Last year I posted a blog article on the faux-marriage of Jennifer Kozumpli and Nicole Webber. These lesbians were pictured (one dressed as a man) holding an 18-month old girl, Sophie, which the caption identified as "their...daughter." I commented on how abusive it is to subject a child to such conditions, and how this again shows us how far our culture has descended into utter reprobation in its views.

You may recall that a while later I received a note demanding we take down the picture. I blogged the following at that time, and I note that the links are still active and accurate:

Back on June 30th I posted a short note regarding the abuse inherent in depriving a little child of a father and a mother that comes from "same sex unions." I made reference to a picture, posted on the Internet, in a major news source (MSNBC) as a glowing example of just how self-centered "same sex unions" have to be by nature. Here is the article I posted.

I was contacted by "jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber" (name provided on the contact page) and told to remove the image, found in the above linked article. I have done so pending my getting legal advice on the matter. You will find the image on the following websites, and something tells me "jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber" haven't contacted USA Today, MSNBC, etc., demanding that the picture be removed. As I have said many times, and as more and more people are discovering, homosexuals do not ask for equal rights: they want super-rights, including the ability to shut down all expression of belief that reminds them of the moral evil by which they have chosen to identify themselves. This is a glaring example. Note the use of this picture by such national online sources as MSNBC and USA Today. Google will provide you with lots of examples, such as this one.

The two individuals have likewise posted similar pictures on Facebook; even those without a Facebook account (such as yours truly) can see them.

Even Flickr has them as well.

I wonder if they wrote to The Ledger as well? That one even provides the very same image they have demanded I remove in a zoomable form.

Clearly, these two individuals are not camera shy, and they surely did not grant "rights" to all of these sources to post their pictures. No, the reason for this is clear: homosexuals use the cover of "tolerance" as a demand for "silence" on the part of those of us who still identify moral evil as moral evil. These individuals are glorying in their rebellion against God's moral law, and they are damaging not only themselves in their rebellion, but others too young to even understand what is being done to them. But they are intent upon making sure that no one reminds them of these facts that they know all too well.

I have been asking those "in the know," and since the picture is an AP picture, all one needs is an account with AP to post it. These individuals do not have the right to selectively determine which sites post the pictures and which do not---they lost that right when they allowed the pictures to be taken in the first place. But their demands cannot change the reality of their actions, and the actions of all of those rushing off to California so that they can pretend that marriage is a term humans get to define (instead of an institution God Himself ordained) before common sense returns to that state (Lord willing) in November. My original post only used their picture as an illustration of a general moral evil that is being promoted in our day. They are not alone in putting their own sexual desires before the good even of themselves, let alone of a little child. It is the very essence of homosexuality, and the very essence of man-centered Western culture.

So today I was informed that a laywer from AP had sent us a cease and desist order. So I've once again removed the picture, though, you can see it, repeatedly, if you so desire, even with zoom capabilities, at all the links posted above. For, as we all know, the only reason the AP came after us is that a complaint was filed with them.

Compare this zealous activity with that of YouTube/Google. I noted last week that someone had posted a disgusting, vile, clearly illegal and slanderous video in which they used my own video, but cobbled together words and phrases from other videos, so as to accuse me of gross immorality. I informed YouTube/Google of the video. Last I checked, it is still posted. When I complained, I was told it wasn't a copyright issue! So I asked to be directed toward the forms I needed to fill out on other grounds, and I did not even get a reply to the request.

Once again we see the elevation of a sexually-defined minority to the position of a protected group of elites based upon the society's fear of "offense" of these elites, while, concurrently, there is an ever lessening concern for a much larger minority group's rights, all due to the "political correctness" of the day. Somehow, long, long ago, these words were written:

"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you..." (John 15:18)

רָצַח (rā∙ṣǎḥ): v.; ≡ Str 7523; TWOT 2208—LN 20.61-20.88 (qal) murder, kill, i.e., take the life one another so as to cause a state of death...note: this action can refer to an accident, manslaughter, premeditation, or governmental execution; (nif) murdered, be killed (Jdg 20:4; Pr 22:13+); (piel) murder, kill
Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLH 8357).

Following his return, Beckwith's faith was changed in more than name only. "I started reading the Bible much more," he said. "I used to read the Bible looking for arguments. I now read and look for wisdom."

One may wonder where the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (or "scripture alone") factored in all this. To be blunt, it didn't, primarily because over the years I could not find an understanding or definition of sola scriptura convincing enough that did not have to be so qualified that it seemed to be more of a slogan than a standard.

But as I slowly and unconsciously moved toward Catholicism in the early 2000s, I began to even find the sola scriptura of the Magisterial Reformation not entirely satisfactory. It seemed to me to subtly and unconsciously incorporate into its theological framework all the doctrines that sola scriptura, without a settled canon or authoritative creedal tradition, could never have produced out of whole cloth without the benefit of a Holy Spirit-directed ecclesiastical infrastructure.

Stephen Ray’s Presentation

But while we can excuse Keating on the basis of possible ignorance of the actual events of history, we cannot do so with Catholic convert Stephen K. Ray. Instead, we must soberly conclude that his treatment of this issue in his 1999 book Upon This Rock (Ignatius Press) is simply deceptive. This work is, in my opinion, the clearest example of the lengths to which a Roman controversialist will go in twisting history so as to support Roman claims. In a work that is without question one of the least accurate and scholarly works I have ever seen on the subject, one that argues in circles constantly, Ray addresses both Cyprian and Augustine’s views. However, given that Ray does not use the tools of a historian, and in fact utterly abandons any kind of scholarly methodology, the result is predictable. He early on exposes how utterly unreliable his work will be in words such as these:

Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. (Upon this Rock, p. 12).

Such a methodology is, quite simply laughable. Ray goes on to use this to argue that unless an early Father specifically denies Petrine primacy and succession that this is somehow "relevant" to historical research. It is painfully obvious, to any semi-unbiased reviewer, that Ray is assuming what he seems to know he cannot prove. The grotesquely anachronistic "examination" that follows is glowing evidence of Ray’s inability to accurately handle historical data and to provide any kind of meaningful presentation. Protestant apologist William Webster has thoroughly refuted Ray (see www.christiantruth.com) who, in response, has only been able to provide more thorough documentation of his own anachronistic, circular reasoning. Utilization of Ray’s means of thought could provide the basis for any kind of belief in the early church, no matter how far-fetched.

But despite this, Ray’s treatment of both Cyprian and Augustine is not just grossly flawed, it is deceptive. It is obvious Ray knows the truth of the matter, but he either suppresses that truth, or twists it into a shape unrecognizable to anyone who reads the early Fathers for themselves. When dealing with Cyprian he desperately attempts to undercut the reality of Cyprian’s view of the cathedra Petri, and likewise somehow "forgets" to cite the passages we provided above which demonstrate Cyprian’s rejection of Stephen’s meddling in the affairs of the North African Church. Though providing lengthy footnotes, he does nothing but ignore Cyprian’s real doctrine, while attacking William Webster for pointing out the obvious. But our concern is much more with the tremendously deceptive presentation regarding Augustine’s Sermon 131.

Beginning on page 230, Ray provides a completely circular argument, not based upon Augustine, but upon Ray’s desperate need to read into Augustine the concept of Petrine primacy in the bishop of Rome. His citations (as throughout the book) are meant to be relevant only given the assumption of what he is trying to prove, the pre-existing commitment to the modern Roman theory of Petrine primacy. He even takes a pathetically weak shot at my own discussion of Augustine’s view of Matthew 16:18-19 which is so poorly constructed that there is no need to refute it: it stands as its own refutation. But on page 233 we read the following: "Roma locuta est; causa finita est [Rome has spoken; the case is closed]." Look familiar? It should. As we have seen, Augustine never said this. Ray uses the same quotes Keating did: but, he then attaches an almost page-length footnote that shows that he is well aware Augustine never uttered these words! This is the deception. Keating can claim ignorance: Ray has no such excuse. Look at what Ray says:

This popular, shortened version of Augustine’s statement put to rest the contention caused by the Pelagian heretics. The full text of his statement—the exact equivalent of the shortened version above—is, "[On the matter of the Pelagians] two Councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [Rome]; and from there rescripts [decrees from the Pope] have come. The matter is at an end [causa finita est]; would that the error too might sometime be at an end." (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, 3:28).

As we see, Ray knows that Augustine did not say the words he quotes, but, he excuses this misrepresentation by re-translating the term "rescripts" (Latin: rescripta) as "decrees from the Pope." Upon what basis does he do this? We are not told. We know that Innocent responded to the actions of the councils in North Africa. It is pure anachronism to 1) assume the North Africans held to Rome’s view of supremacy, 2) assume that the North Africans felt their actions required "ratification" by the bishop of Rome, and 3) assume that Augustine was basing his statement "the matter is at an end" on the decision of Innocent rather than (as the context shows) the Scriptural arguments he had presented against Pelagianism and the actions of the North African councils. Ray makes no reference to the actual substance of Sermon 131. He never quotes it. And what is worse, he utterly ignores the entire issue of Zosimus and the entire history of what transpired immediately after this sermon was preached! Instead, he provides two Roman Catholic citations that utterly ignore the historical context of Augustine’s words. One, from Bernard Otten, is a simply ridiculous assertion that while Augustine never said "Roma locuta est," "its equivalents occur again and again." We have already seen Sermon 131 surely does not do this, so where else do we look for these "equivalents"? We are not told. Another pro-Rome work is cited that inserts the anachronistic idea that the North African bishops felt they had to send the conclusions of their councils to Rome "for ratification," and as normal, we are not given any foundation upon which we can examine the claim. The fact that the North Africans rejected Zosimus’ clear, forceful rehabilitation of Pelagius, which included his insulting the North Africans as "storms of the church" and "whirlwinds" and which came couched within his complete claim of apostolic authority, shows this is not the case. The North Africans rejected his authority and his conclusions. So upon what basis can anyone say they felt the decisions of their councils needed Roman ratification? Indeed, as John Meyendorff points out, barely three years later these same African bishops wrote to Celestine, bishop of Rome, and said, "Who will believe that our God could inspire justice in the inquiries of one man only (i.e., the bishop of Rome) and refuse it to innumerable bishops gathered in council?" (Imperial Unity and Christian Division, 1989, p. 65). Does that sound like these men believed as Stephen Ray assumes everyone must have? Surely not. The facts are clear.

   Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist? There's that anti-catholic James Swan again, making stuff up about the one true church. Everyone knows, those who are members of the one true church have the benefit of the infallible magisterium. The papacy has God-given authority keeping Catholics unified!

   Actually, what most who may think this about me don't realize is I probably read more Roman Catholic books at this point than Protestant books. I certainly listen to more Catholic broadcasts than Protestant. This particular fact was not something I made up. It comes from the April 6, 2009 broadcast of Catholic Answers Live. Catholic apologist Jim Burnham devoted an hour on "How to Defend and Explain the Eucharist." You can listen to Jim's statistics in this short clip. Jim says in part,

"Poll after poll in recent years has confirmed that more and more Catholics are mistaken... they have misguided views about the Eucharist. it used to be everybody understood that the Eucharist was Jesus. it was the true flesh and blood... the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine. And now more recent polls suggest that sometimes up to fifty percent depending on how the question is phrased, sometimes as many as seventy percent of Catholics can't identify that core Catholic belief..."

   So, if I were to ask seven out of ten Catholics to explain the Eucharist, according to Burnham, I'd probably get a few different answers, or maybe even seven different answers. Here again we find a simple truth, typically ignored by Catholic apologists. Catholic apologists will repeatedly claim a Christian relying on the Bible as his sole infallible authority will produce confusion. They claim one must have another infallible authority, the Papacy. Yet, here is one of their key doctrines, what Burnham calls, "the crown jewel" of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, and seven out of ten Catholics are confused on it.

   In this period of economic crisis, many companies are evaluating their work plan, trying to find ways in which their company is failing and losing money. I submit, If your alleged infallible teaching magisterium is working as Burnham describes, you may want to evaluate the effectiveness of upper management at this point.

There is more I could say, but I have to catch my plane now. More will be coming. Just take this as an initial indication that Jesus, Interrupted adds nothing new and understates or ignores much. Read it for yourself and see how many of the issues he raises have been addressed by others already.

I am a Portland-based writer specializing in religion in public life. I write regularly for USA Today's "On Religion" commentary page as a member of the newspaper's editorial Board of Contributors. My work has also appeared in recent years in Salon, the Los Angeles Times, the Oregonian, and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A onetime newspaper reporter for the Orange County Register and Associated Press (Minneapolis and Trenton bureaus), I have an undergraduate degree in journalism from the University of Minnesota and a master of liberal arts degree in religion in public life from the University of Pennsylvania. By day, I am an administrator at Lewis & Clark College in Portland (which is a very cool school).

If the Bible is the literal word of God, Ehrman asks, how could it be inconsistent on so many details large and small? Let's start with an example appropriate to the just-concluded Easter season marking the Savior's death and resurrection: As Jesus was dying on the cross, was he in agony, questioning why God had forsaken him? Or was he serene, praying for his executioners? It depends, Ehrman points out, on whether you're reading the Gospel of Mark or Luke. Regarding Jesus' birthplace of Bethlehem, had his parents traveled there for a census (Luke's version) or is it where they happened to live (Matthew's version)? Did Jesus speak of himself as God? (Yes, in John; no, in Matthew.)

Dr. Ehrman ignores the fact that Mark clearly presents Jesus predicting His own death and even speaking of His own burial. He is in fact in complete control in Mark, and His citation of Psalm 22:1 should be understood as being reflective of the Messianic nature of that Psalm and its fulfillment in Him, not as an indication of abandonment. Ehrman's reading forces us to think Luke would contradict Mark while writing for the very same audience that already possessed Mark's gospel. It is only Ehrman's anti-Christian prejudice that precludes his allowing all the data to speak and that forces him to turn Luke and Mark into enemies rather than friends. (113 words)

As the great Princeton scholar B.B. Warfield pointed out nearly a century ago, the evidence for the deity of Christ found in all four Gospels, Matthew included, is overwhelming. In the original context of Matthew's gospel the words and actions of Jesus clearly transcend any merely human prophet. Ehrman is simply in error to say that the Jews of the first century believed the Son of God was merely a human: while a human could be called one of many sons of God, the language Jesus uses in Matthew (11:27 among others) and all the other gospels shows us He is the Son of God in a unique way, a way that plainly indicates deity. (117)

Ehrman's book has met with a fierce reaction from some quarters, which is understandable. Who among us isn't inclined to fight back when our deepest, most cherished beliefs are challenged? But there is no need to demonize him as a "wolf" on the prowl against the church, as one critic has. His ideas, like so many other new thoughts and new insights that keep coming around with the surety of the seasons, need not be regarded as insults against God or bids to prove the Bible false.

One of Ehrman's chief critics is the theologian and author James White, a leading practitioner of apologetics, the branch of theology devoted to defending and proving the orthodox faith. White denounces Ehrman as an apostate guided by deepanti-Christian bias. He charges in one Internet post that Ehrman 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."
If criticisms of Ehrman veer toward the personal it's because his evidence - the Bible's own text - is what it is. And there is no denying the inconsistencies he surfaces between the various Gospels and letters that form the New Testament.

Ehrman's book has met with a fierce reaction from some quarters, which is understandable. Who among us isn't inclined to fight back when our deepest, most cherished beliefs are challenged? But there is no need to demonize him as a "wolf" on the prowl against the church, as one critic has. His ideas, like so many other new thoughts and new insights that keep coming around with the surety of the seasons, need not be regarded as insults against God or bids to prove the Bible false.

I Don't Do Theology, I'm an Historical Scholar!

03/02/2009 - James White

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.

Why aren't you a Roman Catholic? That probably seems like an odd question to many of you. Yet, have you ever considered it? If you are a former Roman Catholic, you might have an answer to that question. But is it a valid answer? A solid answer? If it is an answer that involves "Father Mike was mean to me" or "I really don't like votive candles," then your reasons for leaving are probably less than sufficient.

I am not a Roman Catholic because Roman Catholicism is a false religion. It is headed by an imposter, a man who claims to be something he is not. The Pope is not the Vicar of Christ, he is not the head of the Christian Church, he is not a "Holy Father," and I owe him no fealty, honor, nor respect in the religious sense. Roman Catholicism is a man-made perversion of the truth. While it retains elements of the truth (having moved away from the faith slowly and over a great deal of time), it falls under the condemnation of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1. If the Judaizers were properly anathematized for their additions to the gospel, it is very clear to me that they never came close to dreaming up half the stuff Rome has added to the gospel over the centuries. Nor do we have any evidence that they attacked the sufficiency of Scripture, included grossly unbiblical offices (priests, Cardinals, Popes), or elevated anyone like Mary to the lofty heights of nigh unto divinity that Rome has over the past few centuries. The Papacy has embarrassed the Judaizers in the realm of innovation and gospel-corruption, to be sure.

So I am not a Roman Catholic by positive conviction that the gospel of grace found in Scripture is not the gospel of Rome. My positive conviction of the gospel that saves utterly precludes my consideration of Roman Catholicism, for to embrace that system would require me to abandon all I believe about Scripture (its inspiration, its preservation, its supremacy, its sufficiency), all I believe about the gospel (the sovereign decree of God, the perfection of the atonement, the power of the Spirit in bringing the elect to salvation), all I believe about the church (its form, function, and purpose). In other words, Roman Catholicism is a different religion than I profess. It is not just a variant, "another flavor."

One is either convicted that the gospel is something that matters or not. There really isn't any middle ground. Saying the gospel is important, but, not really definitional, is absurd. It is no wonder that so many today find Paul a disagreeable character, because as far as I can see, I am following very closely in his footprints on this issue. There is a divine gospel whereby God glorifies Himself in the salvation of His elect, and anything less than that isn't the gospel at all. It's a sham, a fraud, a deception. Now that kind of thinking doesn't sit well in a post-modern world, to be sure, where it smacks of "epistemological arrogance." But to say otherwise is to insist that God has not spoken with clarity and that the Lord has not preserved the gospel for His people.

The fact of the matter is that most "Protestants" in the world today are Protestants of taste rather than Protestants of conviction. They just prefer their religion the way they have it. Maybe they don't like old cathedrals, or they don't like backwards collars, or the smell of candles. Maybe they think the Pope's hat is funny. Whatever the reason, they are not Roman Catholics basically because they don't feel like it. They are not convinced that Rome's gospel is false or that her theology is blasphemous. No, they have never really given all of that much thought. They might find the Marian dogmas a bit odd, but in the final analysis, their current religious affiliation is just a matter of taste, nothing more. And let me tell you: those folks are ripe for conversion: either conversion to Rome, or, conversion to apostasy, either one. For if they have no passion for the gospel, they have no passion for Christ, and hence no foundation of faith.

A couple of years ago I wrote a review for the CRI Journal of Mark Noll's book, Is the Reformation Over? While thought provoking, the book was horribly imbalanced and unfair. I only had 775 words, so I could hardly go in-depth in my review. But Carl Trueman from Westminster Seminary had a much less restricted word limit in his review. Toward the end he wrote the following:

When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot go down that path myself, primarily because of my view of justification by faith and because of my ecclesiology; but those who reject the former and lack the latter have no real basis upon which to perpetuate what is, in effect, an act of schism on their part. For such, the Reformation is over; for me, the fat lady has yet to sing; in fact, I am not sure at this time that she has even left her dressing room.

I interpret Trueman to mean "default position" in a historical sense, surely not a biblical sense. Be that as it may, his words touch upon the real problem with so many so-called evangelicals today. Thoroughly infected with a post-modernistic allergic reaction to objective truth and divine revelation, bombarded day and night by naturalistic materialism and its soul-sapping, corrosive effect upon faith, these people live in blissful ignorance of history and the reality of the centrality of the gospel to the event of the Reformation. They are far more likely to be embarrassed by the truth than convicted about it.

A true Protestant is a person who has made that act of will, that act of faith, in purposefully embracing the gospel of grace in opposition to a gospel of works and who recognizes that what he has embraced is fundamentally opposed to what he has rejected. The Apostle put it clearly and bluntly:

4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." (Rom 4:4-8 ESV)

Paul draws a 180 degree contrast between the faith of the one who does to receive and the one who believes. Clearly the Apostle did not think that the one "who works" was holding a "variant" of the same gospel. This was not a matter of mere taste, of preference. The one message saves, the other does not. But there is the rub: today you are strongly denounced by cultural orthodoxy if you think that there is a right and a wrong in matters religious, and even within "churchianity" today, you will gain many a frown by actually thinking we know enough about the gospel to identify anything, no matter how perverse, as "false" and hence "unsaving." And that is even more true in much of "academia."

It is the Easter season, and around this time you hear all about the next crop of celebrity "converts" to Rome. When people leave Rome they rarely get star status for so doing (and they rarely wait till a particular day on the liturgical calendar, either). But the "convert traffickers" like Steve Ray and the Coming Home Network will make a star of anyone. This year we have Newt Gingrich swimming across the Tiber. Do we have any reason to believe he was ever firmly planted on the other side? Not that I know of, but don't expect that to slow down the adoration and triumphalism. But once again, what do "convert" stories prove? Depends on the convert story, of course! When you encounter someone who was knowledgeably convinced of a position and they abandon it and provide sound, fair refutations of the best arguments of their former position, then you can put weight upon the conversion. But without that, all you have is another personal story that is probably a cover for a far more complex set of personal issues that lead a person from one viewpoint to another. The point being that we should not be surprised when people change their tastes. I recently started eating more vegetables. I am sure those who knew me in younger years are in utter shock! But I changed my tastes! Since "personal preference" is the foundation of many a person's religious views, then alteration of those views is hardly a surprising thing. And for the sound thinking person, when those views change, they have little impact upon the truth claims of either the religion left, or the religion embraced--except in the mind of the post-modernist, who acts upon feelings, emotions, or trends, rather than upon objective truth.

So if you really believe the gospel, you really believe the negation of the gospel is evil. Just as the person who loves God and holiness will hate sin, so too the person who really believes the gospel will find its negation, its corruption, its perversion, an object of hatred. Can they remain balanced in not tipping over to the side of those who confuse their own traditions, their own narrow personal preferences with the gospel? Yes, they can, for the Scriptures provide that balance. That danger must be faced as well, which is why we so often challenge people to examine their traditions and hold to sound, challenging, and even difficult standards of exegetical discipline. But the spectre of the shallow minded theological bigot cannot be allowed to force us over into the other extreme of "everyone's personal views are equal, there is no truth, no error." Balance comes from humility before God's Word. And that Word tells us the gospel is definable, knowable, and believable. If we really believe it, we will know what we believe, and why we believe it.

Anti-Catholic James White has demonstrated a frantic obsession with me over the last few years based on what people have told me about his blog and radio shows. People tell me he claims I am irrelevant and unimportant yet to the contrary I am told he is quite infatuated and spends an inordinate amount of time trying to refute and challenge me. I don't pay much attention. I consider him a whiny, egotistical bore and a huge waste of time. I basically ignore him and his infatuation with me. Every time I have tangled with him in the past I felt like I needed a shower with a good bar of antibacterial soap.

Beauty of NOT having a Magisterium ... ... is that you don't have to have any solid positions, morals, or theology. You can waffle and change your mind. God has no opinion (obviously, or so think many) so you don’t have to worry about what He might think.

The Bible is God’s word to all men. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error.

    Recently, Mr. Armstrong took a strong dislike to my blog entry, "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #9. In that entry, I pointed out that the Bible contributions of Thigpen and Armstrong don't seem to match up to the commentary notes of The New Catholic Answer Bible. Armstrong has finally let us know why. He refers to them as "...the notoriously liberal notes for the NAB...". Armstrong says,

"As we have come to sadly expect, the know-nothing anti-Catholic crowd (being dense as they always are about Catholic topics) would rather cite heterodox, liberal dissidents than orthodox popes and orthodox Catholic commentaries. That fits in nicely with their slanderous agenda. But the truth is far different."

"Fireside is proud to introduce The New Catholic Answer Bible- New American Bible-Ideal for:RCIA - Religious Education -Confirmation -Bible Study- Youth Ministry -High Schools & Universities. Benefits: -Provides for a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith -Presents inquiring questions for class discussion -Teaches the roots, tradition and rituals of the faith Translation-"

   That's very impressive, is it not? After reading this, one is given the assurance of a quality book of factual information. Indeed, you'll be getting the best Catholic answers, right at your fingertips, along with the biblical text. You'll' have study Bible guiding you toward "a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith." Just think of the possibilities... a Catholic could walk into any Protestant Bible study with The New Catholic Answer Bible, and be ready to defend the one true church. You could use this Bible in high schools and universities, to learn and defend the Catholic faith! The back cover boldly states, "The New Catholic Answer Bible is your faith's foundation in Holy Scripture and Catechesis."

   The commentary notes though used by the Thigpen / Armstrong New Catholic Answer Bible are, according to DA "the notoriously liberal notes for the NAB," written by "heterodox, liberal dissidents." That is... not very comforting. Are we to assume the "answers" given in the NCAB commentary notes are not intended by Armstrong and Thigpen to be correct answers? I suggest they rename this book, "The New Catholic Right and Wrong Answer Bible. Armstrong and Thigpen should also explain why the reference material for the NAB was given the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur: "The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free from doctrinal or moral error." Perhaps those granting it don't have the same criteria used by Dave to determine "heterodox, liberal dissidents." In fact, the declaration goes on to say, "No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed." Now that's the beauty of being Rome- you can affirm and deny so as to cover all bases.

   Of course, Mr. Armstrong included his usual kindness. I'm part of the "know-nothing anti-Catholic crowd (being dense as they always are about Catholic topics)." I put forth my "usual clueless ignorance." He says I'm "spewing idiotic nonsense." "Pointing out simple facts because an anti-Catholic imbecile desperate for attention from our ranks can't get them right to save his life is neither "debate" nor "dialogue" (as if that even needs to be pointed out). I suggest that this nitwit (with -- of all things -- a philosophy degree yet!!) pull out the closest dictionary to get up to speed on definitions." Yes, the kindness of Catholic apologists, topped off with the charge, "Lying (especially about brothers in Christ), is a very serious sin, and bearing false witness is forbidden in the Ten Commandments."

   Speaking of lying, a while back, someone asked Dave, "Dave, New challenge for you. James Swan posted an article on 3-3-09 where he argues 2 Macc 12 is not a clear reference to Purgatory. You might enjoy refuting his comments, especially because he cites you by name and says you're wrong." Dave responded,

Thanks for the info, but I no longer waste time debating anti-Catholic sophists. When I did do so, for 12 years, almost all of them ran every time they faced an opposing argument. For the few who managed to not run, it was all sophistry and obscurantism. That is most unimpressive and irksome, so I have given up. I continue to make my own arguments but I don't bother with theirs anymore, because they never defend them when challenged. One has to understand how to rationally, properly assert and defend arguments. I don't have time for that. I want to dialogue with people who have some semblance of intellectual confidence in their positions.

   But then, to make it all "Christian" Mr. Armstrong turns the other cheek and states, "Pray for this self-deluded person and all like him. They are in a very bad spiritual state, to keep doing these things. There's always hope, and they are fellow Christians, but they need much prayer. Ask the Blessed Virgin Mary in particular, to intercede on their behalf, and apply Lenten penances to their souls." Such is the world of conservative orthodox Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong. How would Dave's prayer go? Based on Dave's comments, I've put together a prayer. Perhaps it could be something like, "Dear Mary, please help this clueless, ignorant, dense, know-nothing, slanderer, nit wit, anti-Catholic imbecile desperate for attention, liar, and spewer of idiotic nonsense stop quoting the notoriously liberal notes (with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) for the NAB. Help him to see (and embrace), the true Catholic faith found in those sections of our Answer Bible that agree with what we deem correct by orthodox scholars and Catholic commentaries.

   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. Especially interesting is the divide between Rome's apologists and scholars as to the meaning of the biblical text.

Revelation 12:1-2
Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.

   I've mentioned Catholic interpretations of Revelation 12 a number of times. Recently, Tim Staples provided his understanding of the identity of the woman in Revelation 12. You can listen to Tim's explanation here. This answer was given in the context of proving Marian dogmas. According to Mr. Staples, Mary is the "new Eve" in the earliest writings of the church fathers because "we have such a such a clear reference in the book of Revelation to the woman who gives birth to the messiah being referenced as the new Eve." Staples also says Revelation 12 parallels Genesis chapter 3.

   As to the early church fathers all knowing the woman in Revelation 12 was a clear reference to Mary, Some of Rome's historians appear to hold a much different view. Luigi Gambero says it might have been Epiphanius (after 310; died in 403): who was the first: "The identification of the woman of the Apocalypse with the Virgin Mary is interesting. It may be the first Marian interpretation of the scriptural text" [Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999) p. 126]. On the other hand, Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M. thinks it was Tychonius (370 /390):

"Tychonius, a lay theologian among the Donatists, independent enough to be excommunicated by his own sect, seems to have identified Mary with the woman of Apoc. 12, and to have spoken of a 'great mystery' in her regard." [Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., Mariology, Volume 1 (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1955), p. 148]. In the footnote #180 for this citation, Carol says, 'Tychonius' view is transmitted by Cassiodorus, Complexiones in Apocalypsin, n. 16; PL, 70, 1411."
   
Latin text for Cassiodorus: De matre vero atque Domino Jesu Christo, et de diaboli adversitate pauca perstringit, futuris praeterita jungens: dicens, Deum ascendisse ad caelos, matrem vero ipsius aliquanto tempore in secretioribus locis esse servandam, ut eam illic pascat annis tribus, et semis; quod in magnum sacramentum, sicut Tychonius refert, constat edictum. Apocalypsis Sancti Joannis, §16, PL 70:1411B.

   Do Catholic scholars agree with Mr. Staples that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary? Raymond Brown interprets Revelation 12 as, "The woman clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet and on her head the crown of twelve stars, represents Israel, echoing the dream of Joseph in Gen. 37:9 where these symbols represent his father (Jacob/Israel), his mother, and his brothers (the sons of Jacob who were looked on as ancestors of the twelve tribes)" [Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p.790]. Brown points out that in "subsequent theology, especially in the Middle Ages, the woman clothed with the sun was identified with Mary the mother of Jesus)" [p. 790, footnote 32]. This would be contrary to Staples claim that the earliest church fathers saw this passage referring to Mary. Brown also says the parallel is to Genesis chapter 37, not chapter 3 as Staples insists.

   The New Catholic Answer Bible commentary notes on Revelation 12 state, "The woman adorned with the sun, the moon , and the stars (images taken from Gn 37, 9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (6. 13-17); cf Is 50, 1;66, 7; Jer 50, 12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster" [The New Catholic Answer Bible (Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005) p. 1384]. Similar to Brown and contrary to Staples, the parallel is to Genesis chapter 37, not chapter 3.

   The commentary notes for The New Catholic Answer Bible were written by Catholic scholars, while the Watchtower-esque color inserts scattered throughout this study Bible were compiled by Dave Armstrong and Paul Thigpen. Insert E4 states, "In St. John's vision of heaven, the 'woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, bore a son 'destined to rule all the nations' (Rv 12:1, 5). Is it any wonder that in such a portrait, Catholics see Mary, Queen of Heaven?" Well, there is indeed wonder here- it is a wonder why Rome's scholars see one thing, while her apologists see another.