Roman Catholic apologist. . . . Yes, of course DA would argue that. That's why he's a theologian of glory. A theologian of glory would advertise The New Catholic Answer Bible, a theologian of the cross would rather starve. . . . I could not in good conscience promote or sell a book that actually corrupted God's word . . . I would admit that I’m not worthy to sell God’s word with any of my notes, and that task should be left for those whom God has called to be Biblical scholars, not a guy who simply claims to be an apologist. How can Armstrong add stuff to a Bible, collect cash from it, when he doesn't know Hebrew and Greek? That is arrogance. (4-15-10)

I replied:

It would be ungrateful of me not to thank you for greatly blessing me:

Matthew 5:11-12a: "Blessed are you when men revile you . . . and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. [12] Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven . . . (4-16-10)

I found out another fascinating tidbit. There is such a thing as The Apologetics Study Bible: Understand why You Believe.

This also has a bunch of articles about various topics, just like The NCAB does. I suppose Swan would say (in his rush to always oppose me, no matter what) that these are scholars. Most of the dozens of contributors who wrote the articles are indeed. But many are not also.

In looking through the list many were not listed as professors from universities or seminaries; e.g., Robert Bowman, Chuck Colson, Hank Hanegraaff, Josh McDowell, Ron Rhodes, Lee Strobel, Ravi Zacharias, and eleven more that I counted. Many of these guys are lay apologists just like I am.

Some of these might possibly have advanced degrees, but some of those are not theological degrees (e.g., Colson, who was trained as a lawyer). So that is exactly the same thing we did: articles written by lay apologists. The original Bible had only my notes, but the present revised version is by myself and the editor Dr. Paul Thigpen, who is indeed a scholar (professor of theology at Southern Catholic College in Dawsonville, Georgia; degrees from Yale and Emory universities, including a Ph.D. in historical theology).

No difference here at all that would lead any rational person to conclude that one is "junk" and only an "alleged" study Bible, fit for P. T. Barnum. But because it is Catholic and I am involved, then the double standard and manifestation of asinine ignorance and hostility must occur.

Don't you have better things to do with your time, than to make an abject fool of yourself in this manner? (4-17-10)

Yet another analogous case: The Case for Christ Study Bible: Investigating the Evidence for Belief, by general editor Lee Strobel, who apparently wrote all or many of the articles. He is not formally trained theologically. Strobel was a journalist and has degrees in that field and law, not theology. So he's a lay apologist. So am I. He has books; I have books. No essential difference once again. His books sell a lot more, no doubt, but it doesn't follow that I am not also a legitimate apologist, just as he is.

The difference is: he is a Protestant and I am a Catholic, and Swan personally despises me; therefore he writes what he does about the Bible I was involved with, while he would never say the same sorts of things about these Bibles of a similar nature, which also entail lay apologists with no theological degrees participating, even editing. (4-17-10)

Insinuation That I Am Not a Legitimate Catholic Apologist (I Simply "Proclaimed" Myself to Be One)
Dave Armstrong is neither a historian nor a theologian. As far as I know, he's a guy in Michigan sitting in his attic with a computer. (4-26-07*)

. . . Dave Armstrong (a self-proclaimed Catholic apologist). (4-3-09*)

. . . a guy who simply claims to be an apologist. (4-14-09*)

For most of us, putting up blog posts is just a hobby, or a feeble attempt at "ministry" (It's so much easier to shout from a blog than than talk to your neighbor). For Mr. Armstrong, it's his profession and livelihood. Leaving blog comments and putting up blog posts is part of his profession, if not the main aspect of his profession. He doesn't do many in person appearances at your local Catholic parish, as far as I know. He's not teaching in any schools or parishes, as far as I know. He's not engaged in any public moderated debates, or hosting Catholic Answers live, as far as I know. He babysits the Coming Home forum and puts up blog posts. (8-3-09)

If someones work deserves respect, I'll give it. If though they try to pass themselves off as something they're not, I will continue to expose that work and write in such a way to show the work in question does not deserve to be taken seriously. (8-4-09)

This is a big difference between DA and I. I've never been bored. I actually have a job, . . . On the other hand, I think DA considers sitting up in his attic tapping away on a computer all day an actual job. Oh that's right, he's a professional Catholic apologist. Part of his "job" must've been to post a large number of comments on my blog throughout the day. Sorry, this isn't "a job." (7-17-09)

I fully accept the idea that someone can be a full time Catholic apologist. I don't think though, someone simply proclaims themselves to be one, at least these days. I would consider Hahn, Kreft [sic], Pacwa, professional Catholic apologists. They've been trained, and tested. A guy posting massive amounts of stupid comments on a blog is not a professional Catholic apologist. I could never justify that to my family, that's for sure. Wife comes in: Hi honey how was work today? Husband: today I spent all day posting inane blog comments and compiling a list of someone else's blog posts about me. Wife: That's great dear... how much did you get paid for doing it? Husband: well, um, err, um... (7-17-09)

I replied to these inane smears on 7-17-09 on Swan's blog: the following was removed alongside his two remarks above.

So what do you call my profession, then, seeing that I am a staff member of The Coming Home Network as Forum Coordinator and resident Network Apologist (30 hours a week), and receive royalties from six books and a pamphlet, published by Catholic publishers; also from other books on Lulu and e-books (and soon, audio books), making up the vast majority of my income?

Do you refuse me to the title of author as well? If so, on what grounds? If one writes books that are published, that are bestsellers in their field, and have been for years (books from 2002, 2003, 2004, etc.), how is that not being an author? How is it not being a professional author when it makes up a great chunk of my income? And since all those books are about apologetics, I am an author in the apologetics field, making me very much a professional apologist, whether that rankles and angers you or not.

It's a profession. It's my vocation, too. It's what I do (no matter how unqualified and undeserving you think I am). I'm an author and I am an apologist. Because I do this full-time for a living (and have since December 2001, before we ever "met"), I am a professional apologist and author, since all that means is "one who engages in x profession and gets paid for doing so."

From all that I have observed these past six years, I believe you engage in this incessant lying about my very profession because you would love to be able to devote yourself to work like this and you are unable to do it (and I also fully support a wife and four children doing it). So you try to belittle me, with your cynical mantra (expressed many times now) that I am some sort of eccentric oddball who works in an "attic" (thousands in my town sleep in "attics" by your mentality, because there are a lot of bungalows around here, and that is what my library / office is: an upper bedroom) and that all I do is deal with nattering nabobs like you all day long.

You can try to set Scott Hahn against me, but he certainly recognizes me as an apologist (with glowing words to that effect in his book, Reasons to Believe, a foreword to one of my books, an invitation to speak at the Defending the Faith conference in Steubenville, etc.). . . .

You can . . . pretend that I am merely "self-anointed" or "self-appointed," when in fact I had the support of one of the major Catholic catechists of the 20th century and candidate for possible sainthood, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., from the very beginning of my apologetic writing career (in 1991): six years before I ever had a website. Keating, Madrid, and Fr. Peter Stravinskas were aware of my work (since they published it) as early as 1993: four years before I ever had a website and before you and your cronies knew me from a hole in the ground. So was Scott Hahn, because I met him the day before I was received (on 8 February 1991), and gave him some of my writing.

Any way you look at this, you are full of hot air and can't get the facts straight to save your life, But that has never bothered you. You'll keep on saying the same stupid stuff and lies if you think it can harm my credibility and reputation. That's what you do. You've been doing that for six years, with your 110 posts: each and every one designed to somehow denigrate my work and my name.

And it is one of the many reasons I refuse to waste any of my time debating you in theology anymore. I'll only deal with you in this fashion when you promulgate lies and slanders about me in public. If that is what you want, go right ahead. Mock and lie away. We know where those characteristics come from. I recall a certain fallen angel whose name means "accuser."

And of course even this response will immediately be derisively dismissed as my supposed self-centeredness, self-obsession, narcissism, defensiveness, etc.; as if a man doesn't have a right to point out simple facts when he is being lied about and slandered (and for years on end, and publicly at that). If you insult me and bear false witness, even regarding the most important things in my life (my faith, my profession; even -- in some cases -- my family life and whether I am properly providing for my family) I will respond, and have every right to do so.

If you can't comprehend that, and think it proves mental or emotional stability, then many others will understand it. Go ahead and do it. I'll add it to my paper and you can make fools of yourselves to thousands of my readers once again, if you like. I can't prevent ludicrous, senseless behavior if you insist on doing that.

This is a simple factual matter. I make my living as an apologist and author. I have all the credentials to describe myself in that way. I don't have to have a degree in theology to be a legitimate apologist (Chesterton, Lewis, Howard, Kreeft, Muggeridge, and many others had no formal theological training; Chesterton obtained no degree at all).

In fact, historically, the most successful and influential Catholic apologists (and not a few Protestant ones, too, like Lewis) were precisely those who did not have formal theological training. So this is nothing new. If you had any inkling of the history of modern apologetics, you would know this (not that mere facts ever change your mind when you are hostile to someone).

Swan went right on insulting, as if I had written nothing:
No, I wouldn't want to be you, if it means sitting in front of computer all day, and spamming blogs with a multitude of comments, or counting someone elses blog posts mentioning my name. You can keep that job. I'm sorry it disturbs you that I don't take you or your alleged profession seriously. If you think posting comments on a blog all day and counting blog posts is an honest days work, well I can't reason with a person like that, so we'll have to agree to disagree. . . . Your work discrediting the Reformation is historical silliness.. . . you turned the other cheek, and removed all sorts of negativity against me. I remember that little heroic experiment. . . . We both know, I've caught you numerous times with bogus information. . . . If this is the work of a professional apologist, the standards are very low. (7-17-09)

I replied again:

Life is so unfair, ain't it? Here I am, dumb as a doornail, writing all these books and doing apologetics full-time (all for my own "glory" of course; I've never paid any dues to get where I'm at: we all know that, right?), and there you sit on the boardwalk in Atlantic City, so infinitely more qualified than I (as you have proven and stated again and again, beyond all conceivable doubt), and all you can do is snipe from the sidelines and make sure everyone knows that I an imbecile who has no business doing what he is doing. Doesn't it make you feel alive and important and valuable doing this? Everyone needs to have a purpose in life. Yours, apparently, is to lie about and denigrate my work and myself. (7-17-09)

And he lobbed more insults:
. . . if you were so good at what you do, a simple layman like myself would not be finding blatant errors in your professional work. . . . It's not about "qualifications" it's about being accurate. Luckily for you, most people probably don't care to look at your "professional" work closely. . . . Don't worry Dave, most people who like what you do will just take your word for whatever you post. You can keep building your empire.. . . I review your work from time to time, until you spam my blog or want to talk about YOU. You post something ridiculous, which will at times, provoke a response from me, time allowing. (7-17-09)

Armstrong considers himself a "professional apologist." Any "professional" should know the importance of context. (2-26-10)

* * * * *

The main people who believe all these lies are already in the anti-Catholic camp, and will believe anything that is said about a Catholic. That's been proven again and again, and there is little or nothing I can do about it. They are presently beyond reason. Doing this continues to harm James Swan's reputation, not mine. If he can't see that, then I will help him to see it by posting it for one and all to see, in hopes that it will jar him into ethical reality, or cause one or more of his followers to urge him to do so. This is the New Testament practice of putting pressure on someone so that they will repent of their sins.


* * * * *

Am I a Psychotic Madman? Diagnoses from Reformed Protestant Anti-Catholic Polemicist James Swan

Lately, anti-Catholic luminary James Swan has been complaining, drone-like, about condemnations of Catholics over an outrageous remark made by his buddy Alan Maricle (aka "Rhology"):

. . . Leaving aside the question of whether the Rosary has any effect on abortion (other than making demons laugh uproariously), . . .

An entire discussion developed regarding that, on Swan's blog (Boors All), where it originally occurred, and on my Facebook page (cross-posted also to my blog).  Swan (in his usual boorish, utterly biased manner) started mocking and making the same fallacy- and hypocrisy-laden complaints over and over (as if repeating a fallacy makes it more true or less hypocritical than it was from the outset):

Rome's Love below for Rho. Would Mary approve? [examples provided] (2-7-13)

Maybe instead of attacking Rho, these wonderful loving Romanists could work out a prayer to Mary for Rho... or maybe Mary is appearing to them and approving their comments before they post them? (2-7-13)

More love from Rome: "Rhology seems to be unusually privy to the doings of the demons . . . ." [Dave: yes, because he said demons were laughing at Rosary-praying Catholics at abortion clinics] Keep it coming guys. You are your own worst enemies. (2-7-13)

More love from Rome: "Maniacal Maricle is now getting hyper-ridiculous, as he always does" [my own] These nasty comments must make Mary very sad. (2-8-13)

Why do your buddies get a free pass mocking and calling Rho names? Explain to me why Mary would approve of this sort of behavior. (2-8-13)

Mr Hoffer, Thank you for at least answering one of my questions. I particularly appreciate that you at least admitted the comments of your friends were "snarky." I'd go a step a further and say they were downright nasty. . . . Or, perhaps your priests are telling you folks to be snarky and nasty. Who knows? [examples given of our remarks] (2-8-13)

Knowing Mr. Swan's past history of issuing an avalanche of insults towards myself (and unless he is an amnesiac, he certainly couldn't have repressed all of this past history of his own), I issued a jeremiad in the Facebook thread (shortened somewhat here, for brevity's sake):

James Swan . . . is indulging in extreme double standard hypocrisy of Pharisaical proportions. His big complaint is about how we over here are being so supposedly mean to the saintly Alan Maricle, in an unethical way, because we used strong language to condemn his trashing of the Rosary and mocking it, saying that demons laugh uproariously over Catholic pro-lifers praying to God (which is what the Rosary is) to save the lives of babies about to be ripped to pieces.

He's going on and on, repeatedly, about such outrageous epithets that we have used, such as (prepare yourself!): "twit" and "nobodies" and "cowards" etc. He cites my harmless play-on-words, "maniacal Maricle." All of these examples were in his latest post. Never mind that I have already cited Maricle's past description of me (this is all fine and dandy):

In reality, you're a special case. You're a false teacher, and a borderline obsessive-compulsive, incorrigible, tenacious one at that. Biblically, a Christian is not to treat you like he treats the majority of lost people. Rather, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, cooing "come back to the true church" to unwitting people, some of whom follow the sweet voice and are devoured by the enemy. You are to be opposed, and that means exposing your foolish reasoning and false Gospel and "answering a fool according to his folly". May God have mercy on you.

(8-21-09 on the Boors All website)

None of us have implied to the slightest degree, that Maricle is not a Christian. It's fine in Swan's thinking to say that someone is damned and a wolf in sheep's clothing, simply because he is a Catholic apologist. But to describe someone as a "twit" or a "coward"!!! Well, we mustn't ever say that about anyone, no matter how outlandish their lies and slanders of Catholicism may be.

This is hypocritical enough, but then when someone knows about the history between myself and Mr. Swan, and all the ridiculous hogwash, rotgut and sewer scum, ultra-mocking comments he has made about me in public for literally over ten years now, the hypocrisy is even more glaring and unbelievable.

For starters, Swan seriously argued (in several venues and many times) that I suffered from psychosis and needed serious psychological help. He has maintained for many years (over and over and over, as a mantra, with accompanying visual illustrations) that I have a severely "narcissistic" personality: an actual neurosis. He has also maintained that I am burdened with the utmost arrogance.

. . . I have voluntarily removed all responses to his garbage and defenses of my character against his onslaughts from my blog, not once, but twice. Currently, there is nothing that I am aware of, about him, on my blog of nearly 2,500 papers (if there is, I missed it). . . . Swan has removed some of his insults . . . and most mentions of my name (e.g., quite ridiculously: five reviews of my book on Calvin without mentioning either the name of the book or its author), but plenty remains.

In the past I documented his unbelievable insults (because they had to be seen to be believed). So if Swan wants to play this game now of "comparative insults" I'd be happy to locate my old papers on Internet Archive, and show the world once again how this man "argues": how no insult is out of bounds for him when it comes to Catholics. Anything goes, including charges of literal mental illness and the most sweeping character judgments: prying into others' hearts and motivations and seeing nothing of worth there, whatever; sitting by approvingly, while his buddy Steve Hays maintained that I was an "evil man" and a "schizophrenic."

. . . I'm referring to documented mindless, relentlessly hostile insults that have occurred over ten years, and the extreme, almost unfathomable hypocrisy of a person condemning mild epithets like "twit", knowing of his own outrageous history of directing almost every conceivable lie towards a theological opponent.

I've now located an old paper on Internet Archive (long since deleted from my blog), that documented Swan's insistence that I was mentally ill. Here are his own words (in blue), with some of my replies at the time. Links have been updated, where they still remain. Swan hasn't been able to hide all of the recriminating evidence. Anyone who wants to see some trademark "Armstrong sarcasm": along the lines of socratic irony and Muggeridgean satirical wit, will enjoy how I deal with these charges of mental illness. I have a field day with 'em (and it was a lot of fun at the time, as I recall).* * * * * . . . [Swan] opined that I suffered from some sort of psychosis. The charge of lunacy was too outrageous to delete, so that was the only thing I decided to retain. . . . Recently, I have been involved in an intense discussion thread underneath yet another attack-post of his (now I am a seeker of filthy lucre and ill-gotten gains by unsavory and unscrupulous methods: par for the course from him). During the course of this I brought up these charges (as a crystal-clear example of his lying about me, and smear tactics) and repeatedly gave Swan a chance to renounce and retract them. This could all have been resolved and avoided henceforth, last night. It could have actually been a significant step of progress; a rare breath of fresh air in the acidic atmosphere of anti-Catholicism.

He partially did so, and softened and qualified a bit, for which I was thankful (and said so) but on the other hand (like a skillful politician), he refused to utterly renounce it and openly still speculates that I may very well suffer from a psychosis, even though he can't prove or confirm it from a distance. I offered to remove my documentation if he would utterly renounce these charges.

But since it remains ambiguous and ultimately unresolved, now I have no choice (given the seriousness and outrageousness of the charges) but to record these exchanges and related utterances. This could have been put behind both of us last night, but unfortunately, it continues now and the lies are still forthcoming, including from fellow anti-Catholic Steve Hays, who is even upping the ante and is now on record saying that I am a "schizophrenic guy" (along with many other equally ridiculous and insulting tidbits).

First I will document what Swan first stated about me on his blog in August 2009 (that he has now removed, but unfortunately for him has not utterly retracted and renounced).

Then follows further discussion of this absurd speculation in February and March 2010 on Edward Reiss' blog, Upstate Lutheran, in another intense combox under his post, "Taking Luther out of Context": an exercise of the sort of goofball, wrongheaded "critiques" of my Luther research that Swan has done for eight years now. [Dave (2-8-13): this thread remains online to this day, but anyone can see how Swan systematically removed his comments in the thread. Fortunately, for the record, I preserved them. It was also a stroke of good fortune that the exchange took place on a site other than Swan's. He would have certainly removed my replies as well, if he had been able to do so (since he bans me from his site). It was Ed Reiss and myself that gave the public both sides of this "discussion". Swan removed his insult from Reiss' site, and I removed the entire documentation from mine, for reasons mentioned. But now it's back for all to see how a prominent anti-Catholic online "argues" and how an ignoramus Catholic like me responds to the inveterate slandering]

Swan's words will be in blue, with the following exceptions:

Removed portions of Swan's former remarks will be in red.

Removed and retracted portions (one sentence) from Swan will be in orange.

All bolding is my own, presently. Italics are in the originals.

* * * * *
I think it's quite possible you have serious psychological issues. . . . your cyber-behavior strikes me (and probably others) as very bizarre. If you get yourself checked out, and my suspicions prove accurate, and you get the help you need, be it medication or therapy, and we see a change in your cyber behavior, I'll seriously consider never mentioning you, and begin trying to strike your name from this blog. Perhaps then we could actually have a civil dialogue. If indeed this happens, I don't want to be known as a guy who picked on a person struggling with deep psychological issues. . . .

(formerly posted on 8-24-09 on Swan's Boors All blog; removed on 4-18-10 with a partial apology but no total retraction)That being said, to all of you who share my concern, perhaps it is time we back of from Dave Armstrong a bit. I know you probably think I'm being sarcastic, but actually, I'm not. / . . . There's just something not right with Mr. Armstrong. I think he needs some help.

(formerly posted on 8-26-09 on the Boors All blog; I believe in the same thread as the above; removed on 4-18-10 with a partial apology but no total retraction. Both of these were later cited on the Upstate Lutheran blog: on 2-26-10)

* * *
Dave, I'm sure you would very much appreciate it if I didn't look up the quotes you mishandle and put them back in their proper context. Indeed, I don't take you seriously as a "professional" apologist, and yes, your behavior is a bit bizarre at times. Your "work" though, finds an audience, so unless I stop coming across Romanists linking me back to you, I'll keep looking up your "research." You've put forth enough bogus "research" to keep me busy for a long time, if I so choose. You tend to be the recent Romanist with the most Luther stuff, so your "work" get's scrutinized the most. (2-26-10)
Those who care about truth will benefit from contexts and will find your "work" substandard. (2-26-10)

So our friend offers me this choice:

"If you go to the shrink and get therapy and meds, I'll stop lying about you, won't mention you and will consider removing the massive evidence of my obsession with your non-serious work from my blog, and we can (as a special bonus) even engage in civil dialogue! All you have to do is admit that you are nuts!

"But if you don't admit that you have serious psychological trouble, I'll continue lying about you and being obsessed, as I have for six or seven years now."

Makes eminent sense, doesn't it? Truly an intelligent, compassionate, Christian opinion there . . . who could argue with it? (2-26-10)

your cyber-behavior strikes me (and probably others) as very bizarre. [citing his own past words from 8-24-09, above]

I still stand by those words. Yes, like your fixation on anything "Tim Enloe," [Dave, 2-8-13: another relentless critic of mine, whose materials have been completely removed from my blog] your posting of a massive amount of blog comments, then deleting all those comments, posting on issues in those comments that are totally unrelated, protecting your ego via massive amounts of text in those blog comments, claiming to not get involved with anti-Catholics, and then getting involved with anti-Catholics, calling people names, and then playing the martyr when someone says something uncharitable towards you, and on and on and on. (2-26-10)

[replying to my comment of 2-26-10, two entries above] Great example of your psychosis. Rather then simply admit you didn't read Luther in context and subsequently put forth propaganda, you'd rather talk about your favorite subject: Dave Armstrong. (2-26-10; orange portion retracted on 4-18-10 with apology: ")

Perhaps your readers have enough wits about them to realize how ridiculous it is for you to take the view of me that you do, while you keep obsessing over my work and trying desperately to discredit me. Maybe even your readers are embarrassed by that, so they don't respond and hope you will write about something else for a change, and stick to your resolve to not continue tormenting a desperately pathetic, psychologically ill figure such as I. :-) (2-26-10)

Thanks very much for using the word "psychosis," so folks can know exactly what you are talking about. Excellent. (2-26-10)

Umm...Dave, the only one who cares what I think of you is... you. But well done with this diversion, now that we're talking about your favorite subject (you), you don't have to explain contexts that you never read. (2-26-10)

Once again, we see an evasion of context. DA still won't address his own "research" or lack thereof. . . . If anyone is presenting shoddy review of history, it's Armstrong and those like him. (2-26-10)

Would you be willing to go on Iron Sharpens Iron radio program this week on this topic? I'm sure I could set this up, maybe even for Friday. We could set it up with opening / closing statements, responses and Q & A. If my arguments and research is entirely bogus, you'll have the opportunity to directly confront me. Let me know. (2-27-10)

You know what my policy is. What is it you don't get about it? Do you have amnesia now? You had your chance in 2007 to do a live chat debate with me, but you (and six other of your buddies, including Bishop White, twice) refused. At that time I gave up debating anti-Catholics, since they were unwilling to even discuss the foundational issue of what Christianity is. That was the last straw, after 12 years. . . . You can't goad me into this, just because all of a sudden you have worked up the gumption and guts to actually do a real debate. I don't operate on that plane, but by principle. Since I'm not the egomaniac narcissist that you think I am, this ploy doesn't entice me in the slightest.

Why would I waste my time with a guy who thinks I am 1) psychotic, 2) not to be taken seriously, 3) unable to ever tell the truth about Luther, 4) not a Christian? That sounds like a real good discussion to you, eh? Talking things over with a lying, unregenerate nut whose work you are obsessed with? (2-27-10)

Why is it that you keep talking to me and writing about my opinions (now even challenging me to a debate), when you think I am a nut and not to be taken seriously? You have some 150 papers about me on your blog (when I still posted your garbage on my site I documented what you had up, in one paper). You say no one should take me seriously; I lie all the time about Luther; I am psychotic (you even said folks should stop pestering me because I am so seriously mentally disturbed), yet you keep doing it. That's obsession because it is certainly not rational (or consistent) behavior. And I do have some background in behavioral science (sociology with a minor in psychology), so that I can recognize an obsession when I see it (especially when I am the target of it). But I wouldn't deign to dogmatically diagnose someone as "psychotic," as you do. (2-27-10)

Yes indeed, I do find your shenanigans quite odd behavior. However, as I've stated repeatedly while I think you're wacky, other people take you seriously. (2-27-10)

Thanks again! This is a great day for the cause of documenting anti-Catholic inanities! We've got "psychosis" and "wacky" in one day! . . . If the best thing you can do is deal with one whom you regard as a wacky psychotic day after day, then perhaps you should examine your own priorities and stewardship of time. And if your anti-Catholic masses are so profoundly stupid that they can't even discern that the rantings of a Romanist madman and liar aren't worth their time, then go give them their meds and urge them to seek therapy (and education). . . . (2-27-10)

Dave, you've called me names for years, and put up all sorts of silly pictures and comments about me (and others), so stop being a martyr. I explained earlier your eratic [sic] behavior, particularly on my blog, lead me to question whether or not you needed help. Your behavior over here and evasion of a simple question about contexts doesn't help either. That you won't answer simple questions about context really does make one question your honesty. (2-27-10)

I hope to one day attain to your sublime heights of profoundly objective scholarship. With your constant help and guiding hand and inspiring example, perhaps I can get there. It'll be an uphill battle, though, being the lying evil scumbag and psychotic and vow-breaker and narcissist that I am (i.e., stuff that you anti-Catholics have been telling me for years, but my stubborn ears wouldn't receive it). (3-1-10)

Almost anyone in Junior High School could probably put a quote back in context. All it takes is a library and the Internet. With a context, correcting your poor research and misguided editorial comments of the quotes doesn't take much intelligence. It does though take time [sic]. (3-1-10)

But to say what I am saying, I get must (inevitably) be accused of being dishonest. Swan has already stated as much (more than once); it's not my mere speculation. This is how it always goes: if I disagree with him, I am dishonest, because what he writes is self-evidently true. . . . I must be seen as dishonest by those who can't handle or comprehend any honest disagreement without slinging charges of dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation. So be it. I think Swan is a liar and relentless twister and distorter when it comes to my Luther research (and I am the world's biggest expert on my own research and what motivates it), so we'll simply regard each other as liars and go our merry ways. (3-1-10)

There is a reason why I've often said I don't take his work seriously. That is, when I read it, I know I'm not getting the insights of someone looking honestly or in-depth at an issue involving Luther. (3-1-10)

I did call you a slanderous ass, and if anyone ever deserved to be called that, after my personal experience for eight years, it is you. I know it to be the case, because as I've said, it is my work that you have distorted on an ongoing basis all that time. You say I do it about Luther; I say you do it with my own work. The difference is that I know my own work and motivations a lot better than you know Luther's work or motivations. (3-1-10)

. . . whether it's you, Steve Ray, Sippo, Madrid, or whoever playing fast and loose with history. (3-2-10)

You have said you are moving on. So let's see that. Go ahead and do it, and shut up in this combox. Now you can go plan another thirty-forty posts devoted to showing that I don't know the slightest thing about context or establishing a contention through documentation and about how dishonest and stupid and "anti-Luther" I supposedly am (to get up to 200 posts about me by summer's end). Have fun. God sees what you are doing. You can't get away with continually lying, whether I call you on it or not. Your soul is what gets harmed by that, not me. It's your loss, not mine. (3-2-10)

The fact of lying is simply what it is. My indignation is against the sin, not the person. It does him no good to keep doing it. I am rebuking the sin for the sake of his soul. All of you yes men that he surrounds himself with don't see that he is distorting and twisting my work. I do, because I have been the target of it.

But there is no personal malice involved at all. I see him and all anti-Catholics as victims of a deeply flawed, intellectually-suicidal worldview (though it remains Christian, with added garbage on top of that which is untrue). I'm simply sick and tired of having my work distorted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. (3-2-10)

* * *
If one is going to claim to be a professional Roman Catholic apologist, . . . a guy who simply claims to be an apologist. (4-15-10)

It would be ungrateful of me not to thank you for greatly blessing me:

Matthew 5:11-12a: "Blessed are you when men revile you . . . and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. [12] Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven . . . (4-16-10)

It was stupid of me to comment here at all (I know now), but I hoped beyond hope that undeniable lying (exposed as such) could be rectified for a change. My problem is that I'm too much of a blasted optimist and idealist; heaven help me. I always think people (especially Christians, who allegedly live by a much higher ethical standard) will do the right thing when it is plainly shown that they have done something wrong or are in error.

It is the host's responsibility as a Christian to correct and retract the falsehoods (and outright deliberate lies, insofar as he has been corrected by the party being charged) in the interest of truth and the well-being of his own soul and relationship to God. (4-16-10)
Why though do you [sic] at times do mass deletions of your comments? That behavior appears very erratic. (4-17-10)

Well, according to you, who think I suffer from "psychosis" and arrogance and extreme narcissism, why would there have to be any explanation? You're assuming that what I do has some rational reason, which is absurd in the case of a psychotic. In actuality (getting away from your fictional fantasies), usually it is because there is no rational interaction taking place, and if there is any "interaction" at all, it is mostly mocking (just like this thread). So I get disgusted with that because it perverts the legitimate progression of intellectual discourse and I go and delete comments.

If someone can't maintain a normal conversation, he doesn't deserve to be interacted with, per the many biblical injunctions to avoid the vain discourse. It's almost like an occasion of sin: a rational statement may make you guys stumble again and indulge in yet more lying and mocking (like teasing a dog with a bone or tempting an alcoholic with liquor). That doesn't help you, and I get extremely tired of it in about half a second. (4-17-10)

I’ve repeatedly said that others do take you seriously, so I critique your “work”- especially since you write on Roman Catholicism and the Reformation, subjects that interest me. Part of looking over your “work” and commenting on it is nothing else than showing why you shouldn’t be taken seriously. (4-18-10)

For my part, though, I have removed all posts about him from my blog, after being challenged by his friend Carrie to do so. She said that if I thought so strongly that our "dialogues" were substandard, that I could always remove all of them from my site (so I did). We all know, however, that the host is unwilling to do any such thing. (4-17-10)

I don’t recall Carrie’s challenge to you, nor the context of her comments. Correct, I’m not going to dump posts in which you’re either mentioned or critiqued. From a simply pragmatic reason, I don’t have the time to edit and delete a few years worth of posts. If you do, fine. On the other hand, Many of the posts in which I responded to you either harshly or with sarcasm were usually the result of some insulting thing you wrote about me. In a few cases, the posts you wrote about me had to be toned down because of your nastiness. I don’t have the time to do such editing- what I wrote reflected my feelings at the moment. If I was angered by your comments, well then I was angered. Was I sinfully angry? That’s indeed possible. Was my sarcasm sinful at times? Quite possibly. Was it in each instance? Probably not. (4-18-10)

Thank you. I say the same about myself, which is one reason why I took down all the posts having to do with you, and urged that you reciprocate. Are you at least willing to look over all your posts about me and remove ones that you yourself deem to be of this category of sinful expression? Or do you have no time for that project, either? (4-18-10)

Yes, I’m willing to do that, will it happen any time soon? Probably not. (4-18-10)

* * *
You say I am a psychotic… I only note it for observers reading this who don't know the background.

I don’t recall all specifics of the thread in which I made that statement, but I do recall saying you needed help- and this was after I read a bunch of comments from you obsessing over Tim Enloe and other points that weren’t even the topic of the post. You simply began talking about yourself. (4-18-10)

We already know how Our Illustrious Host has claimed I suffer from "psychosis" and have a serious psychological problem (documented above). So that matches the "bipolar" remark.

Yeah, and the comment was made in a context in which you obsessed over Tim Enloe, brought up multiple issues irrelevant to the post, and then talked about yourself (a lot), and then deleted all your posts. No, that, isn’t strange behavior, nope. (4-18-10)

And so for these reasons (your jaded, hyper-biased description, but we'll even accept your report for the sake of argument), you feel it is entirely justified to call someone a psychotic? This was not merely anger or disgust at my supposed exasperating or tedious remarks. You had already stated the same on your site back in August. This was not a spur-of-the-moment outburst of temper and intemperate language.

So do you stand by it now or not, or do you want to keep playing games of mediocre obfuscation and selective memory and playing around with contexts, as if this lessens the seriousness of the slander? Am I a psychotic? Do I still need to go to a shrink and get meds, as a condition for you to start acting in a civil fashion?

Jesus said to love your enemies and bless those who curse you. You say you will start acting in a charitable civil fashion worthy of a baby Christian if I get meds, see a shrink and admit that I am nuts. I give you a lot of credit for originality, at least. It isn't very often that one sees such a ridiculous and infantile display of foolishness and barely suppressed anger. (4-18-10)

You don't recall accusing me of being a psychotic. How convenient. I already cited it above in this thread. Here it is again [I cited the two August citations in red above]: . . . You put in several comments dripping with a sarcastic, condescending disdain. I then responded with a direct reply to your charge that I am nuts, that I have also cited above in this thread (go read it). This was the immediate context of your reiteration that I am a wacko nutjob, written on 2-26-10 [also above, including the retracted orange sentence]: . . . You used the word "psychosis." You said I should get "medication or therapy" and that I am "struggling with deep psychological issues." Do you stand by these statements or not? And do you agree with the ones your cronies have made, that I mentioned above? (4-18-10)

* * *
Just curious: Do you stand by your description of my supposed "serious" psychiatric disorders as "psychosis"? (4-18-10)

I mentioned a few comments back about this, about how your behavior got quite odd and erratic and why I made the comment- I’ve always found your behavior odd and erratic (in terms of your insults, retractions, obsessions, reasoning, put up a blog post, take down a blog post, excessive comments about yourself, etc). I don’t know you in person, nor am I trained in psychology, so I can’t know for sure if you have serious problems. (4-18-10)

Yet you felt that you could diagnose me in public as a psychotic? Does this mean you retract and renounce your "diagnosis" now? (4-18-10)

But you do indeed come off as a strange person via your cyber exploits. (4-18-10)

And "strange" equates in your mind with nuts and psychotic, huh? (4-18-10)

If you do indeed have some sort of disorder, my error in the matter was pointing it out publicly. (4-18-10)

Oh, so now I see that you still regard it as a live possibility, if you are not certain and entertain it publicly as such. (4-18-10)

That is, if indeed your odd behavior is the result of personal problems, then I should not have taken the opportunity to use it in such a way as to make matters worse for you by stating it publicly. (4-18-10)

So you are still inclined to believe that, and state so in public. Thank you for your honesty about the lie you wish to put out for public consumption. (4-18-10)

No, re-read my comment Dave. I said “I don’t know you in person, nor am I trained in psychology, so I can’t know for sure if you have serious problems.” That is, I don’t know you Dave, as you don’t know me. I’m sorry if you think my comment is a “lie”- but I’m trying to be as honest with you as possible. We’re two people on the opposite ends of the keyboard who only have a one dimensional understanding of each other via writing. It’s entirely possible my previous comment is wrong. If it is, please accept my apology. I don’t mean that sarcastically or in jest. (4-18-10)

[after I jokingly posted the lyrics of "They're coming to take me away"] Again, if I’ve mischaracterized you, my apology. (4-18-10)

So you are renouncing the psychosis charge, even though you still think it is a distinct possibility and think it quite plausible, though you can't know for sure, etc.? (4-18-10)

To actually prove to you the truth of one of my statements above, I actually went back just now into my blog archive, and deleted the post in which I questioned aspects of your psychology. I doubt this will change any of the distance between us, but it at least should demonstrate to you that I meant what I said above.(4-18-10)

I appreciate that; thanks. Now I want to know if you retract and renounce it. That is two different things. You can remove a statement for a variety of reasons yet still continue to believe or suspect that the statement was true. You are still hemming and hawing and making "I'm not sure if you beat your wife or not" sorts of loaded statements. You can't have it both ways. You need to renounce the entire thing and concede that there was never any basis for it from the get-go. (4-18-10)

I actually went back and re-read my statement before I deleted it. In the comment, I questioned not determined. Those are two very different things. I can’t renounce that I said you had definite problems, because I didn’t say that. I wondered and posited if you did. I’ll renounce the statement from Edward’s blog, “nice example of your psychosis” or whatever I said. That’s the best I can do Dave. If you’d like me to say I don’t have credentials to determine your state, that’s fine. If you’d like me to renounce that I questioned your state, I wouldn’t be being honest. If you want me to concede I have no basis for my own opinion about you, I can’t do that either. My experience with you is my experience with you. (4-18-10)

Okay; thanks for those concessions and the retraction. This means that I will remove the one statement you retracted [instead, I have colored it in orange for necessary documentary purposes and noted the retraction above]. But the others will stay in the post you have cited.

In courtesy to you I will include all your qualifications and limited apologies from this thread (added tomorrow, as it is 3 AM now) [that became this present post]. That way, my readers can be treated to extensive discussion of whether in fact I am a lunatic: a thing you continue to entertain as a distinct possibility. At such time that you decide this whole line of thought and speculation is unethical and unwarranted; indefensible, please let me know (and also make a permanent public statement to undo all the public damage), and I will remove all of it.

Perhaps further reflection and the work of the Holy Spirit can bring this about. I'm delighted that any progress at all could be made, and sincerely thank you for that. You're probably getting blasted in private for even this much concession to the "evil" DA . . . it took guts to admit I was right about anything at all. This is encouraging. (4-18-10)

Dave, if any progress can be made here, you should at least admit the blatant double standards you use in which you claim victim status while at the same time mocking others. I don’t see how a person can claim the Holy Spirit is working when that same person uses such a blatantly obvious double standard. (4-18-10)

* * *
Nor will you distance yourself from [Stave] Hays saying I am "evil" and of "evil character." Is that not judging my heart? What's next? That I am damned to hell too? You object to people questioning Luther's psychological states, yet you turn around and psychoanalyze me without cause. Hence you wrote: "Perhaps the most outrageous claim from Sippo is 'Luther was a bipolar manic-depressive who was virtually psychotic during his periods of mania'" (5-29-06). In Luther's case, I have found many non-Catholic historians who agree that he suffered from serious cyclical depression [post one / post two], which is not all that different from manic-depression (I minored in psychology and majored in sociology; I know a little bit about this stuff). Erickson actually classifies him as such, and he was Jewish, not Catholic.

So Sippo's claim quite arguably has some considerable relation to truth, according to many many Luther historians, but your insult of me had no proof whatever. You cite "erratic" behavior online and some deletion of posts (I explained the latter today and it is perfectly understandable). You recognize now that the public judgment was unwarranted, which is good, progress, and commendable, yet you still seem to have the suspicion that it is true, which is scarcely less objectionable. I'm trying to make the point that saying someone is nuts or evil is completely out of bounds. The statements are made merely because someone has a theological or ethical disagreement. It's ad hominem. It has no place in any rational discussion. (4-18-10)

* * *
Do you agree with your friend [Steve] Hays saying I have an "evil character" and that I am flat-out "evil"? (4-18-10)

I don’t recall the context of Steve’s comments, but perhaps he had good reason to say what he did. You’ve posted some downright awful things over the years. I don’t keep track of them, but there have been times I’ve read your blog and wondered what motivates you to post some of the things you’ve posted. On the other hand, if I believe you actively promote a false gospel, then indeed, the work you do is not God-pleasing, at all. (4-18-10)

How about your friend David T. King's description of me as a "foul-mouthed Romanist"? Do you proudly stand by and support all those descriptions? (4-18-10)

Similarly, I’m sure Pastor King had a good reason to make that comment. (4-18-10)

* * *
The mocker strikes again by calling me “Doe”. You’ve got quite a lot of nerve to claim a Bible verse in order play the victim while you repeatedly slander and mock me. Simply stop hiding your hostility behind a Bible verse Dave. If you want to start claiming Bible verses, you better walk the walk as well. (4-18-10)

Would you prefer "viper"? I'd be glad to call you that, too, if you keep lying. And I have an impeccable precedent and role model for doing so. I do call you "Doe." You deny that I am an apologist. You deny that I am a professional apologist. You mock my research by putting that word in quotes. You mock even my "work" by habitually putting quotations around that, too, as if I don't even work now, either??!!You claim I am a pretender who takes people's money in an unethical fashion. You call me a psychotic. Certainly all of these sewer scum insults would qualify as actionable in a civil suit for defamation on the grounds of libel, were I inclined to go that route (I am not at all).

All that, and my simple use of "Doe" has you throwing a hissy-fit. Which is worse? . . . Are you so vain and prideful that you actually can't distinguish between the relative seriousness of mockery between what you do and my calling you Doe? Are you really that caught up in your disdain and condescension that you can't tell the difference? I trust that 99 out of a 100 in a random sample could tell, but you cannot. (4-18-10)

Dave, you call me names, and many others. If you want to be the victim, you need to be consistent. (4-18-10)

Of course mocking is permitted under some circumstances: lots of biblical precedent. I love sarcasm and satire and have done it for years. I was writing satirical tracts (one about the Resurrection and liberal theories about it) in the mid-80s before anyone had ever heard of Rush Limbaugh. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. I can defend what I do, and if it is excessive and I am convinced of that, I happily retract and remove it. I've done so many times. I'm not perfect. But I'm not nearly as wicked and hypocritical as you and your buddies make me out to be.

Saying publicly that someone is a lunatic is not mocking: it is downright calumny and lying. That's as different as east is from west compared to me calling you "Doe." I've never said any anti-Catholic was nuts, to my knowledge, or evil, or even insincere. I've defended James White on several occasions when he was unfairly criticized. I defended Tim Enloe when White and King were trashing him.

There is simply no comparison. Your continual methodology is to take any sharp remark I make and pretend that it is exactly as objectionable as these extreme remarks made about me, wholly apart from context and justifiability in that context. You have tried to appeal to context in defending or half-defending the remarks I object to.

But there is no justification for implying that someone is a madman or lunatic by calling him a psychotic. That goes far beyond mere contextual issues. You renounced the latter statement, I know ("psychosis"), but you continue to not grasp the gravity of making any such claim without cause in the first place. You still suspect this is the case, but you have no hard evidence for that. (4-18-10)

Again, I refer back to the distinction I made earlier when I re-read my deleted post. It wasn’t a lie. Questioning your state is not the same thing as saying “This is your state.” All your comments about me over the years, as well as the mocking names, is simply wrong as well. You have questioned my integrity and mocked my blog entries on Luther and the Reformation- in essence doing exactly what you say I’m doing. I don’t keep a score card of your insults like you do on others. (4-18-10)

Earlier today you claimed I couldn't produce any lies that you have spread about me. Yet before the day was over you have retracted your remark that I have a "psychosis." But even then you have to qualify it and won't absolutely renounce it. Whatever . . . onlookers reading this now see the sorts of things you have thrown out and they understand that it is not rational argument. It is insult, and fully intended as such. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. If I wish to, I could document your avalanche of insults again, as I did once before, but removed it along with all other papers about you. I removed all my stuff about you, save documenting your remarks that I am nuts. You continue on mocking and lying about me just about every week. And you think that will harm me? (4-18-10)

I deny that I have lied about you. I critique your research, and your abilities as a self-professed theologian/apologist. . . . I question this call. In fact, it sounds quite Protestant and Luther-esque. You are what you are because you feel you’ve been called. Has any official from Rome deemed you an apologist? (4-18-10)


See also the closely related paper:

How Anti-Catholic Apologists "Argue" and "Reason": Documentation of James Swan's Avalanche of Childish Personal Insults and Ridiculous Flat-Out Lies About Yours Truly


* * * * *

Anti-Catholic "Rhology" (Alan Maricle) Mocks Catholic Pro-Lifers and the Rosary: Says it Makes Demons "Laugh Uproariously"

"Rhology" is a pseudonym for Alan Maricle, who is from Norman, Oklahoma, and attends Trinity Baptist Church there. See evidences [one / two / three / four / five / six]

I rarely document what the anti-Catholics [i.e., those who deny that Catholicism is Christian] do anymore (I used to, quite a bit), but this was too bizarre to pass up. Rather than concentrating on the evil of abortion (he found out some Catholics dared to pray the Rosary at a death camp), this anonymous critic would rather condemn his brothers and sisters in Christ. Is it any wonder that the abortion holocaust continues unchecked, with this sort of division among Christians?:

[Title] And now, some slightly blasphemous prayers

. . . Leaving aside the question of whether the Rosary has any effect on abortion (other than making demons laugh uproariously), . . .

He links the words about the demons to this passage (his supposed prooftext):

Proverbs 28:9 (NASB) He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, Even his prayer is an abomination.

Scott Alt takes him to task:

Rhol­ogy pro­ceeds in his next para­graph to spec­u­late that the Rosary has no effect what­so­ever on abor­tion, but that it does "mak[e] demons laugh uproar­i­ously." There’s no men­tion of whether demons laugh at abor­tion itself, or the con­tin­ual re-election of Nancy Pelosi. Rhol­ogy is cer­tain, how­ever, that they are in stitches at the recita­tion of Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42–43. . . .

Catholics and Reformed Protes­tants have seri­ous dif­fer­ences, and they merit dis­cus­sion and debate. But in the con­text of our shared out­rage at the mur­der of the unborn: Rhol­ogy, let it go.

He won't. Bashing and lying about Catholics is clearly a greater priority for anti-Catholics who "reason" like Rhology than stopping the murder of preborn babies by the millions.

Elsewhere, he mocks the Rosary again: "So how many holy Rosaries does it take to get Joe Biden excommunicated?" To which I respond: "I guess, how many Protestant spontaneous prayers it takes to end legal abortion and stop the slaughter, after 55 million . . ."

If one thing is a supposed "difficulty," so is the other, far more. But that is threatening to actually be logical and fair-minded . . .

This is what Maricle / "Rhology" thinks of me, by the way:

In reality, you're a special case. You're a false teacher, and a borderline obsessive-compulsive, incorrigible, tenacious one at that. Biblically, a Christian is not to treat you like he treats the majority of lost people. Rather, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, cooing "come back to the true church" to unwitting people, some of whom follow the sweet voice and are devoured by the enemy. You are to be opposed, and that means exposing your foolish reasoning and false Gospel and "answering a fool according to his folly". May God have mercy on you.

(8-21-09, on the Boors All website, originally in the comments under this post: now safely removed, of course; fortunately, I preserved it)

A Lutheran woman in the thread referred to above, Brigitte, who is no less critical of the Rosary, but who isn't anti-Catholic, stated:

I would not say that RC does not have the gospel, as they also preach Christ and allow people to come to confession and receive absolution. 

Without missing a beat, maniacal Maricle promptly dissed her, too:

I seriously fear for your soul, Brigitte.

You see, even if a fellow Christian, a Lutheran (in the anti-Catholic's eyes) dares to disagree with the mantra of Catholics being utterly devoid of the gospel, then their soul is in distinct danger of hellfire, too, and maybe they were never "saved" to begin with (in this version of theology). Now poor feckless, ignorant Brigitte is placed in the same box that we lowly idolatrous, pagan, Pelagian, unregenerate papists are in.

[see also the corresponding Facebook post and discussion there]


* * * * *

Variant Postures for Worship and Reception of Holy Communion: the Biblical Data, and Cultural Factors

  The following comments were taken from a Facebook thread; further below, I collect a large number of related Bible verses.
* * * * *

That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, ix). The custom of placing the Sacred Particle in the mouth, rather than in the hand of the communicant, dates in Rome from the sixth, and in Gaul from the ninth century (Van der Stappen, IV, 227; cf. St. Greg., Dial., I, III, c. iii).

(Catholic Encyclopedia: "Genuflexion")

21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ.

(St. Cyril of Jerusalem [c. 313-386], Catechetical Lectures, 23:21-22)

We always did have them [altar rails] at my parish . . . it's a beautiful practice, but I don't argue that anything different is evil and wicked (since the early Church did otherwise for the first 400 years or more). "Both / and" . . .


***

One can argue cultures and situations. I agree that kneeling is generally regarded as more reverent in America, at least; I even agree (i.e., in my particular culture, at this time and place) that it is more conducive to reverence in the Mass (which is precisely why I posted this article). What can't be done, however, is trashing the Church (in what it allows) and arguing that standing to receive is intrinsically irreverent by its very nature.

*** 

The very fact that we have a diversity of rites in Catholicism shows, I think, that not all liturgical procedures, gestures, etc. need be together as a whole, but that various combinations are also possible. Or so I would argue, anyway.

As I have stated, I think it is a more reverent posture in our society, and I always do it myself at my parish, where it is the only way we receive (some in the hand, but still kneeling at the rail). I was only arguing against the legalism of saying that receiving standing and in the hand is intrinsically irreverent. Oftentimes, it can be outwardly so, in practice. I've seen it, and that is undeniable. I contend, however, that that goes back to multiple causal factors, not bodily merely posture itself. 

***

I think it's absurd to argue that one is intrinsically better than the other, because of both history and also present practice. Eastern Catholics and Orthodox stand to receive Holy Communion. Most Latin Rite Catholics now do also.

So someone wants to argue that all those people are almost automatically irreverent, while the "cream of the crop" are the ones who kneel? I think we can all agree that it comes down to the individual soul and how that soul is approaching reception of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. It always starts on the inside: in our hearts and souls and minds (Sermon on the Mount). That's infinitely more important in the scheme of things. Anyone can "go through the motions" with any kind of posture.

Occasionally I receive standing, and I know I am no less reverent then than I am when I kneel (as every week in my parish). I agree (minus any hint of "either/or" reasoning) that kneeling promotes reverence. 

***

The New Testament doesn't appear to ever mention kneeling in connection to eucharistic worship. But then, it doesn't have much at all about the early Mass.

The overall biblical data on posture and reverence, "before the Lord" or during worship, is not conclusive as to one particular posture. There are plenty of passages about kneeling or bowing (second section below),  but there are even more (taken together) concerning standing or prostration (face down to the ground). Moreover, there are even a few passages that describe someone "sitting" before God. Therefore, the Bible reflects precisely what Catholic liturgical diversity indicates: posture is not determinative in and of itself. Therefore, we can't condemn someone as less reverent or pious simply because he or she chooses to receive Holy Communion in a manner different than our own preference.
 

STANDING 
[all Bible passages RSV]


Genesis 8:22 . . . Abraham still stood before the LORD. 


Genesis 19:27 And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD;

Leviticus 9:5 . . . all the congregation drew near and stood before the LORD. 

Deuteronomy 4:10 . . . the day that you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb . . . 

Deuteronomy 10:8 At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister to him and to bless in his name, to this day. 

Deuteronomy 17:12 The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God . . . 

Deuteronomy 18:7 then he may minister in the name of the LORD his God, like all his fellow-Levites who stand to minister there before the LORD. 

Deuteronomy 29:10 You stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel,  (cf. 29:15)

1 Kings 3:15 And Solomon awoke, and behold, it was a dream. Then he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and offered up burnt offerings and peace offerings, and made a feast for all his servants.

1 Kings 8:22 Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven; 

1 Kings 19:11 And he said, "Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD." . . . 

2 Kings 23:3 And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people joined in the covenant. (cf. 2 Chr 34:31)

2 Chronicles 6:12 Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands. [in the next verse, he kneels]

2 Chronicles 20:13 Meanwhile all the men of Judah stood before the LORD, with their little ones, their wives, and their children. 

Nehemiah 9:3 And they stood up in their place and read from the book of the law of the LORD their God for a fourth of the day; for another fourth of it they made confession and worshiped the LORD their God.

Jeremiah 15:1 Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. . . .

Jeremiah 18:20 . . . Remember how I stood before thee to speak good for them, to turn away thy wrath from them.

Daniel 7:10 A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him; a thousand thousands served him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.

Judith 4:14 And Joakim the high priest and all the priests who stood before the Lord and ministered to the Lord, with their loins girded with sackcloth, offered the continual burnt offerings and the vows and freewill offerings of the people.

Romans 14:10 . . . For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; 

Revelation 8:2 Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. 

[moreover, virtually all of the priestly functions and offerings were done standing, as far as I know; see, e.g., Dt 17:12; 18:7; Jdt 4:14 above]


BOWING / KNEELING
Genesis 24:26 The man bowed his head and worshiped the LORD,

Genesis 24:48 Then I bowed my head and worshiped the LORD . . .

Exodus 4:31 And the people believed; and when they heard that the LORD had visited the people of Israel and that he had seen their affliction, they bowed their heads and worshiped.

Exodus 12:27 . . . And the people bowed their heads and worshiped.

Exodus 34:8 And Moses made haste to bow his head toward the earth, and worshiped.


1 Kings 8:54 Now as Solomon finished offering all this prayer and supplication to the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, where he had knelt with hands outstretched toward heaven; 

2 Kings 17:36 but you shall fear the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm; you shall bow yourselves to him, and to him you shall sacrifice.

1 Chronicles 29:20 Then David said to all the assembly, "Bless the LORD your God." And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads, and worshiped the LORD, and did obeisance to the king.

2 Chronicles 6:13 . . . Then he knelt upon his knees in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven;

2 Chronicles 29:29 When the offering was finished, the king and all who were present with him bowed themselves and worshiped.

Ezra 9:5 And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garments and my mantle rent, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the LORD my God,

Psalm 22:29 Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, . . .

Psalm 86:9 All the nations thou hast made shall come and bow down before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy name.

Psalm 95:6 O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!

Psalm 138:2 I bow down toward thy holy temple and give thanks to thy name for thy steadfast love and thy
faithfulness . . . 

Daniel 6:10 . . . he got down upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God . . . 

Micah 6:6 With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? . . . 

Judith 13:17 All the people were greatly astonished, and bowed down and worshiped God . . .  

Sirach 50:21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Matthew 8:2 and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean."

Matthew 9:18 While he was thus speaking to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live."

Matthew 15:25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me."

Matthew 17:14 And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him and kneeling before him said,

Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something.

Mark 1:40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, "If you will, you can make me clean." 

Mark 10:17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Luke 5:8 But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." 

Romans 14:11 . . . As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.

Ephesians 3:14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 

Philippians 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,


PROSTRATION ("FELL DOWN")

Genesis 17:3 Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him, (cf. 17:17)

Genesis 18:2 . . . When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, (cf. 19:1)

Genesis 24:52 When Abraham's servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the earth before the LORD.  

Leviticus 9:24 And fire came forth from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat upon the altar; and when all the people saw it, they shouted, and fell on their faces.  

Numbers 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face.

Deuteronomy 9:18 Then I lay prostrate before the LORD as before, forty days and forty nights . . . (cf. 9:25)

Joshua 5:14 . . . And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshiped . . .

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads.

1 Kings 18:42 . . . And Eli'jah went up to the top of Carmel; and he bowed himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees.

2 Chronicles 7:3  When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD

2 Chronicles 20:18 Then Jehosh'aphat bowed his head with his face to the ground, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell down before the LORD, worshiping the LORD.

Nehemiah 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God; and all the people answered, "Amen, Amen," lifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

Psalm 72:11 May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him!

Ezekiel 11:13 And it came to pass, while I was prophesying, that Pelati'ah the son of Benai'ah died. Then I fell down upon my face, and cried with a loud voice, and said, "Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou make a full end of the remnant of Israel?"

Judith 4:11 And all the men and women of Israel, and their children, living at Jerusalem, prostrated themselves before the temple and put ashes on their heads and spread out their sackcloth before the Lord.

Judith 6:18 Then the people fell down and worshiped God, and cried out to him,. . .

1 Maccabees 4:40 They fell face down on the ground, and sounded the signal on the trumpets, and cried out to Heaven.

2 Maccabees 3:15  The priests prostrated themselves before the altar in their priestly garments and called toward heaven. . .

2 Maccabees 13:12  When they had all joined in the same petition and had besought the merciful Lord with weeping and fasting and lying prostrate for three days without ceasing . . .

Matthew 2:11 and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. . . . 

Mark 7:25 But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet. 

Luke 5:12 While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and besought him, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." 

Luke 17:16 and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks.. . . 

John 18:6 When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. 

Acts 9:4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" (cf. 22:7; 26:14)

1 Corinthians 14:5 . . . falling on his face, he will worship God . . . 

Revelation 4:10  the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever . . .

Revelation 5:8, 14 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;. . . [14] And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Revelation 19:4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who is seated on the throne, saying, "Amen. Hallelujah!"


SITTING
Judges 20:26 Then all the people of Israel, the whole army, went up and came to Bethel and wept; they sat there before the LORD, and fasted that day until evening, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD.  

2 Samuel 7:18 Then King David went in and sat before the LORD, and said, "Who am I, O Lord GOD, and what is my house, that thou hast brought me thus far? (cf. 1 Chr 17:16)

Ezekiel 44:3 Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD . . . 

[see further discussion at the original Facebook thread]
                                                                      Related Reading:



How to Receive Communion: Tradition, Abuses, Symbolism, and Piety



Apologia For the Mass of Pope Paul VI, With Massive Historical Documentation From Catholic Tradition / Summary of Vatican II on Liturgical Reform

Counter-"Traditionalist" Argument From Liturgical Development: Method of Receiving Holy Communion 
St. Augustine's Distribution of the Eucharist Like Our Present-Day Usual Practice [Facebook]
 

Thoughts on Communion in the Hand

*****

Myths About the Murder of the Pagan Alexandrian Philosopher, Hypatia, and the Burning of the Library of Alexandria (Resources)

I just got through watching a documentary on ancient Alexandria (available for instant viewing in the Netflix collection), in which viewers were spoon-fed the same old tired myth of St. Cyril of Alexandria and a supposedly anti-knowledge, anti-learning institutional Christianity (most anxious to bring about the know-nothing "Dark Ages") being responsible for the horrifically barbarous and cruel murder of the philosopher and mathematician Hypatia (d. 415). We're also blamed for the burning of the famous Alexandrian library (said to contain the sum of knowledge of the ancient world), to boot.

This sort of revisionist history drives me nuts, because I've seen it so many times. It's dishonest, it deliberately distorts what we know, and it also perpetuates itself by ignoring atrocities and scandals of non-Christian entities. The Christians always have to be the bad guys and the wascally wascal villains; the scapegoats. We're gonna see much more of this sort of thing as secularism and anti-Christian mentalities, fed by a virulent strain of anti-Christian atheism, of growing confidence and arrogance, become more influential in society. Now we have a recent anti-Catholic movie, Agora, that is perpetuating the same nonsense.

I thought that I would, in protest, and in order to get out my indignation and counter this historical hogwash, collect some resources that tell a very different story (including three articles, notably, by a fair-minded atheist):



The Perniciously Persistent Myths of Hypatia and the Great Library (David B. Hart, First Things, 4 June 2010)

The Beauty of Reasoning: A Reexamination of Hypatia of Alexandria (Bryan J. Whitfield, The Mathematics Educator, Vol. 6, No. 1)

The Dangerous Silliness of the New Movie Agora (Fr. Robert Barron; Catholic New World, 5 May 2010; see also his comments on a video)

Fr. Robert Barron on "Agora" (Mark Shea,  National Catholic Register, 20 May 2010)

Agora-phobia: The True Story of Hypatia (Sandra Miesel, Ignatius Insight, 24 September 2010) 

Agora: An Atheist Sets the Record Straight (Steven D. Greydanus, National Catholic Register, 28 May 2010)

"Agora" and Hypatia - Hollywood Strikes Again (Tim O'Neill [atheist], Armarium Magnum, 20 May 2009)

Hypatia and "Agora" Redux (Tim O'Neill, Armarium Magnum, 30 May 2010)

A Geologist Tries History (or "Agora" and Hypatia Yet Again) (Tim O'Neill, Armarium Magnum, 18 March 2012)

Agora and the Dangerous Silliness of Really Bad film History (Sherry Waddell, Catherine of Siena Institute, 26 May 2010)
 
Honey Boo Boo, Hypatia, and David Bentley Hart (Matthew Gerken, First Things, 9 January 2013)

St. Cyril of Alexandria & Hypatia (All Along the Watchtower, 2 July 2012)

"Agora" or the Manipulation of History in Movies (Rino Cammillari, Nov. 2009)

Pagan Martyrs, Murderous Monks: Agora Hits US Shores (Nathan Schneider, Religion Dispatches, 4 June 2010)

St. Cyril and Alexandria and the Murder of Hypatia (Francis Schaefer, The Catholic University Bulletin, 1902) 

St. Cyril and Alexandria and the Murder of Hypatia (Reuben Parsons, 1893) 

Did Saint Cyril Kill Hypatia? (Catholic Bridge) 



                                                                             * * * * *

Interview Notes for My Appearance on Meet the Author with Ken Huck (Re: The Quotable Newman and The Catholic Verses)

 
I was interviewed for about 45 minutes on 1-17-13. We talked about two of my books, published by Sophia Institute Press: The Quotable Newman (Oct. 2012) and The Catholic Verses (2004). Past guest authors on this show include: David B. Currie, Amy Welborn, Marcus Grodi, Dr. Diane Moczar, Teresa Tomeo, Dr. Paul Thigpen, Kevin Lowry, Rod Bennett, Brandon Vogt, Bruce Sullivan, and many others.

You can hear the interview in an audio podcast file on the show's website (Radio Maria).
Here is the specific link for the audio. [not yet available: I'll add it as soon as it is]
Ken had sent me interview questions beforehand, allowing me to prepare extensive notes. As it turned out, the interview covered only about 60-70% of the material I had prepared (replies regarding The Catholic Verses, particularly, were greatly curtailed, due to time pressure). Thus, my notes have some usefulness on their own. We also talked about a few matters that were not included at all in the prior questions received.
The interview questions will be in blue.

* * * * *

Could you give the “five minute version” of your conversion?

I was very happy as an evangelical Protestant. I underwent a conversion to Christ in 1977 after being very nominal in my Methodist faith as a child and young teenager. I was an apologist on college campuses in the late 80s and had done a lot of street evangelism also. In the late 80s I became involved in Operation Rescue, where we would block the doors of abortion clinics in order to save the lives of babies about to be killed.

In that movement I met many committed, serious Catholics (I never really had, before), and I was most curious about the Catholic prohibition of contraception. I didn't get that. I wasn't anti-Catholic, but I thought evangelicalism was sort of the cream of the crop of Christianity, and Catholicism had some things wrong.

In early 1990 I began ecumenical discussions in my home and invited two Catholics I had met. I also met Fr. John Hardon (a major Catholic author and catechist, and saintly man -- canonization), and attended his informal catechetical meetings at the University of Detroit. After lengthy discussions, I became convinced on the contraception issue (after learning that the Anglicans were the first Christians to change the prohibition, in 1930). I thought Catholicism had the best moral theology of any Christian group.

But my big objection was infallibility, so I fought about that tooth and nail (citing liberal dissidents like Hans Küng and Joseph Döllinger). My friend suggested Cardinal Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and that pulverized all my objections. I also studied the Protestant revolt (or what's called the "Reformation") from a Catholic perspective, for the first time. So it was moral theology and history of doctrine that were the main causes. By October 1990 and many discussions and books read, I was convinced that Catholicism was the fullness of the Christian faith: the Church. [see conversion story from Surprised by Truth and a lengthier, more technical published version, emphasizing development]

Your bio says that you are a full time Catholic apologist.  I know the first time I heard the term apologist, I thought “What is he apologizing for?”  What is an apologist? 

"Apologist" means "defender" -- so a Catholic apologist defends the Catholic faith by reason, and from the Bible (my specialty). The original meaning of the word "apologist" comes from Plato's Apology (apologia in Greek), which was an account of the ancient philosopher Socrates defending himself against trumped-up charges, at his own trial. The same word is also in the Bible; e.g., 1 Peter 3:15, "stand ready to make a defense . . . " So that was the original, classical meaning. Then in modern usage it became synonymous with saying we are sorry; but it still implies some sort of explanation or defense.

Your most recent book, The Quotable Newman, is of course, about the writing of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. Can you give the listeners a sketch of his life?

Newman lived from 1801-1890. He first became famous as an Anglican preacher and writer in the 1830s at Oxford, and was and is considered one of the greatest preachers in English and one of the very greatest writers. Parochial and Plain Sermons collects in eight volumes, his preaching from this time. I include a lot of that material in my book; it's very good. He was also interested in reforming Anglicanism, and reviving more traditional "Catholic" aspects. His group of reformers was called the Oxford Movement or Tractarianism, after a series of pamphlets called Tracts for the Times . Yet he was still basically anti-Catholic.

He loved history and wrote about it; particularly about the Arian heresy of he 4th century. The Arians were like present-day Jehovah's Witnesses: they thought Jesus was created, and deny that He is God. Eventually he began to see that in the early Church Rome had always stood firm, and that the analogy to Anglicans was semi-Arianism: sort of in the middle between orthodoxy and heresy. Some historical questions of this sort eventually caused him to start questioning whether Anglicanism was the Church. Around 1843 he began studying the issue of development of doctrine: how doctrines are better understood and explained in more detail as time goes on. That was the issue that caused him to argue himself into Catholicism, and he was received in 1845, to the great shock of the whole nation.

What part did Blessed Newman play in your own conversion experience?

As I mentioned, it was his Essay on Development that explained to me how the Catholic Church could be infallible when it taught binding doctrine. Because I loved history, as Newman did, when I read that, it explained in a brilliant way how one could go from the simplicity of the early Church to the complexity of Catholic doctrine as it is today. The doctrines developed. That was the key to my conversion, because it explained the history of doctrine in a way that was perfectly plausible, and also demonstrated the infallibility of the Church throughout history. This book, then, is sort of my way of repaying the huge debt I owe to Cardinal Newman for my own conversion.

Why does Blessed John Cardinal Newman continue to be significant to Catholics as well as Christians from other faith traditions?

He's very important in many ways. His early sermons and writings as an Anglican are excellent, and continue to be admired by Anglicans. His conversion is said to be one of the more notable ones since St. Augustine. In the 1860s he was falsely accused of misrepresenting his story and playing fast and loose with the truth, and decided to write an explanation of his life and conversion, called the Apologia pro vita Sua . He won over the English public as a result and was very highly respected thereafter.

Just how extensive are the writings of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman?

He wrote about 50 books on many different topics. There is also a multi-volume collection now of his correspondence. I have a couple complete shelves (about ten feet in length) of his own works in my library.

Did you read everything?

I have a technique that I call "heavily skimming": sort of a cross between speed-reading and skimming a book. I went through virtually all of his books about theology and several volumes of correspondence (that I could obtain); also some biographical works. The number of sources I list in my book adds up to 51 books altogether. I think it was the most enjoyable reading I've ever done in my life. Pure joy!

Tell us about how the book is organized?

It has 123 topics, with the focus overwhelmingly on theology. They're arranged alphabetically, then within each section, the citations are arranged chronologically, so the reader can see how his thought developed through the years. This is especially important in the section on his conversion, which runs 34 pages in the book. I think this may be one of the most unique or useful parts of the book: to follow that whole train of thought: how he changed his mind. It's actually more so, what is called a "Reader" -- because Newman writes in very long sentences. So the excerpts are generally longer, as compared to my collection of Chesterton quotes, where each was one sentence long.

In your book, some of the sections are just a few sentences, and on other topics you have extensive quotes. Tell us about some of the areas of theology he is most famous for addressing?

In addition to his historical works and Essay on Development, he wrote about education ( The Idea of a University ) and is very influential there; also a very sophisticated and thought-provoking treatment of philosophy of religion (a book called Essay on the Grammar of Assent ). He wrote importantly about the religious conscience, and was a great advocate of more lay participation: anticipating Vatican II by over a hundred years. He's a fabulous thinker, who would stimulate anyone who read his works.

The book has 12 pages on Anglicanism, 12 on apologetics, 20 pages of quotes on development of doctrine, nine on theological liberalism, 34 on various aspects of Mariology, 18 on papal infallibility, nine on the Bible. Those are some of the more extensive topics.

If I could read just one quote (from the Essay on Development):

. . . whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.  . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
The last clause is probably the single most famous quotation, that is often seen online. And that literally happened in my life. I read his book, and it was over. I felt that if I were true to Church history, I had to become a Catholic.

* * * * *

 
TheCatholic Verses – 95 Bible Passages that Confound Protestants

You had a little fun with the subtitle.  Why 95 Bible passages?

That goes back to the 95 Theses of Luther, that he tacked up on the door of the Church, to begin the so-called "Reformation." So that was my way -- in my usual provocative manner -- of sort of being "in your face" to my Protestant friends: "here's 95 Bible passages!" I actually discussed the subtitle with my editor; originally it had "ignore" in it, I think, but I argued that that was too strong, and we used "confound" -- which is more accurate, I think. Titles are very important.

You cover 16 common topics that tend to separate Catholics from other Christian traditions.  For example, chapter one is on the nature of “the Church”  and you start with the verse 1 Timothy 3:15, that describes the Church as "the pillar and bulwark of the truth". How do Catholics look at this verse compared to Protestants?

The way I contended in the book, and how Catholics generally would look at it, is as a proof of infallibility or the strong authority of the Church. I wrote a lengthy paper about this, separately from the book. If we analyze it logically, if the Church is the very "pillar" or support of truth, then obviously, this is profound authority. Most Protestants don't view it that way. But there it is: right in the Bible. I note that John Calvin uses the verse to run down the Catholic Church, since he thought it contained so much error, and then argued for an invisible church as an alternative. But that doesn't fly. It's eisegesis: reading things into the Bible, rather than exegesis: reading things out of the Bible. Paul is talking about an institutional, historical Church that one can point to and identify.

There are two major pillars of Protestant theology - sola scriptura and sola fide.  Tell the listeners about what these terms mean?

These are Latin terms, of course. Sola Scriptura (meaning, "Bible alone" or "Bible only") is the belief that the Bible is the only infallible authority in Christianity. It doesn't mean "only authority, period." We must get our definitions accurate when critiquing Protestantism. It denies the infallibility of Church and tradition. But of course, the Bible has to be interpreted: that's the catch. I've written two books just on this topic. My book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura was published by Catholic Answers last May. [see the second one, too]

Sola fide means, literally, "faith alone": the Protestant belief that works are technically separate from salvation or justification, and placed in a separate category of sanctification. We're saved by grace through faith alone, in their view. In practice, "faith alone" is usually used by Protestants in the sense of "saved by grace alone" (or, sola gratia). We entirely agree with them on that, but many Protestants don't realize this and accuse us of believing in salvation by works, or what is called the heresy of Pelagianism, that St. Augustine fought so vigorously.

What are some of verses that a Catholic would point to, to make the case that sola scriptura isn’t valid or biblical?

One of my favorites, that I also have in the first chapter, is Acts 15, about the Jerusalem Council. The Council made a decree about how Christians should interpret aspects of the Mosaic law, declaring, "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us" (Acts 15:28). This is precisely how Catholics view ecumenical councils: led by the Holy Spirit. In Acts 16:4, we learn that Paul went around declaring the decision, "for observance".

In chapter three, I mention the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-31), who said, "how can I [understand the Scripture] unless someone guides me?" Also, there is Nehemiah 8:8: "they read from the book . . . and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading." I cite Paul's casual assumption that tradition is binding on Christians: he says: "maintain the traditions" (1 Cor 11:2), "hold to the traditions" (2 Thess 2:15), to keep away from those who differ from the tradition that he gave to them (2 Thess 3:6).

What about sola fide?

An obvious one, that I presented was James 2:24: "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." That pretty much sums it up! He's not proclaiming salvation by works, which is clear in context, but he's denying faith alone: separating the works entirely from it. I mention the rich young rule (Luke 18), where the man asked Jesus how he could be saved. Jesus mentioned many of the Ten Commandments and he said that he observed those. Then he told him to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. Not a word about "believe in Me by faith alone!"

There is Philippians 2:12-13: "work out your own salvation; for God is at work in you . . ." Paul makes it a joint effort. God always has to give the necessary grace, but we work with Him; so it says in 1 Corinthians 3:9: "we are God's fellow workers" and in 2 Corinthians 6:1: "working together with him". Paul puts it together in 1 Corinthians 15:10: "I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me." Catholics, following Paul, refuse to separate the works that flow from grace and faith. They are part of the process of salvation; but always caused by grace.

I also write in Chapter Six about how virtually all passages about the last judgment discuss works and not faith at all. I have found 50 of these actually (bit not all those are in the book). This is very striking, and not what one would expect to find, by Protestant assumptions.

What would a Protestant say about the part “good works” play in our salvation?  What would a Catholic say?

Protestants teach that good works are necessary in the Christian life, as the manifestation of an authentic, genuine faith, but they separate them from salvation altogether, putting grace and faith under the category of justification and works under the category of sanctification: technically separated from justification and salvation. Catholics say that faith and works are two sides of the same coin, as James makes very clear, and also Paul, in many passages, such as the examples I just gave. We don't separate justification and sanctification like Protestants do.  

What are some of the other verses that “confound Protestants”?

My favorite is 2 Timothy 1:16-18, where Paul prays for a dead man, Onesiphorus. He says, "May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus . . . may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day . . ."

It's fascinating to see what Protestants do with that, because they are taught that prayer for the dead is impermissible, and makes no sense. I note how some Protestants accept it, citing C. S. Lewis. Lutherans pray for the dead. But for Calvinists and other Protestants, it's a big no-no.

So I show what some famous historic Protestant commentators do with this. They had to either deny that Onesipherous was dead, or that Paul was praying. If they denied that he was dead, then they admitted that Paul prayed. If they thought he was dead, then they would play games with Paul's prayer, saying it was a "wish" or a "pious wish." This is what is called eisegesis, or reading into Scripture.

Another great favorite of mine is 1 Corinthians 15:29, that refers to "being baptized on behalf of the dead." I call it "the most 'un-Protestant' verse in the Bible." Protestant commentators literally have no clue what to do with this, and it's fairly mysterious for Catholics, too. I offer an interpretation that St. Francis de Sales gave, where he argued that "baptism" here was used metaphorically, in the sense of affliction and penance on behalf of others ("baptism of fire," etc.). He thinks the passage is referring to praying and fasting and doing penance for the dead, since there seems to be a close connection of this passage to 2 Maccabees 12:44: "it is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again."

Very "Catholic" stuff!

Tell us a little about a couple of your other books that our listeners could find useful for helping them in their faith.

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (my first book, written in 1996) is probably my most well-known. It is the most "catechetical" of my books, but it's still apologetics. The One-Minute Apologist is sort of a shorter, capsulized version of the same thing: biblical support for Catholic doctrines. Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths simply collects Scripture passages on many distinctive aspects of the Catholic faith. It's sort of a Catholic version of Nave's Topical Bible: a reference source I have used for years. I have 35 books in all, on all the major aspects of Catholic theology and apologetics. If you go to biblicalcatholic.com (my blog), on the very top of the sidebar is an icon link to my main books page, that has all my books and direct links to various ways to buy them: Amazon Kindle, pdf, ePub, Nook Book, iTunes, and paperback.

What are you working on now?

I'm doing two more quotations books: The Quotable Summa Theologica and The Quotable Aquinas . I'm enjoying it very much! This is sort of a second specialty of mine now: quotations books. I've also done collections of John Wesley, Chesterton, the Church fathers, St. Augustine, and great historic apologists. These are easy because it's mostly cut-and-paste rather than typing.

Your website is massive; what can listeners find on your site?  

It has over 50 separate web pages, and nearly 2,500 posts. I deal with all the major areas of Catholic theology, have pages about C. S. Lewis, Chesterton, Newman, ethical and life issues, conversion, romantic and imaginative theology, anti-Catholicism; Calvinism and Lutheranism, Luther and Calvin, philosophy, science, apologetic techniques and methods, atheism; you name it! I've been working continuously on these writings since I started a website in February 1997 and have been a full-time apologist and author for over 11 years now, so I need to sell books to make a living!

It's biblicalcatholic.com. I also have Facebook and Twitter pages.


* * * * *