Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth.

1 Peter 3:18-20
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

   Recently on Catholic Answers, Karl Keating gave the evidence from history and the Bible for purgatory. One of the three verses he used was 1 Peter 3:19. You can listen to Mr. Keating's exegesis here.

   Mr. Keating says the "spirits in prison" are "people bound for heaven having died prior to the coming of the new covenant." They are "the patriarchs and the prophets, and all the good people of earlier times." The New Catholic Answer Bible though says "It is not clear just who these spirits are. They may be the spirits of the sinners who died in the flood, or angelic powers, hostile to God, who have been overcome by Christ" (p. 1351). So for Keating, they are good people heaven bound, for the New Catholic Answer Bible, they are sinners or angelic powers, and they say nothing about this passage being a proof text for purgatory in their commentary notes.

   Keatings says, "Where were these folks? well, they were in some third state, some third condition or place." Place? Pope John Paul II said "[Purgatory] does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence."

   Keating says, "It wasn't heaven and it wasn't hell." Interestingly, Jim Blackburn (another Catholic Answers host) says it is hell in the general sense,

"St. Peter tells us that Jesus 'went and preached to the spirits in prison' (1 Pet. 3:19). 'Prison' (Greek, Phulake) here refers to hell in the general sense of the place where departed souls rested prior to Jesus? opening the gates of heaven. The Catechism explains that 'he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there' (CCC 632)." [Hell? Yes! (Part I), This Rock Volume 18, Number 8, October 2007]

   Keating concludes, "Now that might of well have been purgatory, maybe some different third state, it doesn't matter. The very fact though that it existed proves that a third state like purgatory can exist." Some different third state? Given development of doctrine, anything is possible. The truly odd thing about this statement though is if you listen to the entire call in which Keating expounds on purgatory, he says 1 Peter 3:19 is a biblical citation that argues for purgatory, and it's "the most apt verse we can look at in a certain way." It sure did seem like he was using it to prove purgatory. Elsewhere, Mr. Keating says of 1 Peter 3:19, "I think it was purgatory itself, but it may have been altogether separate. Even if it were, so what?"

   "Unless you impute human-like irrationality to God, I will call you names." This seems to be the attitude of many squeamish Calvinists on the net these days. Unless you are willing to drag God down to the level of a flummoxed suitor, who is torn between contradictory desires, you will be called to repent and labeled with terms meant only to damage your ministry, nothing more.

   Those who have not been on the frontlines find it amenable to sit in their comfy computer chairs and opine away at the keyboard. They know they will never be called upon to present a consistent defense of the faith, especially in the face of competing world religions. So they have little concern about the use of words like "tension" and "mystery," which are so often used to do little more than cover over contradiction and irrationality. Some actually think they are giving a meaningful apologetic when they openly confess the contradictions in their proclamation.

   There is everything right in pointing out that God is God and is under no obligation to explain Himself beyond what He feels is appropriate, right, and self-glorifying. Man has no grounds upon which to demand further explanation than God in His sovereign power and grace deigns to give. But it is quite another to take the revelation He hasgiven and turn it on its head, forcing it into self-contradictory and absurd stances. And to what end?

   It seems many modern Calvinists are very squeamish about God being...a big meanie. The post-modern dedication to servile fear of the Horriblus Maximus of the offended man has propelled many into the realm of "God editing" so as to avoid that great cultural heresy. We need a God who is sufficiently like us that He can be as double-minded and bemused as we often are. Never mind His eternal existence outside of time, His imperturbable majesty, His solitary sufficiency. We need to insist that God has freely and inalterably decreed that which completely bums Him out. God has issues. He's conflicted. He has decreed to glorify Himself in the salvation of a peculiar people. He has chosen to glorify Himself in the just punishment of sinners, and He has even chosen to glorify Himself through the patient and gracious withholding of punishment of those sinners, replete with gifts of joy and happiness even in their rebellion, all to demonstrate His justice and mans unyielding rebellion. But since we as creatures cannot even begin to imagine such eternal consistency, such transcendent purpose, we get nervous. Such a God, being so...different, is in danger of offending the creature, man, and that simply is not going to be allowed. If one is going to dare to assert that God possesses a divine and eternal decree, one needs to soften that decree with some conflict, some issues, some doubt on God's part.

"Yes, God has chosen a particular people...."
"What? Thats not fair! What about all the other innocent people!"
"Well, they arent really innocent, but anyway...."
"But, God has to love everyone the same, you see, or I will be offended and will refuse to express warm fuzzies His direction!"
"OK, well, you see, God is actually conflicted about this eternal decree thing. He would like to save everyone, and really, really wants to, and will be eternally bummed that He didn't, and will often regret His actions, but He's in a tough spot. See, there's this idea of the demonstration of cosmic justice and all...."
"Oh! Well, if He is conflicted and is sort of acting against His own desires, much like I often have to do, then thats good. I like a God I can relate to."

   Ah, wonderful! And all is well.

   Now, if you dare to question this perspective, the response will be swift, and predictable. The reply will not be based upon providing sound biblical exegesis that overwhelms you with evidence that God is, in fact, deeply conflicted, and has been, eternally. It is hard to come up with that kind of idea from the descriptions of the Triune Yahweh in the Bible. Oh, sure, there are a few anthropomorphisms that can be shared gleefully with the open theists and the inclusivists and the universalists, etc., but you won't be in any danger of getting hit with a ton of sound exegesis on all the passages that plainly state that God is pursuing an eternal purpose that will result in His own singular glory. No,the retort you will receive will have little to do with exegesis, and everything to do with monikers. Nick-names. Associations.

   Want a modern example? Consider Robert Reymond, a fine theologian, teacher, and godly man. Hyper-Calvinist! is the cry when he dares to point out the absurdity of attributing to God a self-imposed internal conflict that results, inevitably, in His own eternal unhappiness and lack of fulfillment. If you ask, "But, how do you respond to his actual argument?" you get back, "Hyper-Calvinist!" Evidently the very harshness of the phrase (especially its association with various and sundry nutcases on the Internet) is meant to stun your thought processes and cause you to curl up in the theological fetal position. You are to immediately run for cover, or join the growing throng that is gathering wood and fire to rid the earth of such a vile creature. The idea that the phrase has historical meaning is not in the forefront. The fact that it had a meaning in Spurgeon's England that is different in many respects from modern day America is likewise cast to the wind. No, once the Hyper epithet has been used, you might as well try naming your kid Hitler and get away with it. The argument is over.

   What has this mini-Reformed-jihad gotten us? Well, thanks to these folks most are afraid to even admit to owning a single volume of John Gill's works. Heres how the conversation goes.

"Well, I noted that on that particular text relating to the resurrection John Gill said...."
"JOHN GILL!!?? You're a hyper-Calvinist!"
"What? I was talking about his comments on the resurrection."
"But he was a hyper-Calvinist, and every person who has ever read a word he wrote is a hyper-Calvinist, and every person with one of his books in their library is a hyper-Calvinist, and every person who has ever owned a John Gill book believes and lives and thinks exactly like John Gill, and is therefore a hyper-Calvinist. And to agree with anything John Gill ever said is to prove, beyond all dispute and argument, that you are a hyper-Calvinist!"
"But...John Gill masterfully defended such things at the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, the resurrection...."
"I can't believe you are a hyper-Calvinist! I had so much respect for you before!"

   About the only positive thing I can see that has come from the SC movement (Squeamish Calvinists) has been the sale of plain book covers---used to hide The Cause of God and Truth so that you don't offend them when they are scanning your library shelves for evidence of unorthodoxy. But the general fear that exists in those writing for the Reformed community at running afoul of one of these self-appointed label-makers is most lamentable. If you dare disagree with the comments of Spurgeon or Murray (never mind being able to fairly, soundly cite others who have done the same) your reasons for doing so will not matter. Labels defy reason, they defy argument, they defy consistency. Allow me to throw myself upon the sacrificial pyre in hopes of edifying the reader.

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth.

   A caller recently asked Catholic apologist Tim Staples if the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 was in hell or purgatory. Tim explains the general sense of church tradition places the rich man in hell. Tim notes the Catholic Catechism also cites this text a few times as referring to a man who has died in mortal sin, therefore in hell. So, according to Tim, here we see an interpretive church tradition in action. The majority viewpoint of the church throughout the centuries has placed the rich man in hell, not purgatory. The Catechism cites the text with the underlying assumption the man is in hell, not purgatory.

   What makes Tim's answer so interesting is that he cites a fellow Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, denying the general sense of the church and the Catechism by placing the rich man in purgatory. You can listen to the MP3 of this here.

   Tim let's us know it isn't that big of deal when his friend Patrick Madrid places the rich man in purgatory. Nope, not that big of a deal at all to hold your own contrary opinion on something the Catechism affirms, as does Thomas Aquinas and tradition. Tim is careful to point out the church doesn't have a definitive position on this text, so Madrid is free to interpret as he wishes. Of course, the bigger question is whether or not Luke 16:19-31 is literal or a parable, but this is usually only asked by those exegeting the text, not by those looking for purgatory.

   Some years back Mr. Madrid wrote, "As a rule of faith that, without recourse to Sacred Tradition and an infallible Magisterium, promises doctrinal certitude and a unity of faith, sola scriptura fails miserably." He also stated, "Scripture alone-Scripture forced to stand apart from the infallible teaching magisterium that has been given Christ's own authority to accurately interpret Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, which is the Church's living interpretation of those written words -is unstable and leads to the myriad of conflicting, erroneous, and sometimes spiritually fatal "human traditions." How do such comments not apply to Madrid himself? He's going against the very authority paradigm that tells him where the rich man is.

I wanted to let folks know where we stand on current projects.

I am still gathering materials for the Ehrman project. Of course, Ehrman is right now on the NPR/talk show circuit pushing Jesus, Interrupted, so I am gathering info from his appearances. I will post a video later today, Lord willing, drawing from his recent NPR appearance. I have added a few more items to the ministry resource list, mainly focusing on counter-evidence regarding those very early years of Christian history (about which Ehrman makes many assumptions, stating them as "givens").   

But before I press on with the Ehrman work I feel the need to do something "positive," in the sense of not simply responding to error. I am writing a small book presenting the gospel to Muslims. There are fundamental stumbling blocks in the Islamic perspective that keep them from "hearing" the full symphony that is the glorious gospel of Christ. I pray that the Lord will open a way to have this book distributed widely to the salvation of His elect and the glory of the gospel. More as I have portions ready to share.

Please pray that the Lord will give guidance regarding a third possible debate at the end of April/beginning of May in the Midwest. I hope to have final word on this possible ministry opportunity this week.

Finally, pray about the possibility of a joint work in response to Beckwith's reversion story. His work is simply re-stating the basic errors of Akin and other RC apologists, including his overturning Paul's entire argument in Romans 4 regarding justification (he styles it the "journey of justification," i.e., he buys into the refutation of Paul's argument in Romans 4 by agreeing with Paul's opponents!), but given his position in the ETS, it is worthwhile to respond to his errors. There are a number of patristic issues he raises as well that need to be examined and refuted. Many hands makes for lighter work!

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth. I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.

1 John 5:16-17 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.

23. Mortal And Venial Sins
In the following passage, St. John mentions that there are two categories of sin. Venial sins weaken the life of grace in the soul and weaken the soul's ability to avoid sin. Mortal sins, by their very nature, literally kill the soul by purposefully eradicating sanctifying grace. The church teaches that all grave (i.e., mortal, deadly) sins must be confessed in the sacrament of penance in which formal absolution is received from the priest. 1 John 5 16-17: "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is a sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."

   According to Madrid, these verses are clear biblical proof for the distinction between mortal and venial sins. The back of Madrid's book explains it's purpose is to "interpret the Bible correctly" and to "steer clear of common mistakes many people make when reading Scripture." The book explains Madrid's credentials include being the founder and publisher of Envoy magazine, a published author of some apologetics books, and the host of an EWTN television series.

   To contrast Madrid's interpretation with another Catholic source, let's see what Raymond Brown's The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary says. Brown doesn't appear to have the same caliber of credentials Mr. Madrid has in order to interpret scripture. Brown was only the Auburn Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, the first person to have been president of all three major biblical societies: The Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the International Society for New Testament Studies. From 1972 to 1978 he was the only American on the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, an appointment that Pope Paul VI said is only given to outstanding scholars.

First John is cautious. For most sins, the prayers will be heard; but there is a sin so serious that John does not encourage prayer for it. Evidently the readers of the letter knew all about this sin. We are not so well informed (except that we should avoid identifying "sin unto death" with mortal sin, and "a sin not unto death" with venial sin). Probably the sin for First John was joining the secession, which was a form of apostasy, a sin elsewhere judged harshly.

   Brown makes a similar statement in An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library) on page 388. Commenting on these verses he states, "He is not making the later theological distinction between mortal and venial sin." Who's right, Madrid or Brown? Without the Roman Catholic magisterium telling us, each is entitled to his own interpretation.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth. I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.

   Luke 10:16 states, "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." Akin explains this passage can't be used to prove the infallibility of the church. The passage was directed to the "seventy others" (Luke 10:1). Akin says because "they didn't have the kind of ongoing status in the church that would result in them being...you know... a distinct grade of ordination, for example... um, they're not like along side apostles and bishops and priests and deacons... so they had some kind of temporary role uh, in the church at least before the crucifixion." Akin says of this passage, "I don't think it's possible to derive full blown ecclesiastical infallibility out of this passage in any simple way." Akin says he would not recommend Catholics use Luke 10:16 to prove ecclesiastical infallibility: "I wouldn't just plop it down in front of somebody and say this proves without a doubt the church is infallible."

   Yet Catholic Answers (the very organization Mr. Akin works for) host a web page entitled,Papal Infallibility. This document states,

The Catholic Church's teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God's own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

   So Catholic Answers does exactly what Akin says not to do: they "plop" down Luke 10:16 to prove the Roman Catholic Church is infallible. Karl Keating does this, so does Patrick Madrid. I have a strong suspicion that I could come up with quite a number of Catholic apologists who do exactly what Akin says not to. Who's right? Well, pick your favorite Catholic apologist.

We really wanted to be shipping the new edition of The Potter's Freedom this week, but found out today that the distributor had put a hold on our order without the kindness of informing us of the matter. Rich let them know in no uncertain terms that they needed to get those books to us asap, and so we have been promised them by Friday. Once again, our apologies. We will ship them as soon as we get them. Thanks for your patience.

• When cornered on the issue of the fact that the manuscript wasn't discovered in the 20th century, he claims he never hinted anything to the contrary.
• Rather than just admit that he didn't research the origin of the manuscript, he claims that there is no definitive knowledge on the subject.
• Mr. Albrecht tries to suggest that we are arguing that there is an "infallible canon" of Athanasius' works that "all agree on."
• Despite trying to argue that the manuscript is not in any standard corpus of Athanasius' writings, Mr. Albrecht tries to pull the "ask your opponent to prove a negative" ploy that we see so often in Sola Scriptura debates with advocates of Catholicism. He asks me to prove that the document went unnnoticed by the Coptic church through the centuries. This sort of absurd request just demonstrates Mr. Albrecht's unwillingness to defend his own position with real evidence.
• Although Mr. Albrecht previously claimed Le Muséon says the work is authentic, Mr. Albrecht now tries to claim that I "admit" that Le Muséon doesn't take a position on the authenticity of the work.

I began a series today reviewing portions of Doug Wilson's debate with Dan Barker from 1997. I know I risk many barbs, slings, and arrows for saying Doug Wilson did a masterful and excellent job in this debate, but facts are facts, and he did. But I am not reviewing Doug's presentations, as good as they were. I wanted to focus upon Barker's incredible arguments, and upon the cross-examination periods. That's what we did today, and may be able to finish upon Thursday. Here's the program.

You may want to watch this video put up by William Albrecht. He addresses one instance in which an opponent wrongly says Catholics wrongly use the Fathers. Funny thing Fundamentalists accusing us of misusing the Fathers! Thanks William!

   Recently Dr. White pointed out the gulf between Catholic scholarship and popular Catholic apologists. I recently read a Catholic explanation of purgatory by Zachary Hayes ("a noted Franciscan theologian and Bonaventure scholar, OFM, of the Sacred Heart Province, is a retired professor of systematic theology at the Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, where he taught for thirty-seven years" [source]). Reading Hayes was far different than reading the usual suspects that have taken it upon themselves to interpret Rome. Many of the current Catholic apologists look at Biblical texts and simply assume they clearly prove purgatory. Hayes argues quite differently.

   Let's leave the apocrypha debate aside for a moment and look at the verse Catholic apologists say unambiguously teaches purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12: 41-46. The argument goes, if Luther didn't throw 2 Maccabees out of the Bible, Protestants would have to admit the passage clearly teaches purgatory.

   When Karl Keating addresses this text in Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), he first asserts "Scripture teaches that purgatory exists" (p. 193) and then among a few proof texts, he bolsters his claim with: "Then there is the Bible's approbation of prayers for the dead: 'It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins' (2 Macc 12:46)." In his book What Catholics Really Believe he states, "Unless it refers to Purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12:46 makes no sense" (p. 90). In his book, Answer Me This! (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003), Patrick Madrid states, "The doctrine [of purgatory] is expressed clearly in the Old Testament book of 2 Maccabees 12" (p. 204). The New Catholic Answer Bible [Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005] insert answers the question "Is Purgatory in the Bible?" by stating, "The writer of 2 Maccabees praises the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (see 12:38-46). Why do the departed need such assistance from us? So that their sins 'might be blotted out' (12:42)" (Insert H2). In his book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] Dave Armstrong has a section entitled "Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory." The account described in 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 is said to "presuppose purgatory" (p.128).

   On the other hand, Zachary Hayes states the Council of Trent maintained the passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" [Four Views On Hell (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996), p. 103]. He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and these see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Modern Catholic exegetes conclude:"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

   These statements must not be construed to imply Hayes denies the relevance of these passages for purgatory. He argues for purgatory from tradition, and uses the classic acorn and oak tree analogy. "Is there some basis in the Scriptures for the doctrine of purgatory, or is there not? If we are looking for clear and unambiguous statements of the doctrine, we will look in vain... we might better ask if anything in Scripture initiated the development that eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory" (p.104). Hayes says of current Catholic scholarship,"Thus, Roman Catholic exegetes and theologians at the present time would be inclined to say that although there is no clear textual basis in Scripture for the later doctrine of purgatory, neither is there anything that is clearly contrary to that doctrine" (p.107).

   In their zeal to win converts, current Catholic apologists think that simply citing a verse will be enough to win converts. When they're challenged to exegete a passage, texts like 2 Maccabees 12 become minefields. For instance, Dave Armstrong's "Biblical defense" of this text boils down to saying Jewish people prayed for the dead and Jesus never corrected this belief as an error of the Jews, nor did he deny a "third state" in the afterlife (p.128). When faced with the fact that those being prayed for in 2 Maccabees were idolaters, therefore dying in mortal sin, Catholic Answers states (via This Rock),

"They died fighting in a battle to defend Israel from pagans. Thus it seems that they were fundamentally doing the right thing (defending Israel from paganism) even though they were somewhat tainted with it themselves. In this mixed state they may well have been guilty of venial rather than mortal sin, like the case of a Christian who wears a good-luck charm while still having a fundamental commitment to following God."

   I'm reminded of a certain Biblical story in which a certain "ark of God'' was about to fall, and a person "reached out toward the ark of God to take hold of it," and God struck him down, and how someone at Catholic Answers would explain this. Regardless, 2 Maccabees says their idolatry caused the loss of their lives (2 Macc. 12:40). The text says nothing about prayers for these soldiers to exit purgatory, rather it had to do with resurrection (12:43-45). Further, Catholic apologists have to struggle with historical studies like Jacques Le Goff's The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981] in which he points out that "at the time of Judas Maccabeus- around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period- prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews (p. 45).

   Overall, even though disagreeing with Hayes as to the positive origin and affirming development of Purgatory, there was something fundamentally more honest in reading his analysis as compared to the Catholic apologists cited above. Hayes seems to realize that simply assuming the conclusion of what one wants to prove Biblically becomes tenuous in light of history. For Hayes, elements of Purgatory are found in 2 Maccabees 12, but as to purgatory proper, it was the result of development begun at the level of popular piety. For Catholic apologists, the text simply means purgatory.These are two very different approaches.

So says Bart Ehrman when you challenge his highly challengeable theological conclusions and claims. Ehrman's new anti-Christian book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them), is lying on my desk, having just arrived. I flipped the book open to the back and my eyes fell upon this statement:

There is not literally a place of eternal torment where God, or the demons doing his will, will torture poor souls for 30 trillion years (as just the beginning) for sins they committed for thirty years. What kind of never-dying eternal divine Nazi would a God like that be? (p. 276).

Now, aside from the inherent problems (poor souls = innocent souls, the issue of divine justice, the continued hatred of those under punishment for God, etc.) in this common atheistic blast, the real issue is, does this book finally signal the end of Ehrman's "I'm not a theologian, I'm just a high-brow scholar so I cannot be held accountable for all the theological pronouncements I make" excuse making? Will those in the "academy" finally see his real intentions, and start to recognize his bias? Personally, I sort of doubt it. Anyone who is embarrassed by the open profession of the lordship of Christ over the mind will not wish to risk their next invitation to some major conference by pointing out Ehrman's bold anti-Christian zealotry. But churchmen who recognize when a wolf is stalking the sheep will do well to cull some of the whopper statements in this book as excellent examples of the fact that Ehrman is no unbiased textual critical scholar. He has moved far beyond the realm of his narrow expertise in his last three most popular books, all of which are designed to do one thing: destroy Christian faith.

I might note that the quote above would be just as applicable to the Islamic view of the fire as well. Just don't ask Bart about that. As he begins his rounds on NPR, do you think someone will ask him, "So, you are saying Allah in the Qur'an is a never-dying eternal divine Nazi?" Yeah, probably not.

I just received word that Ehrman's new book, Jesus, Interrupted, has shipped. Though I can pretty much tell from the advertising what it will contain, keep an eye out for a quick review later this week. Be listening to your local NPR outlet for the free advertising of Ehrman's work soon! Watch your TV as well! This is the kind of "here's a reason not to obey the gospel" book that the world loves.