Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 60

Humorous Interlude at the Anti-Catholic Boors All Blog

John Q. "Deadhead" Doe, who runs the farcical Boors All site, has had a policy for some time now, of not allowing me to comment or to even be mentioned on his site, after he decided I was literally mentally ill, and after my pointing out repeatedly that he has been obsessed with my work for several years now, despite the fact that he has maintained that I am not to be taken seriously in the least, as demonstrated by (last time I checked) no less than 98 posts about me. His insults through the years are as numerous as the sands on every seashore in the world.

Doe plays games where I am concerned, to such a ludicrous and amusing extent that he even does "book reviews" of some of my books without mentioning my name! :-) In any event, Doe habitually deletes any comment I dare to make on his blog and most mentions of my name even by others.

So today I decided to have a little fun. How else does one (or can one) approach such patent silliness as this, anyway?

My Calvinist friend "Pilgrimsarbour" cited my (dreaded, detested, despised!) name and my words from a personal letter of today (with my permission) in a combox comment on Boors All. An hour and fifty minutes later I posted the following:

Dontcha know, PA, that it is not ever allowed for me to even be mentioned here? :-) I'm persona non grata.

Doe himself chimed in 27 minutes after that (8:48 PM) and I counter-replied at 11:29 PM). Here is the humorous exchange (Doe's words in blue):

What would your priest say if I told him you vowed not to visit here, but you still post comments here?

I would tell him what I've told you and your truth-challenged cronies for several years now (obviously to no avail): that the only vow I've ever made in my life was at my marriage.

What would your priest say if I told him you know that your comments will be deleted and are not wanted, but you post them anyway?

He would say, "what's he talking about, since he is sitting there replying to your post that he allowed to remain posted?!" LOL He would say, "why did he not simply delete them rather than contradict himself? Perhaps it is a pride problem . . ."

I was providing a helpful service and reminder to PA: that my name is not allowed to be mentioned here. I discovered it before the watchdogs and moral police who people this site could hop in and delete it; so I did my duty to inform him of your cowardly rule.

Come to think of it, this is probably the most intelligent replies to my work that Doe has ever made in the nine years I have had the distinct pleasure to have known him . . .

* * *

By the next morning, my two comments were, of course, deleted. Doe was, however, gracious enough out of the goodness of his heart, to let my name remain where someone else mentioned it (which is bending his past stated rules). Same old same old with Doe . . .

Dishonest, Illogical Sleight-of-Hand (From Anti-Catholics TAO and Ken Temple) in the Accusation of Alleged Catholic Idolatrous Worship at Mass

The profoundly ignorant (and equally bigoted) anti-Catholic zealot TAO ("The Anonymous One") recently wrote:

Men love idols. We can see this throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. . . . The Israelites are repeatedly warned against the dangers of idolatry . . . The New Testament likewise describes the pagan fondness for idolatry . . . It's a huge temptation, and the religion of Rome is rife with it. For example, the bread and wine are worshiped as though they are God . . . It seems reasonable to conclude that people who join Rome, join it because they love its idolatry. They are not filled with a righteous indignation at this abominable practice, but instead find it alluring.

Baptist missionary pastor and fellow anti-Catholic Ken Temple concurred in the combox:

I think you are right on in that men love their idols, but they would never admit that is idolatry. They are deceived.

Ken also wrote at the notoriously clueless Boors All forum:

. . . the sinful heart of humans, as Calvin said, "is an idol factory", . . . the sinful heart of man loves idols and clings to them, but the man is decieved [sic] and thinks, "I am not an idolater", but in reality they are. . . . They want something they can control. Aaron said to the children of Israel, "behold (the golden calf) this is your god, who brought you up from the land of Egypt" (you can see and touch and feel him now) . . . being able to feel and touch and see the relics and statues and icons and other "devotional helps" is really idolatry; but the RC or former Protestant doesn't see it; he or she is deceived. Officially, they say "no"; but in reality, they are involved in idolatry with worshiping the bread and wine and prayers to Mary, etc.

Idolatry in its scope goes far beyond appearances and physical things as well. This is the very fact that the anti-Catholics don't grasp, even though it is made crystal-clear in the Bible. There are many idols that are immaterial: greed, pride, self-importance, desire for power or fame, etc. Anything that replaces God is an idol.

The incarnation explicitly associates God with a physical thing: human flesh. That is the heart and origin of the sacramentalism that developed as a result of it. But God didn't completely dissociate Himself from the physical even in the Old Testament. There were still many theophanies where He took on the appearance of a man (Gen 18:1-4, 13, 17, 22; Ex 24:10-11; Jud 6:12-23; 13:21-22; Josh 5:14-15).

When He appeared in the pillars of fire and smoke (Ex 13:21-22), the burning bush (Ex 3:2-6, 14, 16), the cloud and fire of Mt. Sinai (Ex 24:16-18), and the Shekinah glory cloud (Ex 40:34-38), those things were physical. He also said that people couldn't see His face, but could see His "back" (Ex 33:23 [RSV]: "then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen.").

So it wasn't absolute. Jacob wrestled with "a man" and then the "man" said: "you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." Afterwards, Jacob stated: "I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved." This is all before the incarnation: quite physical manifestations of God (Gen 32:24-30). Then in Genesis 35:9 it says that "God appeared [not just spoke] to Jacob again . . ."

Thus, the anti-Catholics are dead-wrong about God and the physical, too. Nor were all physical things forbidden even in the context of worship, since the Jews bowed before the ark of the covenant or the temple when they prayed. This is use of a physical image in the context of worship and prayer. And God was particularly present in proximity to physical objects: the mercy seat on the ark in the holy of holies in the tabernacle or temple, and the holy mountain, etc.

TAO then chimed in with another astonishingly stupid remark (i.e., for someone supposedly so acquainted with the Bible, and therefore, presumably what it teaches about the definition of idolatry):

A. Is what they do idolatry?

B. Do they love what they do?

And also again:

Moreover, they clearly ascribe divinity to and worship as God the bread in the Eucharist (first commandment idolatry). . . . if they really loathed the idolatry of the mass, they wouldn't go to mass.

And again (now asking fellow Calvinist -- bit not fellow anti-Catholic -- "Pilgrimsarbour" questions):

So, let me ask you this more narrowly:

A. Is it the sin of idolatry to worship a piece of bread as though it is God?

B. Do Romanists do that?

I have refuted the idolatry argument before, many times. Here is my argument in a nutshell (and I think it is a very strong, in fact, compelling one):


1) Idolatry is by definition an internal phenomenon: God has been replaced with something else in one's heart and allegiance.

2) Catholics are not replacing God with anything else at the Mass, since we believe that the bread and wine are no longer there.

3) We are worshiping God at Mass, not bread and wine, by the very definition of transubstantiation (itself a doctrine so maligned and despised by many non-Catholic Christians).

4) If anyone (I speak rhetorically) is confusing bread and wine with God, it is Lutheranism, since they think that both are literally present together after consecration. But they, too, would say they worship God, not bread and wine, and thus, are unfairly accused of idolatry (though Calvin accused Luther and Lutherans of precisely that).


See the many related earlier papers of mine (especially the first three):

Why the Catholic Mass Can't Possibly be Idolatrous: Quick Proof

On the Nature of Idolatry and Whether it Resides Primarily in the Heart

Is Transubstantiation Idolatry?

Is the Mass Equivalent to Golden Calf Worship?

Dialogue With Tim Gallant on Whether the Mass is Similar to Jeroboam's Idolatry (vs. Tim Gallant)

Dialogue on Current Evangelical Anti-Catholicism, Whether Luther & Calvin Were Anti-Catholics, & on the Mass (is it a Christian Service?) (vs. Tim Enloe)

Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue #3: Comparative Ecclesiology / Grace & Merit / Lutheran View of the Mass Compared to the Catholic View of Lutheran Worship

Is Lutheranism Officially Anti-Catholic (The Book of Concord and the Catholic Mass)? (vs. "BWL")

TAO and Ken want to have it both ways. It's a sleight-of-hand, and intellectually dishonest (as a result of their anti-Catholic bias, of course). Martin Luther is not accused of idolatry by these guys (even though their hero Calvin accused him of it) for believing in the Real Presence (consubstantiation). Only Catholics receive this criticism. Luther expressly condoned crucifixes, images, and statues, but I don't see Ken and TAO excoriating him in lengthy posts decrying how "idolatrous" the founder of Protestantism (their own brand of Christianity) was. I've even demonstrated that, by his own (anti-biblical, anti-historical) anti-sacramental criteria, Bishop James White's "logic" requires him to deny that Martin Luther and St. Augustine were Christians at all.

Lutherans and high-church Anglicans (and some Methodists and a few groups such as Church of Christ) are not accused by these same hard-line Calvinists of making an idol of water because they all believe that the water of baptism truly regenerates: actually does something in baptism. Granted, no one is saying that anyone consciously worships water, but it is analogous insofar as a physical item is believed to convey the grace of God in some fashion (in other words, the traditional definition of sacrament: physical means to obtain grace, which regenerating baptism holds in common with the Eucharist).

Folks who argue in this fashion neglect premise #1 above, which is fundamental to any discussion of idolatry. Because Protestants don't think the bread and wine transubstantiate, then for them, of course, bread and wine are all that is present. But we don't believe that. Therefore, though it is thought that we are utterly mistaken as to the fact of what takes place or doesn't at Mass, it doesn't follow that it is idolatry, since that is an interior matter, and we think the elements change. That is why we are not by any stretch of the imagination worshiping bread and wine, which would be at once an absurd, outrageous, ridiculous, and idolatrous thing.

TAO can't use his opinion of what takes place at Mass and then in effect accuse us of believing as he does, and then accuse us of idolatry. This is a dishonest bait-and-switch, but since it is a dumb argument used now for almost 500 years, no one ever stops to consider how fundamentally silly and illogical it is. There are only so many logical possibilities:


1) The bread and wine remain that after the consecration at Mass (Protestant position).

2) The bread and wine are transformed into the literal Body and Blood of Christ after consecration (Catholic transubstantiation).

3) Catholics (supposedly) believe that the bread and wine remain after consecration and then proceed to idolatrously worship mere created elements as if they were God.


See how it works? #3 is a polemically self-serving but ultimately dishonest mixing of #1 and #2: The Protestant belief as to what happens at a Catholic Mass is smuggled into the worship scenario with a Catholic, as if the Catholic believes the same (internally) as the Protestant. The Catholic is then accused of gross idolatry: bread- and wine-worship. It would clearly be idolatry if that actually was our belief, but since it clearly is not, idolatry is not taking place at all, even by Protestant criteria, because we are consciously worshiping God .

By the same token, Catholics deny Anglican and Lutheran consecration (folks who also believe in the Real Presence in some sense). It doesn't follow that we accuse them of idolatry in every service (whereas the Lutheran confessions ludicrously call the Mass "Baal-worship"), because no consecration has occurred in fact (as we would say, because of a lack of proper ordination, based on apostolic succession).

We believe that their reverence is good in and of itself, even if there is a theological / metaphysical mistake entailed. We think they are "wrong for the right reasons" and that their reverence is good (while they are mistaken on actual facts). But Catholics are accorded no such good faith by the tiny fringe wing of anti-Catholic Protestants.

We must stick to the biblical definitions of things. The same is done to the gospel itself in anti-Catholic circles. It is redefined in a non-biblical fashion (by being arbitrarily collapsed into Faith Alone or TULIP) and then it is stated that we deny it. But if it is defined as the Bible itself defines it, then clearly Catholics accept the biblical gospel just as much as Protestants do. The same applies to idolatry, and what it actually is, according to the Bible.

In conclusion, I would reiterate that the very last thing that any Catholic who knows his faith believes is that bread and wine are God. Transubstantiation (Catholic infallible, binding dogma) means that only the appearance (or "accidents") of bread and wine remain after consecration, but not the substance of bread and wine. This is a completely different notion from idolatry as defined and condemned in Holy Scripture.

The idolaters described there actually believed that inanimate created objects were gods other than the one God of Israel: creator of heaven and earth. And they worshiped the created matter as God (or gods):

Genesis 31:34-35 Now Rachel had taken the household gods and put them in the camel's saddle, and sat upon them. Laban felt all about the tent, but did not find them. [35] And she said to her father, "Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise before you, for the way of women is upon me." So he searched, but did not find the household gods. (cf. 31:19, 30, 32)

Genesis 35:4 So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that they had, and the rings that were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem.

(Jacob had just wrestled with a being described as "God" -- as reported in Gen 32:24-30; and in Genesis 35:9 it says that "God appeared [not just spoke] to Jacob again . . ." so the objection is not to any visible representation of God whatever, but to making an idol of wood or stone and ridiculously pretending that it was God and worshiping it)

Exodus 20:23 You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold.

Exodus 32:1 When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, "Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; . . .

(again, in contrast, God did not absolutely prohibit an image of Himself, since He Himself appeared in the pillar of fire and cloud and the burning bush and in theophanies as a man, and eventually in becoming a man Himself in the incarnation)

Exodus 32:31 So Moses returned to the LORD and said, "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold.

Exodus 34:17 You shall make for yourself no molten gods.

Leviticus 19:4 (RSV) Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 4:28 And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men's hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

Deuteronomy 7:25 The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire . . .

Deuteronomy 12:3 . . . you shall hew down the graven images of their gods, . . .

Deuteronomy 28:36 . . . there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone. (cf. 28:64)

2 Kings 17:29 But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines . . .

2 Kings 19:18 and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone; therefore they were destroyed. (cf. 22:17)

1 Chronicles 16:26 For all the gods of the peoples are idols; but the LORD made the heavens. (cf. Ps 96:5)

2 Chronicles 13:8 . . . the golden calves which Jerobo'am made you for gods.

2 Chronicles 24:18 And they forsook the house of the LORD, the God of their fathers, and served the Ashe'rim and the idols. . . .

2 Chronicles 33:15 And he took away the foreign gods and the idol from the house of the LORD, . . .

Isaiah 42:17 They shall be turned back and utterly put to shame, who trust in graven images, who say to molten images, "You are our gods."

Isaiah 44:17 And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol; and falls down to it and worships it; he prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for thou art my god!"

Wisdom 15:15 For they thought that all their heathen idols were gods, . . .

Acts 7:40-41 saying to Aaron, `Make for us gods to go before us; as for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.' [41] And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and rejoiced in the works of their hands.

[see also 2 Chron 32:19; 34:25; Is 21:9; 37:19; Jer 1:16; 2:28; 16:20; Dan 3:12, 14, 18; 5:4, 23; Nah 1:14; Acts 19:26]

Thus we see that scriptural idolatry (where it concerns physical idols) is a process whereby a man fashions an item out of physical materials and actually believes it to be a god: and a god other than the one true God revealed in Holy Scripture.

In the Catholic view, on the other hand, no man has the power in and of himself to transform bread and wine to being no longer bread and wine, but rather, the God of Israel, the God of the covenant and the Old Testament, of Abraham and Moses and David and the prophets performs that miracle. God sanctioned that state of affairs when He held bread and wine in His hands and said to His disciples at the Last Supper, "This is My Body".

TAO and Ken Temple can argue with our Lord Jesus Christ if they wish, and contend that they know better than God Himself how He ought to present Himself to His worshipers. They can also be like the disciples described in the John 6 discourse who forsook Jesus because they couldn't accept the fact that He said they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to be saved and have life in them. Jesus said that is the way it was: that bread and wine would somehow become His Body and Blood, and this would be for the salvation of the recipients. TAO and Ken Temple think Jesus was lying and that they know better than our Lord. Readers may make their choice.

Meat and Penitential Abstinence on Fridays: a "Doctrinal" Matter? Dialogue With Calvinist Pilgrimsarbour

My friend "Pilgrimsarbor" was commenting on the anti-Catholic Reformed Apologist site, in the combox for the post, "Carl Trueman & A Need For A Contemporary Polemic Against Romanism". I responded there and, of course, had to preserve it on my blog, since there is never any guarantee that anti-Catholics won't delete contributions from lowly despised "Romanists" like myself. "Pilgrimsarbor"'s words will be in blue.

* * *

Regarding a need for a contemporary polemic against Romanism, as much as my Catholic friends would protest, things do and have changed within that communion. If certain practices have changed, for example, not eating meat on Fridays, there would have to be a constituent doctrinal basis for the change, wouldn't that be true? . . .

Well, as I said, what is the doctrine that dictates that one should not eat meat on Friday?

It's not a doctrine at all. It is simply a penitential requirement that once held and has now been relaxed. It would be like a Protestant pastor requiring all his congregants to attend a Wednesday night Bible study, and then later saying they were no longer required to do so. No doctrine is involved. It is strictly a practice of one's faith.

My point is, since that practice has changed, doesn't it follow that the doctrine which gives birth to that practice has changed?

Not at all. Fasting, for example, is a quite explicitly biblical concept. Jesus did it, Paul did it, and we are to imitate them. Therefore, various Christian belief-systems might develop various ways to implement a program for fasting, especially if they observe Lent (Anglicans, Methodists; I believe Lutherans also). How is that doctrinal? No doctrine is involved whatever. Same thing for us "Romanists."

I realize that a Catholic would not call it a change in doctrine, but it must be so nonetheless.

Really? Why "must" it be? What is so difficult about the distinction between religious practice and doctrine? An example of another Protestant practice would be the "altar call." In some circles (evangelical, Baptist, pentecostal: and I have been part of all of these) this is a virtual requirement in order to be "saved."

But it may not be so in other contexts (Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.). All these groups believe in salvation by grace alone (as do we). But the practice is different. But that is already more "doctrinal" than abstaining from meat.

I should also note, however, that the underlying, presuppositional requirement to practice some sort of penance on Fridays has not changed: only the specific requirement of no meat has been relaxed.

It is a binding discipline, to practice penance on Fridays. Disciplines are practices (usually devotional or contemplative in nature) recommended or required by the Church, as opposed to doctrines and dogmas that have to do with theological belief. If one doesn't abstain from meat it is required that they practice some form of penance. I myself abstain from meat (well, in my case, poultry, since I don't eat red meat), since it is easy to remember, and was the traditional abstinence requirement.

Or perhaps, they would say that it was not infallible dogma.

Of course it is not. It's not even a doctrinal matter, let alone dogmatic, or a question of infallibility. The celibacy of priests in the Latin rites is a similar example. That's not doctrinal either. It is a disciplinary requirement that doesn't even apply to non-Roman rite Eastern Catholics, based on 1 Corinthians 7 (the single person can be more devoted to God, since there are not divided allegiances with family) and Jesus' noting that there are voluntary eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.

To deny that, for example, the RCC practice of not eating meat on Friday had no doctrinal basis is, to me, unfathomable.

Hopefully, it is fathomable after you read this. This is not rocket science.

All church discipline and practice, no matter what it is and from whom, has a doctrinal basis.

In an indirect sense, it would have to do with Christ's work on the cross and the atonement and redemption on our behalf, since we observe it in the first place to recall Good Friday. If that is what you mean by it having a "doctrinal basis" then we agree. But the practice itself is not "doctrinal."

Having said that, I still think "changing doctrines" is not the point as much as perhaps changing emphases.

Better, but changing requirements and the range of practices for the same penitential notion is more accurate.

* * *

Further related reading:

Friday as a Required Day of Penance (Not Necessarily Abstinence From Meat) in the United States: a Clarification

***

Limitations of Christ's Knowledge? Some Proposed, Supposed Exegetical "Difficulties" Examined

An inquiry was made about the following matters. I replied as best I could, utilizing some good commentaries and one excellent book on the various types of biblical literature and ancient Hebrew literary techniques. Bible passages are in RSV.

* * *

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Did Jesus make a mistake here? I don't think so. I'm inclined to agree with the great Flemish Jesuit exegete Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637). In his Great Commentary he interprets this reference as referring to the Transfiguration, and writes:

Some think that it was to take place at the resurrection, and in
the day of judgment, of which Christ spake in the preceding
verse. But I say it took place in the Transfiguration of
Christ. For in it they beheld Christ's glorious kingdom as
in a glass. Three of the Apostles, namely, Peter, James,
and John, had a foretaste of this kingdom. This view is
plain from what follows. All the three Evangelists who
relate the Transfiguration, place it immediately after this
promise, as though it were the fulfilment of it. Thus SS.
Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, Theophylact, and
others, passim. Whence St. Leo says (de Transfig.). In the
kingdom, that is in royal splendour. For in His Transfiguration
Christ gave to His Apostles a specimen of the glory,
the joy and the happiness which the Saints shall obtain in
the Heavenly Kingdom, that He might thereby animate
them to Evangelical labours and sorrows, and that they
might animate others to the same.

A likely cross-reference (many thanks to Nick in the combox below), to cast further light on this saying of Jesus, is the following:

2 Peter 1:16-18 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. [17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," [18] we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

Here's another similar instance of this sort:

Mark 13:2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

It is argued by some that the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem (a remnant of Herod's Temple) disproves this prophecy, since it has many stones on top of each other.

I would say here that such statements need not (and should not) be taken literally at all, since exaggeration or hyperbole to stress a point is very common in Scripture. Literal intent is often not intended in the first place, and this was understood in the culture. Jesus was simply saying that great destruction was to happen in Jerusalem, and even (unthinkably!) that the temple itself would be destroyed. In order to drive the point home dramatically, He said "not one stone would be left on another," rather than saying, "just one wall would be left."

Another example would be when He referred to faith being able to move a mountain (Matt 17:20; 21:21; Mk 11:23; cf. St. Paul: 1 Cor 13:2). Relentless literalism in expression and interpretation is far more a function of post-Enlightenment rationalism than ancient Jewish thinking. Unfortunately, we often extrapolate our uniquely modern methods and premises anachronistically back to the Bible. This would be a case of that, in my opinion. So it has to do, I believe, with how descriptive language was used and understood in that culture.

Hyperbole in the Bible is extremely common (and that is no exaggeration!). No one need take my word on that alone. In the book, The Bible as Literature: An Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 1990: another one-cent used book on amazon!), co-authors and English professors John B. Gabel and Charles B. Wheeler provide many examples on pages 22-24:

1) Abraham's descendants will be "countless as the dust of the earth" (Gen 13:16).

2) The same are described as "numerous as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the sea-shore" (Gen 22:17).

3) The authors state (pp. 22-23), "That such phrases were conventional devices is shown by their appearance in other contexts, for example, . . .":

A) Genesis 41:49 And Joseph stored up grain in great abundance, like the sand of the sea, until he ceased to measure it, for it could not be measured.

B) Joshua 11:4 And they came out, with all their troops, a great host, in number like the sand that is upon the seashore, with very many horses and chariots.

C) 1 Samuel 13:5 And the Philistines mustered to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and troops like the sand on the seashore in multitude; . . .

D) 2 Samuel 17:11 But my counsel is that all Israel be gathered to you, from Dan to Beer-sheba, as the sand by the sea for multitude, . . .

4) "The adjective 'all' is frequently used to express similar conventional hyperbole" (p. 23). The authors give as examples of this, 2 Sam 3:37; 1 Kgs 18:19, and 2 Sam 16:22.

5) Examples of exaggeration in description of military exploits occur in passages such as Judges 6:5: "For they would come up with their cattle and their tents, coming like locusts for number; both they and their camels could not be counted;. . ."

6) "Hyperbole reaches its climax in the narrative portions of Daniel and the entire book of Esther; in both of these, hyperbole is so constant that it can no longer be regarded as merely a device: It must be seen as an intrinsic part of the author's conception of his subject" (pp. 23-24). Examples given are the furnace heated to seven times its usual heat (Dan 3:19) and a 75-foot high gallows (Est 5:14).

7) Three examples from Jesus Himself are also provided:

A) Matthew 23:23-24 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. [24] You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

B) Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

C) Matthew 18:8-9 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. [9] And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Can we say that such instances as those above have to do with the Two Natures of Jesus (Divine and Human), and the limitation of the latter? Jesus, for example, appears to state that He did not know the exact day of the final Judgment:

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Mark 13:32 But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

I don't believe that explanation applies to the first two instances, dealt with above, because then it would be a case of His positively uttering errors of fact, which could not happen (since He knew all things in His Divine Nature). I think both are plausibly explained in the above manner: the first having to do with a particular sense of "kingdom" and a manifestation of Jesus' "coming" in some sort of extraordinary glorified fashion, and the second with Hebrew linguistic conventions.

Not knowing the day or hour, on the other hand, is indeed arguably an instance of His specifically referring to His Human Nature (and even that in one limited, specific sense). But even so, He knew it in His Divine Nature. I would say it is the distinction between stating a falsehood and the limitations of human nature, even for the Son of God (the incarnation being a "lowering" in certain ways: cf. Heb 2:7, 9). He could express the latter because it doesn't contradict what He knows as God the Son, whereas the former (stating a demonstrable error) would be a contradiction to the Hypostatic Union, since it would go against His knowing all things (as He does) in His Divine Nature. The Two Natures of Jesus preclude His uttering an error.

That's how I understand it, anyway. I don't claim to be any sort of expert on fine points of Christology such as this. Another option is expressed by some of the fathers:

JEROME: Having then shewn that the Son of God cannot
be ignorant of the day of the consummation, we must
now show a cause why He should be said to be ignorant.
When after the resurrection He is demanded concerning
this day by the Apostles, He answers more openly; "It is
not for you to know the times or the seasons which the
Father has put in his own power." [Acts 1:7] Wherein He
shews that Himself knows, but that it was not expedient
for the Apostles to know, that being in uncertainty of
the coming of their Judge, they should live every day as
though they were to be judged that day.

AUGUSTINE, de Trin., i, 12: When He says here,
"Knows not," He means, 'makes others not to know;' i.e.
He knew not then, so as to tell His disciples; as it was said
to Abraham, "Now I know that thou fearest God;" [Gen
22:19] i.e. 'Now have I caused that thou shouldest know,'
because by the temptation he came to know himself.

AUGUSTINE, Lib. 83, Quaest. Q60: That the Father alone knows may
be well understood in the above-mentioned manner of knowing, that He
makes the Son to know; but the Son is said not to know, because be
does not make men to know.

Lapide presents aspects of both explanations and adds an additional interesting possible interpretation:

You will say, Mark adds (13:32), neither the Son,
for so it is in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persian,
Egyptian, Ethiopic. Various answers are given. The best
is that which is common among the Fathers. It is that
the Son, both as God and as man, by infused knowledge,
knows the Day of Judgment and of the end of the world,
for it pertains for Him to know this, inasmuch as He has
been appointed the Judge of the world. But Christ denies
that He knoweth this as man, and as He is God's messenger
to us, because He did not know it so that He could
reveal it to us, or because He had not been commissioned
by the Father to reveal it to us. As an ambassador who
was questioned concerning the secrets of his prince would
reply that he did not know them, although he did know
them, because he did not know them as an ambassador.
For an ambassador declares only those things which he
has a commission to declare.

Christ's meaning then is, "God only knows what
year and day and hour the end of the world and the Judgment
shall be. And although God has caused Me, Christ,
as I am man, to know the same, as I am that one man who
is united to the WORD; yet as I am the Father's ambassador
to men, He has not willed Me to make known that
day, but to keep it secret, and to stir them up continually
to prepare themselves for it." There is a like mode of expression
in St. John 15:15.

There are some who explain thus: that Christ,
qua man, knoweth not the Day of Judgment; but that He
knoweth it as He is the God-man. That is to say, Christ
as man knoweth it not by virtue of His humanity, but of
His divinity. So St. Athanasius (Serm. 4, contra Arian.),
Nazianzen (Orat. 4, de .Theolog.), Cyril (lib. 9, Thesaur. c.
4), Ambrose (lib. 5, de Fide, c. 8).

I was greatly aided in my research for this post by a source made conveniently available by my friend Daniel Egan: The Gospel of Matthew: Four-Source Commentary. It combines commentary from Aquinas, Lapide, Haydock, and Orchard. Moreover, these authors cite many fathers, as seen above. Egan wrote on the Lulu book page:

Though only from four different centuries, they quote others from every century since Christ (except our own). The purpose of this commentary is to keep alive the treasury of wisdom from ages past.

I give this work my very highest recommendation. Follow the link above to purchase it. Egan has also put together a new version of the great Catholic Commentary edited by Dom Bernard Orchard (from 1953): two volumes for the Old Testament and the New Testament. These are invaluable resources for orthodox Catholics and anyone interested in biblical exegesis, and/or patristic exegesis.

***

Denominationalism and Sectarianism: Cardinal Newman Nails its Fundamental Error and Notes the Inevitable Bitter Fruits That Unfold from It

The following is an excerpt from my upcoming book of quotations from Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman: The Quotable Newman: Theology and Church History.

* * * * *

. . . there is such a thing as religious truth, and therefore there is such a thing as religious error. We learn that religious truth is one—and therefore that all views of religion but one are wrong. . . . our religious creeds and professions at this day are many; but Truth is one: therefore they cannot all be right, or rather almost all of them must be wrong. That is, the multitude of men are wrong, so far as they differ; and as they differ, not about trivial points, but about great matters, it follows that the multitude of men, whether by their own fault or not, are wrong even in the greater matters of religion. . . . Doubtless if men sought the truth with one tenth part of the zeal with which they seek to acquire wealth or secular knowledge, their differences would diminish year by year. Doubtless if they gave a half or a quarter of the time to prayer for Divine guidance which they give to amusement or recreation, or which they give to dispute and contention, they would ever be approximating to each other. We differ in opinion; therefore we cannot all be right; many must be wrong; many must be turned from the truth; and why is this, but on account of that undeniable fact which we see before us, that we do not pray and seek for the Truth? . . . Some men will tell us that this difference of opinion in religious matters which exists, is a proof, not that the Truth is withheld from us on account of our negligence in seeking it, but that religious truth is not worth seeking at all, or that it is not given us. The present confused and perplexed state of things, which is really a proof of God's anger at our negligence, these men say is a proof that religious truth cannot be obtained; that there is no such thing as religious truth; that there is no right or wrong in religion; that, provided we think ourselves right, one set of opinions is as good as another; that we shall all come right in the end if we do but mean well, or rather if we do not mean ill. That is, we create confusion by our negligence and disobedience, and then excuse our negligence by the existence of that confusion. It is no uncommon thing, I say, for men to say, "that in religious matters God has willed that men should differ," and to support their opinion by no better argument than the fact that they do differ; and they go on to conclude that therefore we need not perplex ourselves about matters of faith, about which, after all, we cannot be certain. . . . How are the sheep of Christ's flock scattered abroad in the waste world! He came to gather them together in one; but they wander again and faint by the way, as having lost their Shepherd. What religious opinion can be named which some men or other have not at some time held? All are equally confident in the truth of their own doctrines, though the many must be mistaken.

(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. 8, Sermon 13: "Truth Hidden When Not Sought After," 1843)

Reformed Polemicist Tim Enloe Says My Historical Apologetic Work is "Idiotic" and That I "Don't Care About" Historical "Evidence"

You gotta love these veiled attacks. The Polemicist, Tim Enloe, the Calvinist who "talks big and confident" and then runs in terror at the first sign of any counter-reply or challenge to his always dogmatically presented views, is famous for this tactic, and it is appropriate that he makes it on the Boors All blog, which often does the exact same thing where I am concerned.

Tim attacked me, without naming me (but I know our past history) in the thread for the post, A Closer Look at David Waltz's Objections. First, to warm up, he made the usual garden-variety, wrongheaded (warmed-over, poor man's George Salmon and Hans Kung) attacks on Catholic dogmas and their relation to secular historiography:

The Renaissance exposed several of the fraudulent documents with which many had defended Rome's claims that this or that doctrine, particularly papal supremacy, was "historical," and it only got worse from there. Once texts were allowed to be examined on their own merits rather than simplistically filtered through dogmatic claims, it became less and less plausible to outsiders for Catholics to argue that central Roman claims were "historical."

Over the last few centuries, Rome's official position has progressively retreated from trying to root itself in publicly-establish-able historical truths and has instead progressively rooted itself in what my friend Frank Ramirez ("kepha") calls "papal presuppositionalism." This is the notion that Theology is a privileged discipline that dictates to every other discipline what can and cannot be true even in that discipline's own sphere of competence.

Hence, history can never disprove any claim of Catholic theology, because Catholic theology is isolated from the rough-and-tumble, very imprecise (and never 100% certain) world of historical arguments. It's a reverse version of Lessing's Ugly Ditch, in which "accidental truths of history" can never become defeaters for any claim that is given the status of a "faith" claim. As this is most of the central claims of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church's claims become self-isolated from external reality, and self-uncorrectable by that reality. This is a massive redefinition of "faith" on the lines of pure fideism: "It's true just because we say so."

You see this all over the place in the current crop of Catholic defenders, like, say, Prejean and Liccione. They are totally unconcerned with what can be publicly established (that is, established by criterion that do not beg the question in favor of Rome), and are totally invested in circular arguments about the "authority" of a special class of men who by mysterious operations of grace get privileged insight into the nature of reality. (3-30-11)

Of course, this is all a big yawner for those of us who have followed Tim's overkill histrionics (I have since 1999). Nothing new here: nothing he hasn't repeated a hundred times or more. I've refuted it over and over myself (see many papers listed), and he never counter-responds past the first round, if that. The man is incapable of 1) true dialogue, and of 2) defending his own views from even the slightest scrutiny. His forte is the condescending lecture.

After this rant, Tim decided to rationalize and special plead and obfuscate the issue of Catholic objection to the incessant use of liberal Catholic scholars who have an ax to grind against the Church: hence aren't particularly trustworthy when commenting on matters touching on Catholic dogma:

What caught my attention this time was this argument about "Liberal" scholarship, because I just don't see much value in the argument, especially in the realm of history. Anyone who is reflective and well-read can readily spot when a "Liberal" is interpreting history naturalistically, and will be able to steer clear of that portion of his work without any trouble. But that's not usually why the spectre of "Liberalism" is brought up in apologetics discussions. Usually it's brought up merely because a so-called "conservative" is fussed because said "Liberal" is challenging his own naive "conservative" opinions, and he doesn't know how to deal with it, so he starts ranting about the evils of "Liberals." That's easier than actually engaging both the "Liberal"'s own work and the larger body of scholarship it is a part of in a responsible manner. (3-31-11)

Here are examples in my own body of work, where I deal with this particular issue of bias in historiography and double standards in scholars utilized in either theologically liberal or anti-Catholic arguments against Catholic positions:

Warren Carroll on Historical Method and Primary and Secondary Sources (Brian Tierney as Liberal Counter-Example)

Brian Tierney: Inveterate Enemy of Papal "Tyranny" and Infallibility

The Modernist, Secularist Historicism of Raymond Brown and Brian Tierney (including lengthy citations from St. Thomas Aquinas on papal infallibility, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Msgr. George A. Kelly, and Protestants J. Gresham Machen and Os Guinness on Liberalism)

Dollinger's, Liberal & Old Catholics', and Tim Enloe's "Semi- Historical Positivism" & Rejection of Papal Infallibility / Cardinal Newman's Critique (vs. Tim Enloe, with Extensive Newman Citation)

Liberal Catholic Historians: Contra-Catholic Historical Revisionist Tim Enloe and Anti-Catholic John Bugay Love Them for Their Polemical Purposes

Blistering Anti-Catholic Attack on Lay Catholic Apologetics (Matthew D. Schultz, Tim Enloe, and all the Usual Suspects at Boors All)

Was Fr. Raymond Brown a Liberal, Modernist, Heterodox Dissident?

Then good ol' Tim turned his blunt-edged and flatulent hyper-rhetoric on yours truly:

I've been the victim of this idiotic variety of "conservatism" too many times to count, especially regarding my work on Medieval conciliarism, which some "conservative" Catholic apologists dismiss merely because occasionally a very important piece of evidence about papal claims in the Middle Ages happens to be provided by a so-called "Liberal" (e.g., Brian Tierney, Francis Oakley). The "conservatives" don't care about the evidence itself - usually, indeed, they don't have the intellectual tools to actually engage the evidence, let alone treat it responsibly - all they care about is that their precious "conservative" sacred cow is being attacked, and they feel they MUST "give an answer" to the craven "Liberal" attack.

This is just idiocy, plain and simple, and that's why whenever someone starts fussing about "Liberal" scholarship by demanding that if we are to accept Scholar A's conclusions in area X, we must also accept them in area Y, I find myself rankled. There's a very great difference between "reading" as in decoding letters and sentences like any competent 8th or 9th grader can do, and "reading" as in gaining real comprehension and insight from a text by engaging it, arguing with it, pushing and pulling and weighing and sifting until it gives up its wisdom. Most people who rant about "Liberals" while extolling the value of "conservatives" are guilty entirely of the former, and have no clue how to do the latter. That's been my experience in these apologetics frays, at any rate. (3-31-11)

Here Tim is referring (in large part if not wholly) to our past disputes regarding his pet theory of historical Catholic conciliarism that he holds in the teeth of historical facts:

Tim Enloe: Belief in Infallibility Suggests Immaturity & Infantile Needs for Unrealistic Security (Just Like What Atheists Say About ALL Christians)

Polemicist Tim Enloe: More Pope-, Catholic-, Apologist-, & Armstrong-Bashing (+ Does Manegold Support Tim's Goofy Theories of Medieval Ecclesiology?)

Reflections on Medieval Ecclesiology ("Fallibilist Conciliarism"?)

Was Conciliarism an "Orthodox" Option in Medieval Catholicism? [see also the original, much longer debate vs. Tim Enloe]

Hard Questions for Tim Enloe's Theories of Medieval Ecclesiology, and Non-Answers ("Fallibilist Conciliarism"?)

Tim Enloe's Missing Definition of "Orthodoxy" & the Logical Circularity of His Thesis on Conciliar Ecclesiology

Council of Constance (1414-1418): Triumph of Conciliarism or its Kiss of Death?

As always, I'm quite content to let readers make up their own minds as to how "idiotic" my arguments were, whether indeed I provided (as he claims) woefully insufficient (or no) independently confirmed historical evidence, and whether Tim refuted my reasoning or not.

My Two Conversions: An Interview with Spanish Journalist Itxu Díaz, of the Dicax Press Agency

Itxu Díaz is a journalist from Spain. He works for the Dicax Press, and also has a personal website. He contacted me for an interview that will be part of a feature for his site, called "Catholics Around the World". His questions will be in blue.

* * * * *

As far as I could read in this article, before your conversion you were interested in the "supernatural". What got you interested in telepathy or magic?

I think that was a function of a certain "spiritual curiosity" or religious urge, even before I had much interest in Christianity itself. I was raised as a Methodist but I was very ignorant and knew little about my faith. For whatever reason, Christianity appeared to me boring, inconsequential, and removed from the "real world." I hated to go to church on Sunday, and in fact, we stopped going when I was nine years old, when our inner-city congregation ceased to exist. I basically lived as a "secular pagan" for the next nine years of my life: all the way through high school.

Yet I had a curiosity that would later lead me to Christianity, once I learned more about it. In this vacuum, I became fascinated with supernatural things: probably as a result of "eery" television shows like The Twilight Zone, One Step Beyond, and so forth. I read a book about it, and then tried to actually do telepathy, ESP, the Ouija board, and other practices. It wasn't just a game for me. I was genuinely pursuing it and thought it was a real thing.

Now I know that much of it is indeed real, but lies in the Satanic or demonic realm. I think it is a case study of any number of beliefs taking the place of Christianity, where the latter is absent for the most part. G. K. Chesterton noted that when people reject Christianity, the problem is not that they believe in nothing, but that they will believe in anything.

In your [initial, evangelical] conversion, the film Jesus of Nazareth and your depression in 1977 were two important points. What did you learn from the movie Jesus of Nazareth? How did it influence you?

Movies about Christian themes (when they are done well) have always made a powerful impression on me. Dramatic films "make it real" and possess an emotional impact that doesn't always come across in writing. This was a case of "the right thing at exactly the right time." It remains my favorite Christian film.

Beyond the excellence of the movie itself, as a piece of art, I think what moved me was being presented with a realistic portrayal of Jesus. I was dazzled by it. For the first time in my life I was confronted with what He was really like. By this time I had figured out (from my evangelical brother Gerry) that He was actually God in the flesh, which I hadn't realized till about two years before (actually during another film about Jesus: The Greatest Story Ever Told). It fascinated me, while watching it: that this Person was actually God.

The Person of Jesus was so immensely appealing that I could hardly not become His disciple after that experience. He seemed like the ultimate nonconformist (something very important to me, especially at that stage of my life), and He would always give answers that were striking and unexpected. As it turned out, I gave my life over to Him as a disciple at that time, around Easter 1977. This was my "conversion to Christ through evangelical Protestantism." It was a profound event for me, and transformed and changed my life. I've never been the same since.

Relating to your depression, was it an important event in your [first] conversion?

It was key, because it was highly symbolic of my previous thinking, that I didn't need God: that I could supposedly go through life with little or no thought of him. Like most people, I had a lot of pride and a self-delusion of self-sufficiency without God: what has been called "practical atheism" (living your life as if God doesn't exist).

Now, when a person has that amount of stubbornness and stupidity, sometimes drastic action is necessary. God loves us enough to do whatever it takes to wake us up. Going through serious, clinical depression is enough to scare the wits out of anyone, I think. I went from a very self-confident, "got it all together" person to someone who was in the deepest despair and anguish, and unable to figure out why I was depressed or how I would get out of the deep dark pit that I was in. My self-image and seeming "happiness" was annihilated. I had never experienced anything like that before, and never since that time. Thus, in my mind, in retrospect, I think the larger purpose of it in God''s providence was to cause me to finally decide to yield up my self-will (and myself, period) to God.

It was almost like I had no choice but to surrender to God and cease my rebellion against Him. I had nowhere else to go. As I was coming out of the depression, having cried out to God, I felt that I literally experienced what King David did, as he expressed in Psalm 40:1-4:


I waited patiently for the LORD;
he inclined to me and heard my cry.
[2] He drew me up from the desolate pit,
out of the miry bog,
and set my feet upon a rock,
making my steps secure.
[3] He put a new song in my mouth,
a song of praise to our God.
Many will see and fear,
and put their trust in the LORD.
[4] Blessed is the man who makes
the LORD his trust,
who does not turn to the proud,
to those who go astray after false gods!


When did you start to become interested in theology? Was it the reason that led you to Catholicism?

What led me to theology and Christianity was the process I briefly described above, along with the influence of my brother Gerry, who would "witness" to me now and then. Occasionally I attended his church and would squirm in my seat, because I basically knew that what the pastor was saying was correct. I just didn't want to give my life over to Jesus, because I wanted to be my own Boss.

But God gave me a consciousness and innate sense that Christian teaching on moral issues was correct. I didn't want to follow those teachings. I was a typical teenager of today (and probably of all times). Interest in theology came immediately after my conversion; particularly C. S. Lewis and books about prophecy by Hal Lindsey. Biblical prophecy had a great appeal to my curiosity. Generally, things have to challenge my mind or intellectual curiosity for me to become interested in them. That was as true in those days as it is now. And that is why I took quickly to apologetics, which is a a way to harmonize faith and reason.

My interest in Catholicism came 13 years later, in 1990. By then I had become a Protestant Christian apologist and campus evangelist, and had studied many many things in theology and apologetics. The initial issue that drew me into wanting to learn more about Catholicism was contraception, as a result of being in the pro-life movement and meeting Catholics there. I couldn't comprehend what was so wrong about it. I even argued once (in a friendly manner) with a priest, and he couldn't give me a solid reply. He was a solid pro-lifer (this is how I met him), but wasn't up to speed with his apologetics. I was informed by a Catholic friend that no Christians (including the Orthodox and all Protestants) thought that contraception was permissible and right, until 1930, when the Anglicans first allowed it in limited cases. That shocked me to no end. Again, then, it was moral theology or questions of right and wrong that played a key role.

The next factor that led me on was an interest in studying the so-called Protestant "Reformation" and what really happened in the 16th century with Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Protestant founders. I had read some material from the Protestant perspective; now I wanted to see what Catholics would say about it, to get a more balanced view. Once again I was astonished by what I learned. I had been brainwashed by hearing only one side, and it was usually a thoroughly biased account. There are two sides to every story, in other words.

If you had to choose just one author who was decisive for your conversion to Catholicism, who would you choose?

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890). This was the third and decisive factor in my conversion to Catholicism: reading his work, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine . What that did was explain in a coherent and intellectually brilliant fashion, how the early Church developed into the historic and current Catholic Church: how what we see today, that often seems excessive and different from the early, New Testament Church, is, in fact, the very same one, by a consistent process of development, much like an acorn grows into a large oak tree, while remaining identical to itself all along. I had been ferociously fighting against infallibility: a notion that I regarded as perfectly ridiculous; almost laughable. Cardinal Newman made short work of my pretensions.

This caused a revolution in my thought, as I realized that the Catholic Church was indeed the one true Church, and the "Church" referred to in the Bible, since the Bible never refers positively to denominations or more than one Church, or even more than one set of doctrinal beliefs in the one Church. Denominations are a category entirely foreign to the biblical, apostolic worldview. Protestants themselves know this full well, which is why they acknowledge that it is a scandalous state of affairs, and don't try to defend it. At best, they come up with an artificial, rationalizing, non-biblical distinction between primary or central and secondary doctrines: with a wide latitude allowed for the latter. But this breaks down on many levels, upon the slightest scrutiny.

Your conversion was in 1991 and you currently work as an author of numerous books on apologetics and Catholicism. What did you do before?

After several different jobs, I became a missionary to college campuses as an evangelical Protestant, from 1985 to 1989. After that, I settled into a delivery career (payroll) all through the 90s. My first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, was finished during this period, in 1996, from individual treatises all the way back to early 1991, but it took seven years to get it "officially" published. I had started my website in early 1997, that continues to this day as a blog, and now I have also associated Facebook and Twitter Pages.

People knew of my work by the end of that decade, from the website, from articles in Catholic apologetic magazines (This Rock and The Catholic Answer), starting in 1993, and from my conversion story being published in the bestseller Surprised by Truth (edited by Patrick Madrid) in 1994. Thus, when the delivery company I worked for went out of business in December 2001, two weeks after the birth of my daughter and fourth child, I made an appeal on my website to see if people thought I should do full-time apologetics. They did, and I have been doing that ever since, with an income from book royalties, donations, and additional part-time work as necessary. I've definitely "paid my dues" but it is a great life, doing what I passionately love. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

Do you find similarities between your conversion and Scott Hahn's conversion?

Not many. He was already a Presbyterian pastor. So his journey had a lot more to do with painstakingly working through each theological issue where Catholics and Protestants disagree. My journey, on the other hand, had to do with moral issues (contraception), and then historical matters (including study of the Protestant "Reformation" -- more properly described as a "Revolution" or "Revolt") and the determination of where the one true, biblical, apostolic Church could be found (ecclesiology).

Right after my conversion, I worked through the various doctrines and tried to explain them to Protestants, with as much biblical support as I could find, so I did what Scott did, but after my conversion, not before; and these initial papers eventually comprised my first book. That, in turn, has been the leading theme of my subsequent apologetics career: "biblical evidence for Catholicism" (as my blog is called): trying to explain to Protestants in terms they can understand (mostly from the Bible), that Catholicism is the fullness of Christian truth and that there continues to be a visible, apostolic, institutional Church, specially guided by the Holy Spirit and granted by God the gift of infallibility.

Do you think that Catholics study and know enough about their own religion?

On the whole, no: generally speaking, they are abysmally, shamefully, shockingly ignorant, and fervent Protestants know this full well, which is one of the reasons they don't think too highly of Catholicism: Catholics themselves are the worst witness for the faith. I experienced this myself, having run across very few Catholics during my 13 years as an evangelical, who could and would share and defend their faith. When I finally did meet such a person in the pro-life movement, it was such a curiosity to me that it led me to extensive discussions and study and ultimately conversion. It could have easily happened many years before if only a Catholic had taken the initiative to defend and explain his or her faith to me.

The irony is that Catholicism is, we believe, the fullness of Catholic truth; yet we Catholics do such a poor job of proclaiming, defending, and living out that faith. And this is one of the primary motivations for why I am an apologist: I want to educate Catholics to be confident in their beliefs, by knowing what they are in the first place, understanding them, and comprehending the reasoning behind them: why they believe what they believe. But the apologist can't compel anyone to be persuaded. That is ultimately the job of the Holy Spirit and grace. Mostly we try to remove roadblocks, or take out objections, to make the way clear for a change of mind and allegiance.

The more I engage in Catholic apologetics, the more I am convinced myself (without exception in every study that I do) that Catholicism is the fullness of Christian truth. This is the particular blessing that comes from apologetics. You know that you know that you know that the thing is true. I have always (since 1977) been interested in learning more about what I believe to be the truth, and sharing what I have found with others, by the grace of God and as a result of His calling.

Thanks for the opportunity to share about my life and journey to the Catholic Church. I appreciate it, and I enjoyed the interview a lot. May God abundantly bless you and all your readers.

The Anglican Newman on the Falsity of Extreme Versions of the Protestant "Faith Alone" Viewpoint

The following are excerpts from my upcoming two-volume set of quotations from Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. These are from the first volume: The Quotable Newman: Theology and Church History; Volume One: The Anglican Years (1801-1844).

* * * * *

Still dwelling on the sin and misery of our unrenewed nature! still anxiously turning to the corruption and odiousness of the flesh, and refusing to contemplate the work of the Spirit, lest grace should fail of being exalted, lest glory should be given to man, lest Christ's work should be eclipsed! What a strange and capricious taste, to linger in the tomb, to sit down with Job among the ashes, by way of knowing him who has called us to light, to liberty, to perfection! How eccentric and how inconsequent,—how like, (unless sometimes seen in serious and well-judging men,) how like an aberration, to argue that to extol the work of the Spirit, must be to obscure the grace of Christ? Yet this is firmly held,—held as if in the spirit of confessors and martyrs,—held, mordicus, as a vital, sovereign, glorious, transporting truth, by the dominant ultra-Protestantism. Regenerate man must, to the day of his death, have in him nothing better than man unregenerate. In spite of the influences of grace, there must be nothing in him to admire, nothing to kindle the beholder, nothing to gaze upon, dwell on, or love, lest we glory in man. Grace must do nothing in him, or it is not duly upheld. The triumph of grace is to act entirely externally to him, not in him. To save and sanctify is not so great a work as to save and leave sinful. There must be nothing saintly, nothing super-human, nothing angelic in man regenerate, because man unregenerate is the child and slave of evil. Sin must be his sole characteristic, his sole theme, his sole experience . . . Faith is to be made everything, as being the symbol and expression of this negative or degraded state; and charity, which is the fulfilling of the law, the end of the commandment, and the greatest of Christian graces, must not be directly contemplated or enforced at all, lest it be thereby implied that the Christian can be better with grace than he is without it. Such is supposed to be, . . . spiritual religion, the religion in which the Spirit is supposed to do little or nothing for us.

(Review of The Life of Augustus Hermann Franké, by H. E. F. Guerike, British Critic, vol. 21, July 1837)

. . . a system of doctrine has risen up during the last three centuries, in which faith or spiritual-mindedness is contemplated and rested on as the end of religion instead of Christ. I do not mean to say that Christ is not mentioned as the Author of all good, but that stress is laid rather on the believing than on the Object of belief, on the comfort and persuasiveness of the doctrine rather than on the doctrine itself. And in this way religion is made to consist in contemplating ourselves instead of Christ; not simply in looking to Christ, but in ascertaining that we look to Christ, not in His Divinity and Atonement, but in our conversion and our faith in those truths. . . . The fault here spoken of is the giving to our ''experiences" a more prominent place in our thoughts than to the nature, attributes, and work of Him from whom they profess to come,—the insisting on them as a special point for the consideration of all who desire to be recognized as converted and elect.

(Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification [1838 / 1874; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 3rd edition, 1908], ch. 13)

True faith is what may be called colourless, like air or water; it is but the medium through which the soul sees Christ; and the soul as little really rests upon it and contemplates it, as the eye can see the air. When, then, men are bent on holding it (as it were) in their hands, curiously inspecting, analyzing, and so aiming at it, they are obliged to colour and thicken it, that it may be seen and touched. That is, they substitute for it something or other, a feeling notion, sentiment, conviction, or act of reason, which they may hang over, and doat upon. They rather aim at experiences (as they are called) within them, than at Him that is without them. They are led to enlarge upon the signs of conversion, the variations of their feelings, their aspirations and longings, and to tell all this to others;—to tell others how they fear, and hope, and sin, and rejoice, and renounce themselves, and rest in Christ only; how conscious they are that their best deeds are but "filthy rags," and all is of grace, till in fact they have little time left them to guard against what they are condemning, and to exercise what they think they are so full of.

(Ibid., ch. 13)

To look to Christ is to be justified by faith; to think of being justified by faith is to look from Christ and to fall from grace.

(Ibid., ch. 13)

. . . it is not an uncommon notion at this time, that a man may be an habitual sinner, and yet be in a state of salvation, and in the kingdom of grace. And this doctrine many more persons hold than think they do; not in words, but in heart. They think that faith is all in all; that faith, if they have it, blots out their sins as fast as they commit them. They sin in distinct acts in the morning,—their faith wipes all out; at noon,—their faith still avails; and in the evening,—still the same. Or they remain contentedly in sinful habits or practices, under the dominion of sin, not warring against it, in ignorance what is sin and what is not; and they think that the only business of a Christian is, not to be holy, but to have faith, and to think and speak of Christ; and thus, perhaps, they are really living, whether by habit or by act, in extortion, avarice, envy, rebellious pride, self-indulgence, or worldliness, and neither know nor care to know it. If they sin in habits, they are not aware of these at all; if by acts, instead of viewing them one and all together, they take them one by one, and set their faith against each separate act.

(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. V, 1840, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907; Sermon 13: "The State of Salvation")

Faith is the tenure upon which this divine life is continued to us: by faith the Christian lives, but if he draws back he dies; his faith profits him nothing; or rather, his drawing back to sin is a reversing of his faith; after which, God has no pleasure in him. And yet, clearly as this is stated in Scripture, men in all ages have fancied that they might sin grievously, yet maintain their Christian hope. They have comforted themselves with thoughts of the infinite mercy of God, as if He could not punish the sinner; or they have laid the blame of their sins on their circumstances; or they have hoped that zeal for the truth, or that almsgiving, would make up for a bad life; or they have relied upon repenting in time to come. And not the least subtle of such excuses is that which results from a doctrine popularly received at this day, that faith in Christ is compatible with a very imperfect state of holiness, or with unrighteousness, and avails for the pardon of an unrighteous life. So that a man may, if so be, go on pretty much like other men, with this only difference, that he has what he considers faith,—a certain spiritual insight into the Gospel scheme, a renunciation of his own merit, and a power of effectually pleading and applying to his soul Christ's atoning sacrifice, such as others have not;—that he sins indeed much as others, but then is deeply grieved that he sins; that he would be under the wrath of God as others are, had he not faith to remove it withal. And thus the necessity of a holy life is in fact put out of sight quite as fully as if he said in so many words, that it was not required; and a man may, if it so happen, be low-minded, sordid, worldly, arrogant, imperious, self-confident, impure, self-indulgent, ambitious or covetous, nay, may allow himself from time to time in wilful acts of sin which he himself condemns, and yet, by a great abuse of words, may be called spiritual. . . . Instead of faith blotting out transgressions, transgressions blot out faith.

(Ibid., Sermon 14: "Transgressions and Infirmities")

***

Anti-Catholic Polemicist Steve Hays Falsely Claims That I Have No Accountability to My Priest and Bishop

It seems to be goin'; around these days: anti-Catholics stretching the truth to the breaking point. Now it's Steve Hays' turn for more of his patented whoppers.


Here is the latest from this inveterate slanderer:

Is he [Paul Hoffer] accountable? I notice the conspicuous absence of contact information, either at the end of his post, or over at his own blog, which would enable readers to report him to his parish priest or diocesan bishop in case of misconduct. By the same token, I notice that Armstrong hasn't made that information publicly available either. Yet Armstrong is hosting a post about personal accountability. Hoffer and Armstrong pay lip-service to the accountability-system of the Roman church while they shield themselves from direct accountability to their religious superiors. If they have the courage to stand behind their words, why don't they provide the contact information for their religious superiors in case a reader has a grievance to lodge with superiors over their conduct?

I already answered this identical charge (from him) on 22 January 2011. But that is assuming that 1) the man reads anything by Catholics, or perhaps 2) takes anything seriously that is written by Catholics, or 3) takes at face value self-reports by Catholics, or 4) reads what Catholics say specifically in reply to him. None of these things are by any means certain, since he often deletes my comments on his blog when he finds himself unable to answer.

The controversy in question was an attack on lay apologetics at Boors All: an anti-Catholic site that Hays frequents. He participated in this discussion, which is why I replied to him on this very issue. He wrote in the combox there:

One simple test of whether lay Catholic apologists are accountable to their religious superiors is whether they leave contact info on the sidebar of their blog so that you can run what they say by their parish priest or local bishop's office. When have you ever seen this?

He parrots himself with the usual clueless anti-Catholic inanity and boorishness: not realizing (or cynically ignoring the known fact) that I have already fully dealt with this ridiculous charge. I replied at the time:

I have written many times for my parish newsletter, primarily under the auspices of Fr. Paul Ward (St. Joseph's in Detroit). I've spoken at parish meetings; my books are sold in the vestibule. The current priest is Fr. Paul Czarnota, who had approvingly read several of my books before he ever arrived. Steve is free to contact the church to ask what is thought of my work. The Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron, Archbishop of the Detroit archdiocese, granted ecclesiastical approval for the book What Catholics Really Believe: for which I wrote the study guide. I was informed by the editor, Stan Williams, that not a single word of my portion was modified when the censor (Professor Robert Fastiggi, from Sacred Heart Seminary) checked it out for orthodoxy and accuracy. Those are my credentials in my own archdiocese. I also have an Imprimatur for my New Catholic Answer Bible. Steve Hays, however, is apparently accountable to no one. I recommend that someone try to find out who he is accountable to: if anyone. After all, accountability is also a Protestant concept. But he's just a guy (frustrated, unsuccessful academic) with a blog and a big mouth, and master of insults. He's not published anywhere that I know of, except for self-published works.

Now, I will be charitable and help poor Steve Hays, who -- notwithstanding his fathomless wisdom -- seems to have an extraordinarily difficult time navigating websites, and comprehending how he can possibly find this exceptionally mysterious, obscure information about where I go to church (and have these past twenty years).

When one looks at the top of my blog, there are seven major categories with which one begins a "card catalogue-type" search on my site. Steve (now pay close attention!) will want to select the second from the right, entitled "About Me." I think the average reader would be able to ascertain that this might lead to the desired personal information. Maybe not, and maybe Steve would find this difficult to comprehend. We all have our weaknesses and limitations, after all, and he stated outright that I haven't "made that information publicly available" and that my blog was notable for such information's "conspicuous absence."

But back to our task at hand. Now, here's where it could conceivably become quite frustrating for Steve, but we'll try our best to "dumb it down" and walk him through the process. Once there, readers are confronted with an incredibly complex, Byzantine set of three tables, each having eight sections. This might be over Steve's head, but if he puts his mind to it, I think it is entirely possible. He will (presumably, if he gets this far in his quest) look over these, and hopefully, by God's grace and a bit of luck, would be able to locate a category on the bottom-left corner of the second table down (the one in the middle).

Got that, Steve? Good! It is entitled (drum roll): "Home Parish: St. Joseph's in Detroit." This takes the reader to our parish website, complete with contact info! Now, that wasn't so hard, was it? Two clicks of a mouse: "About Me" (which is always on the top of my blog), and the parish link. This is even easier than a sidebar, because my sidebar has lots and lots of stuff, but the top of the blog is one small portion that is always visible.

The archdiocese is another story. It's true that I don't have that contact information listed on my site, as far as I know. But of course it could be obtained from my parish if necessary. Failing that, let's see if we can actually find such a thing. How about searching in Google:"Archdiocese of Detroit." The fact that I live in the Detroit area is all over my blog and Facebook page: if you click on the bottom of my profile on the sidebar ("View my complete profile"), it goes to my Blogger Profile, wherein it states at the top that I reside in "Metro Detroit, Michigan." Or one can click "Resume": permanently on the top right of my blog. At the bottom of that is my lengthy blurb, "About the Author." At the very end of that and end of the Literary Resume one learns that I "reside in Melvindale, Michigan (metro Detroit)." I don't think this is rocket science. Does anyone else except Steve Hays, who has a whale of a time figuring it out?

But back to the elaborate, excruciatingly tough Google search for my bishop. Using the words above, we have success! The very first hit is called "The Official Web Site for the Archdiocese of Detroit." YES! Even as you view it there, sitting on the Google search page, attentive readers may spot a subsection entitled "Contact." This actually takes one to phone numbers, email addresses, and street addresses. So it is another two-mouse-click affair: "Archdiocese of Detroit" in Google and "Contact" under the first hit. I think even Hays could manage to navigate this ineffably complicated labyrinth. Two clicks to my home parish; two clicks to my archdiocese.

Then Hays is free to inquire all he likes: to my priest, who is a big fan of my books and was reading them before he even arrived at my parish, or to my bishop, who has granted me ecclesiastical approval of one of my writing projects. Feel free, Steve. Not that he would ever actually do any of this, of course . . . but it makes for a melodramatic rhetorical flourish, doesn't it?: to make the vapid charge with no basis whatever in reality. This is a particular specialty of Hays'. He's the master of the groundless, logically challenged accusation.

Now let's see how mysterious is the contact information for my friend Paul Hoffer, who was also blasted by Hays. His blog is called Spes Mea Christus! Remember the charge that was made:

I notice the conspicuous absence of contact information, either at the end of his post, or over at his own blog, which would enable readers to report him to his parish priest or diocesan bishop in case of misconduct. . . . why don't they provide the contact information for their religious superiors in case a reader has a grievance to lodge with superiors over their conduct?

Okay, Steve! The challenge has been met to find this difficult information. Let's head over to Paul's site and begin our quest. Less than a page view's scroll down we see "About Me" on the sidebar, and we learn that Paul lives in Norton, Ohio. Good! That wasn't too bad. Next section: "Important Links." We look through those, and . . . ah! Tenth one down is "My Diocese - the Diocese of Cleveland." A click on that brings all the contact information. Very next link is "My Parish - Saint Augustine Church - Barberton." Click: and we find all contact information again.

This is even easier than my site, but both are quite easy for anyone above a, say, third grade education, or IQ higher than a hose nozzle.

Okay; that settled, let's go over to Cryablogue: Steve Hays' infamously imbecilic anti-Catholic site. How easy is it to find his contact information, so we can hold him accountable? Pretty quickly in scrolling down the sidebar we find his name. Clicking on that, we get a profile, where we discover that he is "a native of the greater Seattle area" -- but alas, we don't get to hear where he resides now. We have no idea where the man lives, and that's how he wants it: lest he actually be accountable to anyone. Who is Hays accountable to?! Nobody.

We see nothing about any church, or even a denomination (we know he is an anti-Catholic Calvinist), yet we are duly informed of the crucial , astonishingly revelatory information that Hays is a "semicessationist, . . . an Augustinian exemplarist . . . a Cartesian dualist. . . . an alethic realist, [and] scientific antirealist." Oh goody! I wouldn't be able to get to sleep without knowing all of this pedantic information! There is no human being we can contact in order for Hays to be accountable. He's an island unto himself, and thus almost a self-parody of a caricature of Protestant atomistic individualism that fellow Calvinists like Tim Enloe have tried so hard to maintain is not the case in Protestant ranks, and that "private judgment" does not mean what it means. But here is Exhibit #1.

The same profile page on 2-20-09 informed us that Hays was "a TA at RTS." Huge clues there, and perhaps at least an inkling of a denomination (once we figure out what "RTS" is). The current one says, "I have an MAR from RTS." But of course, folks who attend seminaries are often from different denominations. We want to know to whom the man is accountable (generally in the Protestant world, a guy called a "pastor"), and that is not to be had on his site: at least not easily, if so. If it is there, then I'm sure Steve will be happy to direct us all to it, just as I showed him where my personal parish and archdiocese info. could easily be found.

He has revealed in recent comments that he usually attends a PCA church (Presbyterian Church of America), but that is beside the point of the accountability issue. He doesn't say which church, where it is, and who is the pastor: let alone offering contact information that he demands of Catholics. As usual, it is the glaring anti-Catholic double standard. If he wants to argue that Protestants aren't accountable to anybody, let him. That will perpetuate one of the flaws that Catholic apologists have been pointing out for 500 years. He's a walking case study of what rampant sectarianism leads to.

I could find nothing else of a personal nature on his sidebar. Perhaps I missed it. So I guess we're out to sea. If Hays is accountable to anyone at all, certainly we couldn't find out who that might be by looking at his blog sidebar. But both Paul and I have easily accessible links to our home parishes.

One can only shake one's head at such rank hypocrisy and foolishness . . .

* * *

Paul Hoffer has now replied underneath Hays' hit piece:

I will offer a Christian response to your post on my own blog, but I just wanted to point out one slight error here. In regards to accountability, I offer a disclaimer that if I post anything contrary to the Catholic faith, I will make correction. I give my hometown on website, too. I also list links to both my bishop and my pastor on my website in the Important Links section. Thus, if you or any of your readers have a problem with anything I write that you think my bishop or my pastor should be aware, you may click on those links to where their addresses can be easily be found. I would also hope that you or they contact me so I could offer a response or provide correction if I do say anything offensive. I am sure that you will provide a correction to your article so no one would think you are bearing false witness against me. I will post your article and its correction on my blog so no one on my side of the Tiber could accuse of the same either.

I must say that if accountability is an issue for you perhaps you and Mr. Fan should provide links to your pastors on your websites as well lest one labels you and he hypocrites.

God bless you and yours! (3-27-11)

Hays, undaunted, makes himself even more ridiculous than he already is, in reply:

And does Armstrong's failure to heed your example indicate a lack of accountability on his part? (3-27-11)

As shown above, there is no such failure. Paul counter-replied:

He has a link to his parish under the "About Me" link and has posted articles about his particular parish on several occasions (which btw undercuts your beef here). (3-27-11)

Hays, in his increasing desperation to avoid ever admitting that he blew it and lied publicly yet again, comes back with this:

I see no email address for his priest. (3-27-11)

Etc. It's classic Hays obscurantism. Having been caught with his pants down and shown to clearly be in error about whether Paul and I list our home parishes (and never seeming to be able to retract and apologize), now he is desperately switching topics in the combox for his post, hoping that no one will notice. His cronies no doubt won't notice (they never do), but we do.

* * *

See Hays' astonishingly ridiculous "reply" -- but be duly forewarned: it will insult your intelligence like few things I have ever seen in my life.

James White Compared to Adjunct Faculty Members at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary Who Are Not Teaching in the Present Semester

For background information, see:
Doktor James White on Fudging His Teaching Assignments (by Baptist Peter Lumpkins; see also my Facebook link and further comments and documentation in both comboxes + Lumpkins' follow-up post)

James White's Challenge--Peter Lumpkins' Response by Peter Lumpkins

James White's Stretching the Truth About His (Accredited) Teaching Assignments and My Alleged Inconsistency Concerning It

* * * * *

In a nutshell, Bishop White and his large fan club are stating now that he is still teaching (present tense) at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, when in fact he hasn't done so since January 2010 (a three-day seminar), and wasn't listed on the adjunct faculty for that school on 12 December 2008, nor on 2 February 2009. Using the GGBTS listing of adjunct faculty and Course Syllabi (by Professor), I have listed a comparison of listed adjunct faculty who are not teaching a class in the present semester, and when they last taught a course, in comparison to Bishop "Dr." White.

James White (not listed: last course taught: January 13-15, 2010):

Listed:

*Mike Baird Spring 2009

Randy Bennett Spring 2010

*Eric Bryant Fall 2009

*Kelly Campbell Fall 2009

Michael Crane January 2010

Darlene R. Gautsch Fall 2010

Steven Goodwin Summer 2010

Gerald Green Fall 2010

*Ron Ornecker Fall 2009

*Norm Langston Fall 2009

Larry Laxton Spring 2010

Kei An Lee Spring 2010

*Tim Levert Summer 2009

*Hector Llanes Fall 2008

*Joshua Mathews Fall 2009

*Raymond Meyer Spring 2009

*Mark Mucklow Fall 2009

*Michael Nolen January 2009

W. Berry Norwood Fall 2010

Don G. Overstreet Fall 2010

*Edward Pearson Summer 2009

*Richard Porter Spring 2009

J. T. Reed Spring 2010

Steve Saccone Spring 2010

*Stuart Sheehan January 2009

Del Straub [no courses listed]

*Andrea Taylor Spring 2009

David Tetrault Fall 2010

*Mark Wagner Spring 2009

Adella Washington Fall 2010

Grand totals: 30 faculty were listed who are not teaching at GGBTS this semester; 16 of the 30 last taught a course prior to the date that White did (while one additional person has no listed courses at all); yet they are among the roster of adjunct faculty, along with the other 14, while White is not. Why? Is it not reasonable, then, to safely assume that White is no longer a member of the adjunct faculty of GGBTS? One would think so. Why, then, does White keep asserting that he is?

His bio sheet for his publisher, Bethany House, states that he is "an adjunct professor with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary." His bio sheet for his diploma mill alma mater, Columbia Evangelical Seminary asserts that "White, an ordained Baptist minister, is Adjunct Professor teaching New Testament Greek, Systematic Theology, Christology, and Hebrew for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary at their Arizona Campus." The blurb for ReformedCast: episode #26: "The Importance of Apologetics (Pt. 1), 3-21-11, states that "White . . . teaches Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary."

But according to the GGBTS syllabi, White taught about apologetics (secularism, atheism, and Islam) in Summer 2009, and Islam in Spring 2008. In order to date courses taught on these other mentioned subjects, we have to consult White's own bio page at his website, "aomin". There we learn that he hasn't taught anything with "Greek" in the title of the course since 2001 (hardly current). He hasn't taught systematic theology there since 2004. His last (and only course in Christology was way back in the previous century and millennium: 1997. And for Hebrew, we have to go back to 2000.

I guess 7-14 years ago is considered "present tense" and "current" by the good folks at Columbia Evangelical Seminary and the ReformedCast. White, so we are told, is "teaching" these things now. We all regard time in different fashions, I reckon. Einstein's relativity and what-not . . . "Current" is in the eye of the beholder? In James White's thought-world, and that of his rabid followers, apparently this is the case. I guess I "currently" am not the father of a daughter, since my only daughter was born in 2001. But since 2000 and even 1997 are present now, I am simultaneously her father and not at the same time.

This is how ridiculous it gets: Orwellian doublespeak and doublethink . . . Unfortunately for White, GGBTS doesn't play these word games. They don't have him listed as adjunct faculty. He'll have to accept that cold, hard, cruel fact sooner or later. I suggest it be sooner, if he is concerned about his credibility, which has suffered enough through the years as it is, with all of his endless personal attacks on others and myriad other silly shenanigans.

* * *

Scott Oakland, who was connected with the posting about white on ReformedCast, is on record as refusing to alter it:

I'm having a go-round with him here. He wanted me to remove James White's reference to his teaching at Golden Gate on reformedcast.com podcast. When I wouldn't, he went on the attack. He melted down pretty good as you can see from the comment string.

(comment of 3-26-11 in the combox for "Internet Stalker's Bitterness And Vindictive Self-absorption Rots His Soul: The Sad Little Non-World Of Peter Lumpkins," by Thomas Twitchell)

There you have it! Circle the wagons and dig in, trying to defend what appears thus far to be indefensible. Now, maybe if new information comes out (a clarification from GGBTS or something), it would be different, but given what we know thus far, it looks like world-famous Mackinac Island Fudge to me.

Thomas Twitchell himself chimes in, with this classic of obscurantism (on 3-26-11):

Peter won't give a specific person because there isn't one. The context of the no current contract claims are not current. And it doesn't really matter, for JW did teach there as the President admitted. Which is really the question. Is he an adjunct professor? Yes, when contracted. It is a rediculous reductionism to say that changes with the beginning of every new contract and then ends with it. You can see the self-absorption oozing out. Peter doesn't care whether or not there is any irony, irony is what he imagines it to be. What an egotistical slob! It is as if he and his minions are sitting around drinking swill and laughing at each others gaseous releases, as if it was funny. Cute for teens, but the only reason Lumpy's boys are laughing is that they are drunk, and can't tell the difference between humor and vile talk and action. Everyone else sees them for what are. There isn't any commonality between JW demanding an answer and Peter asking who TF is. Peter made an accusation, JW hasn't. TF isn't a material figure. The official who supposedly informed Peter is. Reasonable people think the JW teaches as an adjunct professor. And that he may or may not be under contract currently. Peter requires that an adjunct is on contract currently to be considered a teaching professor. He is wrong. And resonable people understand that a full or parttime teacher are just that and an adjunct is something else. But no reasonable person thinks that they are not teachers. Until White is formally told that he will not be considered as any longer being employable by GSBT, a reasonable person will continue to consider him a teacher there as an adjunct professor. And White is fully justified in claim to be a teacher there. As I said, Peter is insane. He needs to apologize. But, his reality is so fractured that when he throws a rock he thinks the window he shattered needs to throw his rock back as if the window stole it.

By the way, there are no private e-mails if you are in possession of them, legally. Unless you have given your word that you will not disclose them, Peter is just a fool to send them if what he wants is anonymity. And why the secrecy, anyway? What is to hide? You know, Peter ought to rewrite his book and drink plenty of wine in the process. It would do him some good.

***