Christian Apologetics Radio

Browsing through the CAS analytics, we noted a search for "Christian Apologetics Radio". The individual "bounced", meaning that they landed on a page and then left after a few seconds. That caused us to consider the topic of Christain apologetics radio further as we listen to several hours of apologetics radio via podcast every day. We have three favorites:

Catholic Answers LIVE - This Christian apologetics ministry airs two hours of apologetics radio every weekday. Topics range from contemporary issues of stem cells and same sex marriage to church history. Callers include atheists, agnostics, muslims, and Christians of all denominations. Once a month that have a special call in day for non-Catholics only and any sincere question may be asked. There's also "Who Wants to be an Apologist?" with some very difficult questions drawn from the "hat of difficulty". The broadcasts are available as podcasts withing 24 hours.




The Journey Home - This show is actually a television show that we listen to as a podcast on Wednesdays. While not intended as an apologetic program, the inspiring testimonies of individuals who have often lost their faith and found their way back to Christ is insightful. Hearing what truths and events motivate people towards Christianity is invaluable to apologists. This weeks show featured a discussion on Lutheranism.




Internet Monk Radio - Again, not a deliberate apologetics program, but the iMonk's pursuit of a "Jesus shaped Christianity" is apologetic by nature. A devout Baptist with a campus ministry in the hills of Kentucky, Internet Monk Radio will have you shaking your head in one direction or another and likely talking back to your favorite Internet appliance. The sample episode below features an apology on "know-it-all preachers" contradicting knowledge using out-of-context scripture.



By the way, we are fond of the open source Juice cross-platform podcast receiver.. Its runs in the background and we schedule Juice to download new podcasts late before o'dark-thirty to avoid internet rush hour. We arrive at the office each morning to fresh audio content.


Related Posts:
The Journey Home - Baptists

Atheist Thought Experiment

Recently, we chanced upon an "Atheist Thought Experiment". The thought experiment is the following hypothetical situation:

Irrefutable evidence is finally discovered that proves, once and for all, whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the product of a virgin birth. The only person who is privy to this evidence is a rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman who is holding your most loved family member with a gun to his or her head. The gunman asks you to provide the correct answer to whether the immaculate conception occurred or not. No equivocation is allowed - you must answer either "yes, the virgin birth happened" or "no, the virgin birth never happened". You have 60 seconds to make up your mind and give the answer. If you are wrong, the gunman shoots your loved one. If you are correct, your loved one is freed.

A couple of quick observations regarding the above hypothetical:

Use of an absolute ("Irrefutable"). It is usually a bad idea to ever use an absolute (always, all, everyone) as unless the point being argued is indeed an absolute, then an exception will be found. It only takes a single exception to disprove an absolute. Personally, I am incapable of even imagining any irrefutable proof against the virgin birth of Christ that could found in this day and age. Then again, the experiment is a hypothetical, a complete and utter work of fiction (not truth).

A possible contradiction ("rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman"). Atheists themselves seem to provide the contradiction here. Many atheists claim that man can have a moral code that is not based on religion, but based on rationality. Most of those same atheists would likely argue that rational people do not kill or assult others. So, on what basis can a "a rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman exist"? Atheists believe evil exists? Interesting. Oh, yeah. Its a hypothetical work of fiction. Fiction is neither required to be true nor rational.

Misunderstanding of "immaculate conception" ("whether the immaculate conception occurred or not", "whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the product of a virgin birth"). This is the clear error in the hypothetical. The virgin birth of Christ is not the immaculate conception, which should be clear from the nouns to anyone having studied human reproduction. Conception is not birth. They are nine months apart in occurance. Also, most Christians believe that the immaculate conception occured to Mary, not Jesus. Different people. So, which question needs answering? Imaculate conception of Mary or virgin birth of Jesus?

Definition of terms ("correct answer"). Based on my knowledge of scripture, the testimony of early witnesses in surviving historical Christian documents, and rational thought, I would answer that both events were true. Of course our atheist friend used the term "correct answer" versus "truth". The questions don't ask which events are true or actually occured, but what is the "correct answer". While those could be one and the same, they can also be different.

In any event, based on my belief that both events are true, my "most loved family member" would have been hypothetically shot. That immediately raisies a howl from our "rational" atheist friend "...that you are in dire need of rational salvation before you actually cause some harm or enable others to do so."

First, if rational salvation involves fiction that includes absolutes, contradictions, and misunderstandings, I want no part of "rational salvation", however that is defined. (Since salvation generally involves the existence of a God and an afterlife, and most atheists deny both; rational salvation is an interesting viewpoint for any atheist to hold. Conundrum comes to mind. erhaps we can discuss rational salvation later this year.)

Second, the charge of "dire need of rational salvation" makes clear that the thought experiment has nothing to do with atheism (the existence or nonexistence of God), but is an attempt at applying psychology to discredit either the Christian religion, Christians, or both. So, the title of Atheist Thought Experiment is less than truthful.

This final difference is important for Christian apologists to remember. Due to their inability to disprove the existance of God, many atheists attempt to disprove religion. One may disprove every religion in existence and still not disprove the existence of God. That's the dilemma of atheism. As rational science is inadequate to disprove God, psychology is employed to discredit religion and/or adherents.

Related Posts:
Atheist Believes Africa Needs God
Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible

Source: The Atheist Missionary: A thought experiment for fundamentalist Christians

Father Zakaria Botros Increases Visitors

Father Zakaria Botros must have put out a damaging apologetic against Islam on Middle Eastern TV recently. CAS visitor statistics have doubled this past week and most of the visitors seem to be Islamic, judging from the high bounce rate and keywords. Keywords like "zakaria botros ", "zakaria botros disasters of the koran", "answering christian", "answeringzakaria", and "coptic apologist islam christian" are conspicuous in the CAS analytics.

For those not familiar with Father Zakaria Botros, Father Botros is a Coptic priest. Not Catholic, but Eastern Oriental Orthodox. Father Botros engages Islam through an Arabic language satellite television program watched by thousands (if not millions) of Muslims. Father Botros is very popular among everyone but the Imams and Islamic apologists.

As previously mentioned, Father Zakaria Botros has been very effective in challenging Islamic clerics head on with some very difficult arguements regarding the Koran and Islamic teaching. So much so, that many Islamic regions have chosen to retaliate physically against Christians, Copts in particular. Please remember Father Zakaria Botros and our Coptic brothers and sisters in Christ in your prayers.

Update

As several CAS commentors have noted, Father Zakaria Botros is Orthodox, but not Eastern Orthodox. Father Botros, as a Coptic Orthodox, is part of the Oriental Orthodox Church. Wikipedia has a good introductory article on the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

Related Posts:
Answering Zakaria Botros
Christian Apologetics for Muslims

Source: source

Christian Apologetics Blogs

A number of visitors to CAS arrive from search engines looking for "Christian Apologetics Blogs". That behavior got me to thinking about what are some of the better, if not the best, Christian apologetics blogs. Who in the blogsphere is actively engaging atheists, agnostics, Islamists, and others in Christian apologetics? So, leaving out the polemists that engage in apologetica among Christian sects, I arrived at the following list of Christian apologetics blogs.

Steve Ray’s Blog



Source: source

Call No Man Father

"Good day, Father!" "How are you, Father?" "Good sermon, Father!"

Who is being addressed? A Catholic priest?

Would you believe a Baptist minister in a Baptist church?

Neither would I, but, believe it or not, its true. For the first 300-400 years after the Reformation, most Reformation congregations addressed their ministers as "Father". Also, the honorific "Father" was not reserved for clergy alone. Missionary pioneers were also referred to as "Father" and "Mother". Early American Methodists referred to John Wesley as "Father Wesley".

Strangely enough, before 1840 most Catholic congregations addressed their priests as "Mister," "Monsieur," or "Don", but not "Father".

What changed?

The sudden immigration of Irish Catholics was the catalyst. Irish Catholics called all priests "Father". That was more than some Reformation "Fathers" could stand. Many ministers began forsaking the now tainted title. Scripture was searched and a polemic found. Matthew 23:9.

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."
Matthew 23:8-10

While the Irish were the catalyst, the new 19th Century Doctor of Divinity degree was the fuel. Coveted by Protestant ministers, "Doctor" gradualy replaced "Father" as the common honorific.

Bizzarly, like the word "Rabbi", the word "Doctor" means "teacher". "Doctor" is from the latin verb docere (to teach). Matther 23:8 seemingly forbids the now common Protestant tradition of calling ministers "Doctor". Will this also change, perhaps in response to the many college and university faculty that are atheists and agnostics? Only time will tell. Perhaps "Father" will return to vogue.

Update

Seldom does God allow me to gain knowledge without Him providing me an opportunity to apply said knowledge. Shortly after posting the above, I made my regular weekend visit to Michael Spencer's Internet Monk blog to follow-up on developments there. Michael had posted on ordinations and made the aside comment "(Not calling someone Father or Reverend seems like a can’t-miss teaching of Jesus.)". Knowing the Michael was Baptist and Michael's burning desire for the truth in all things, I commented on the above fact that for the first 200-240 years of his denominations existence that Baptist had called their ministers Father in seeming defiance of the Bible. The ensuing denials and discussions had the unintended consequence of hijacking Michael's intended thread on ordinations. My apologies, Michael.

Secondly, I chased yet another theological "rabbit". Matthew 23:10 basically states to call no man "master". As the days of slaves and masters are largely long past and its now only in movies that one hears "Yes, master", most of us don't give this verse a second thought. But, are the days of using "master" truely gone? Not so. It turns out that "mister" is a cognate of "master". Per Wikipedia, cognates in linguistics are words that have a common origin. Not only is "mister" a cognate, but also "mistress" and all our modern abbreviations of Mr., Mrs., and Ms. So, for the more sola scriptura among us, was Jesus banning all use of the word "master", and its future cognates, or was Jesus expressing something else and using hyperbole to make His point?

Source: Are ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ Appropriate Titles for Protestant Clergy?

Christian Apologetics for Muslims

VirtueOnline, an Anglican blog, has a very good post on Fr. Zakaria Botros, a Coptic priest, who is having very good results with his own TV show aimed at Muslims in Arabic lands. In fact, Fr. Zakaria is having so much success that he has drawn a lot of Isamic hatred and disdain.

While many of us Christian Apologists don't have access to satelitte TV or are fluent in Arabic, we can adopt the third leg of Fr. Zakaria's system -- irrefutable polemics.

A third reason for Botros's success is that his polemical technique has proven irrefutable. Each of his episodes has a theme -- from the pressing to the esoteric -- often expressed as a question (e.g., "Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?" "Are women inferior to men in Islam?" "Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?" "Is drinking the urine of prophets salutary according to sharia?"). To answer the question, Botros meticulously quotes -- always careful to give sources and reference numbers -- from authoritative Islamic texts on the subject, starting from the Koran; then from the canonical sayings of the prophet -- the Hadith; and finally from the words of prominent Muslim theologians past and present -- the illustrious ulema.

Typically, Botros's presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open -- and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on "al-dalil we al-burhan," -- "evidence and proof," one of his frequent refrains -- not shout-downs or sophistry.

More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence -- which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers.

Note that Fr. Zakaria is not attacking Muslims for worshippind a false "moon" God or for disbelieving in the triune nature of God. Anyone seeking to engage Muslims and Islamic clerics in Christian apologetics would do well to read this article and to study Fr. Zakaria's methods and arguements. The article includes a link to Fr. Zakaria's website.

UPDATE

Fr. Zakaria has a website in English. Under his Books link, Fr. Zakaria provides the text of his arguments in both Word and PDF formats. Recommend fellow Christian apologists bookmark Fr. Zakaria's site.

Source: Islam's "Public Enemy #1"

Apologetics - Papal Infallibility

Introduction: During one of my regular blog searches for all things Catholic, I discovered an interesting post by blogger Saur♥Kraut. In my usual manner, on those things I thought in error, I left a polite charitable comment with my counter-points. Saur♥Kraut responded with a reply to her blog post and was kind enough to leave word on one of my earlier blog posts that she had replied and would like me to read and respond. As my reply prints out at 6 pages and most blog software has limitations on comment length and its somewhat rude to monopolize another blog's comments, I have posted my second response to Saur♥Kraut here.

I recommend that you read Saur♥Kraut's original post Reformation in the Catholic Church first, followed by all the comments, and then return here for my second response which follows.

>”Actually, there is. Didn’t you read my points?”

Yes, I did. You posted four “examples” of what you believe to be erroneous proclamations and judgments by past Popes and thus proof against papal infallibility. However, none of those examples have ever been recognized by the Catholic Church as infallible papal proclamations or judgments. Papal infallibility has only been used twice in history.

>”You are in error here – I believe you mean John 16:13.”

Yes, thank you. It was late and I’ve had a tiring schedule lately. Looks like I was one verse off in my citation, but you found the reference nonetheless.

>” Timothy, please note that even you wrote “…and the church”.”

Correct, because the charisma of infallibility has been bestowed by Christ on both the Church and on the successor Peter, the Pope. While the charisma of papal infallibility has only been used twice, the infallibility of the Church has been used many times over.

>” This scripture verse applies to the disciples (plural), not the Pope. You believe the Popes all descend from Peter, but we see that Jesus is addressing a group of disciples and not Peter alone.”

While you don’t say so directly, you seem to imply that only the apostles were infallible and that the charisma vanished after the last apostle died. Is that your intent?

As a Latin Rite Catholic, our bishops (the Popes) inherit their authority from the apostle Peter. The keys of authority which Jesus gave to Peter as mentioned in Matthew 16 were inheritable per Isaiah 22. It seems clear from scripture that Christ did not intend for His Church to wander aimlessly without any Shepard throughout time. I find nothing in scripture to indicate that any and all charismas granted Peter would not be inherited by Peter’s successor.

You mentioned all the disciples being present and being promised the Holy Spirit. We agree that took place at Pentecost. As the other apostles founded churches also, it would be interesting to discover if Pope Shenouda III, the current Pope of Alexandria and the successor of the apostle Mark, also has the charisma of infallibility.

>”I’m not sure what version you’re using,”

For online work, I usually use either the NIV or KJV at Biblegateway.com

>”What is the Spirit of truth? I think you would have to agree that it’s speaking of the Holy Spirit”

Absolutely. Infallibility has everything to do with truth. If one is speaking the truth, one has made an infallible statement. Truth cannot contradict truth or ever be error. So, if the Pope says something true then it is infallible (without error) just by the nature of truth and infallibility, just as a true statement by a two year-old would also be infallible (without error) just by the nature of truth and infallibility. While infallibility is much more common than many people realize, there still have been only two instances of papal infallibility in history.

>”Incidentally, not even the Catholic Church claims that the Pope is without sin. He is capable of mistakes just as we are (as you seem to admit).”

Oh, absolutely! Catholics have never claimed that the Pope is ever impeccable (without sin). Many non-Catholics confuse infallibility with impeccability. Its lovely to have a discussion with someone who knows the difference.

Christ instituted a Church for sinners, filled the Church with sinners, and put sinners in charge. How cool is that?

>”Which is why in the early church, we saw many church fathers – not one who was supervising them all. It was a system of checks and balances, with elders.”

While there was and is a system of checks and balances, with elders, there was one bishop supervising all the churches under that bishop from the earliest days of the NT church. Perhaps you are not familiar with the church fathers Clement, Ignatius, Basil, Gregory, and Cyril. All were bishops. (We can get into the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which was recently reaffirmed by the Orthodox bishops in Ravenna, but that’s a longer discussion for another day.)

>”In fact, if you were going to pick a papal authority figure, Paul would have been a likelier choice”

Yep, Paul would have made a both a great Bishop and Pope. Too bad he wasn’t called by God for that ministry. Paul's good friend Peter received the honor of being the first.

>”In what way? And please note that even if that is the case, it also shows that the Popes are prone to extreme error at times.”

In the way that none of them are or have ever been considered infallible Papal statements. Yes, they may be wonderful examples of Popes prone to error, if true. So what? Catholics have never claimed that Popes weren't prone to error. But, your examples have nothing to do with proving or disproving the doctrine of papal infallibility. While the worst, immoral men were serving as Pope, God preserved the church from doctrinal error.

>” Hon, read what I wrote above: You’re buying the classic Catholic dogma. Do some objective research. Only the SCRIPTURE is infallible.”

Only the SCRIPTURE is infallible seems to me a tradition of man. No where in the Bible does it ever claim to be infallible. I’d be curious as to what scriptural proof you have to back up your statement.

I’ll accept that the Bible is inerrant, but I don’t think the Bible, an inanimate object, is even capable of being infallible. Again infallibility is a protection against error. As the Bible is lacking any ability to act in error, infallibility seems an impossibility for the Bible.

Yes, I’m sticking with the Catholic dogma as I find it to be firmly grounded in scripture with no valid evidence to the contrary.

>” Timothy, don’t you see how silly this is? The Catholic Church should either make a stand or not make a stand. There should be no hair-splitting about what an affirmation entails. They should either believe something and stick to it (heresy or no) or they should simply say “we don’t know”. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying here(?)”

Yes, we may have gotten into a misunderstanding at this point. No, I don’t find any of this silly. Jesus was departing His Church knowing that Satan would be looking for opportunities to scatter His sheep. Jesus provided for His Church be ensuring an unending line of shepherds upon whom He granted the Holy Spirit, including the charisma of infallibility. I find nothing silly there.

There is no hair-splitting regarding what an affirmation entails. There is a very carefully defined system which is employed to ensure that error is not taught within the Church. As non-Catholics without a similar system it is often difficult for you to grasp how that system works and acts as checks and balances. We’re discussing papal infallibility, a small piece of that system. There have been two and only two infallible statements made by Popes. You have not mentioned either. I’m at a lack for understanding how you can argue against papal infallibility without knowing what statements made by Popes are recognized by Catholics as being infallible Papal statements. Non-Catholics don’t get to thumb through historical documents, choose any statement they desire, declare it an infallible statement by a Pope, declare it in error, and thus declare papal infallibility an error. That is known as a straw man argument, a classical fallacy.

>”You mistake an organization for a group of believers.”

A group of believers is an organization. We see in the NT how Paul sent Titus to Crete as bishop. Titus was then to appoint leaders of the individual faith communities. The early church had an ecclesiastical structure which is evident both in the NT and in the immediate Ante-Nicene period.

(I lived on Crete for several years and have worshipped at the ruins where Titus and Paul landed. All the churches on Crete are strangely Orthodox or Catholic, both with well developed ecclesiologies.)

I find it hard to believe that Jesus, who as God had foreknowledge of the future of His Church, made no provision for leadership and organization knowing there would be close to 2 billion Christians 2,000 years later. Nor did Jesus, knowing the future organization of the Catholic Church with over 1 billion members, speak against such organization. Consent by silence?

>”Again, you are so snowed by Catholic doctrine that you aren’t even aware of your historical facts. There were myriad groups. Some would be deemed heretical by both Catholics and Protestants today, others were very much of the same beliefs as modern Protestants are.”

Actually, no, I am not snowed by Catholic doctrine and am very much aware of historical facts. Yes, there were myriad groups, but there was only one unified, Catholic Church. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and disciple of John the Apostle, wrote about AD 107 to the Smyrnaeans:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans

But my favorite quote from an early Church father on false Christian churches would be this one By Cyril of Jerusalem::

"And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord's house is--for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord--nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all."
Cyril of Jerusalem

I have read "Trail of Blood" and there are a number of Christians, mostly Landmark Baptists, that believe in the remnant theory made popular by the book. However, a number of Baptist historiana have proven the Trail of Blood false. The best modern work is Baptist Successionism by James Edward McGoldrick.

>”Yes, Timothy, but only to a small extent. And, may I add, the Catholic Church very much has their own version of the Bible. You are rarely (if ever) encouraged to study scriptures OUTSIDE of that version, nor are you encouraged to look into the reasons why the Protestants have rejected portions of the Catholic Bible.”

Catholics have their own versions of the Bible because the Catholic Church so loves the Bible that it wishes to preserve Bible translations from error. Catholic Bibles are only Catholic because the Church has approved the translation. Recall that shortly after Guttenberg invented the printing press, publishers across Europe went crazy translating and printing Bibles with egregious errors in them.

Yes, Catholics are discouraged from reading erroneous translations of the Bible. For example, I doubt you would encourage Catholics to read the New World Translation by the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). Since the Catholic Church through its councils of bishops selected the books of the New Testament and created the canon of scripture, they have the authority to decide which are valid translations and which are not.

I have about a dozen hardback Bibles and several dozen more in digital format for use with e-Sword. My newest addition is a hardback Holman Christian Standard Bible. Back in my early twenties when I had my born again experience, I purchased and read the NIV. Late after midnight, I read the NIV cover to cover and found everything the Catholic Church teaches in the NIV. It’s all there. 100%.

>” Catholics hear more scripture in their Sunday service than most Protestants do. Don't believe that? Bring your Bible to a Sunday Mass and try and keep up!

But what Protestant churches have YOU been in? In the churches I’ve been in, a Bible is usually mandatory and we should ALL check scriptures as the speaker/pastor/priest uses them.”

I have attended Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, Episcopal, evangelical, Greek Orthodox, and Byzantine Catholic services. You also did not catch on to what I was saying here. You’re focusing on the homily/sermon because that’s the bulk of your service, but only a small part of ours. The Mass is non-stop scripture from its opening words from the Gospel of Matthew to its closing word from Revelation. More on this in a moment.

>”Paul tells us that we should!”

No, Paul does NOT tell us that we should search the scriptures while the pastor is speaking. That is a tradition of man. A nice tradition, but a tradition of man nonetheless. If you re-read about the Bereans, Paul preached in the synagogue and then afterwards the scriptures were searched. (Likely because there was only one set of scripture per synagogue. The congregation did not bring their own personal scrolls to the service in order to follow along.) Was the NT searched? No, the OT was searched. I can prove most Catholic doctrines using the OT alone like the Bereans, can you prove yours using the OT alone?

>”But I HAVE been to a couple Catholic services. To the best of my knowledge, the priest didn’t crack a Bible open once, and I saw no one in the (very large) church that did.”

First, there was a Bible as there is an OT reading, a psalm, a NT epistle or another OT reading, and a Gospel reading at every Sunday Catholic service. The second reading is ommitted at the daily weekday service. A person who attends Mass daily will hear nearly the entire Bible over a three-year cycle, which then repeats. In charity, your attendence was a while ago, a lot happens at the Mass, and human memory does interesting things as it ages.

Second, you may not have realized that much of the dialogue that you heard from both the priest and from the congregation was directly from scripture. Catholics have memorized much of the Bible and incorporated it into the Mass. For example, the Mass begins with everyone reciting “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” You may recognize that from the Great Commission in Matthew. Midway you’ll hear the congregation recite the Sanctus “Holy, Holy, Holy…” which is from Isaiah but also reoccurs in Revelation. Now, the priest could pause the Mass by saying “Let us pray the prayer that Jesus taught us. Everyone turn to the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6, verses 9 through 13. Has everyone found it?” Personally, I find the Mass goes smoother when everyone has memorized those portions of the Bible and can recite the scripture instantly.

Scott Hahn has an audio file where he describes his taking a Bible to a Catholic Mass and trying to follow along. It took him attending Mass numerous times before he was able to locate all the passages Catholics have memorized. From the Catholic viewpoint, it’s interesting to listen to how this Protestant preacher followed the Mass with his Bible daily over a 2-3 week period. You find his Real Audio file describing the events here:

Scott Hahn - The Lamb's Supper

>” I would recommend you begin to study the history of the Catholic Church from sources outside the Catholic Church. Hey – if the CC is 100% correct, they have nothing to worry about, right?”

Absolutely. I have listened to and read materials from James White, Richard Bennett, Ken Silva, Jack Chick and others who are rabidly anti-Catholic. I have read Calvin’s Institutes, the Methodist Primer, Book of Mormon, the Koran, and several histories of the Baptist denominations and more. On a daily basis I frequent Anglican, Baptist, and evangelical Christian blogs. I’ve been doing this for years. No worries. The more I read, listen, and study the more I am convinced that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be. The pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

>”Oh Timothy, Timothy! Surely you are blushing about this lame attempt to defend such error.”

Nope. I’m a big fan of Galileo and have been to his tomb in Florence. I’ve been an amateur astronomer for years and took astronomy in college. Generally, when Galileo gets brought up folks think they know what the Galileo controversy was about, but actually know the myths and misconceptions. The controversy with Galileo had more to do with his disobediance versus his science. I believe that non-Catholic refer to that as church discipline. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim the Church should have accepted and taught Galileo’s ideas as truth without any proof and without any way of proving the science until the late 1800’s. Also, keep in mind that the Catholic Church developed the scientific method and the rules of evidence. All truth, even math and science, is from God and leads us closer to God.

>The Lazy Iguana said... ” The only reason you can read this, the only reason there are computers and the internet - is because people had the courage to stand up to the church and refute things the church was teaching that was false.”

Ok, I’ll bite. Prove it. Prove to me that unless people stood up to the church that there would not be computers and the Internet. Sounds like hyperbole to me.

>The Lazy Iguana said... ”…we would all still be living in the mud and filth of the stone age.”

Ok, this is definitely hyperbole, as we were well into the Iron Age when Christ and the Apostles walked the earth.


God bless....

+Timothy

Source: Reformation in the Catholic Church

Apologetics - Perpetual Virginity of Mary

One of the reasons, there aren't daily updates to the CAS blog is that I devote considerable time responding to apologetic errors on other blogs. This morning, I discovered a well meaning Christian, who obviously spends much time dwelling in and on the Word, posting against the Christian doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Yes, I said Christian. The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a universal Christian doctrine dating back to the earliest days of the Church. It is not uniquely Roman Catholic.

Our earnest brother (or sister) in Christ says "...we gather that Jesus had at least four brothers and some sisters from Mary, his mother! Mary was not a perpetual virgin." Our brother bases his arguement on Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3.

”Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”
Matthew 13:55

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?”
Mark 6:3

Of these passages, our brother says; "The context alone provides plain evidence that Christ had actual blood brothers and sisters. The Catholic Church, however, denies the context." Does the Catholic Church deny that context? Absolutely! Not just the Catholic Church at Rome, but all the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

Does any other Christian Church deny the context? Why yes, thank you for asking. All of the Orthodox Churches also deny the context and hold the Christian doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Did any of the Reformers deny the context and hold the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Yes, all of them did.

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary: "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.(Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity: "Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned." {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

Ulrich Zwingli wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

John Wesley wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity: "The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." (Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic, 1749)

Why do most of the world's Christians still continue to hold and teach the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Because denial of the doctrine pulls the rug out from beneath the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Islamic apologists, atheists, and cultists see the denial of Mary's perpetual virginity as the gateway to disproving the divinity of Christ. They argue, if Mary had seven children and these six are human, then the seventh is human as well. Therefore, Christianity is a sham as it is built on a lie. God is one and there is no Trinity. Allah Ahkbar!

The denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary was a heresy made popular by Helvidius during the early Christian Church. My favorite reply to Helvidius was made by the one man who surely knew the true context of Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Jerome. Yes, the very same Jerome who translated the Bible from Greek and knew the meaning of adelphos. Jerome's Against Helvidius is the classic apologetic for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Its a shame that more Christians have not read it. Our brother doesn't even mention Jerome in his apologetic for the heresy.

However, Jerome was not alone and apologies were written by: Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); and Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444).

So how do we as modern day Christians follow Jerome, the early Church fathers, and the Reformers in responding to those mis-informed brothers and sisters (adelphos) that have rediscovered the error of Helvidius and now embrace a dangerous heresy? Bible believing Christians, knowing the inerrency of scripture, should respond with charity and kindness by focusing on these main points:

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary. Only Jesus is said to be the son of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Our brother in Christ stated "In the Greek text, the word “brother” is adelphos, which literally means “from the womb,” indicating these are Christ’s brothers from His mother." But how is adelphos actually used in scripture?

In the Bible, the word adelphos is used for:
(1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2);
(2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23);
(3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19);
(4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17);
(5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29);
(6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47);
(7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9);
(8) mankind (Mt 25:40);
(9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and
(10) believers (Mt 23:8).
(From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

Third, a strong proof text against the Helvidian Heresy is John 19:26-27.

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
John 19:26-27

Jesus, the perfect Jewish son and fulfiller of the Law of Moses, would not have violated Jewish law by giving his mother over to the care of John if Mary had any other children. Our brother may have overlooked John 19:26-27 or not connected the passage with Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 since they are all in different books.

Many modern Christians in their zeal to disprove Catholicism are embracing dangerous heresies that our early Church fathers fought hard to extinguish. Christians must be careful to learn the history of Christianity and what doctrines have always been held by Christians. There are numerous collections of non-canonical writings by the earliest Christians available to us. I often use the Christian Classics Ethereal library collection. If you have not discovered this treasure of ante-Nicene Bible commentaries and "Sunday school" lessons, I encourage you to visit and read.

Source: Was Mary A Perpetual Virgin?

Saint Patrick a Baptist! Not!

One bit of fiction that makes it way across the Internet this time of year is "St. Patrick A Baptist!" by Dr. L. K. Landis. Dr. Landis, for whatever reason, wants to convert Saint Patrick from Catholic to Baptist post-mortem. Several Baptist church sites and bloggers have discovered Dr. Landis' fictional account of Saint Patrick and have posted it to their sites without any concern for historical accuracy. How any true Baptist could believe that Saint Patrick was a Baptist is almost beyond explanation. I suspect the believers are Landmark Baptists, who still believe the long discredited Trail of Blood is an accurate account of Baptist history.

So, on behalf of all the Catholics and Baptists who know the truth regarding Saint Patrick, I offer this meager apologetic against Saint Patrick being a Baptist.

"Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers - ... in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant"

All of Patrick's writings consist of just two surviving documents. Not only do they not record baptising infants, they also do not record baptising only professed believers. They do record baptised individuals being confirmed and annointed with chrism, both clearly Baptist distinctives, are they not?

"Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only - This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today."

First, nothing in either of the two surviving works by Patrick mentions baptism by immersion. Second, Catholics have also baptised by immersion since the days of the apostles. Read the Didache or Cyril of Jerusalem. Catholics are filling the immersion pool at the Catholic Church I attend for the adult believer baptisms at the Easter Vigil Mass. Perhaps they too are Baptists?

"Number Three: In Church Government, St. Patrick Was A Baptist - Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops,"

These would be Baptist bishops?

"Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc. - Patrick never attended one council..."

Only one church council was held during Patrick's lifetime and it was at Chalcedon. Perhaps British Rail was on strike and prevented Patrick's attendance?

"Number Five: In Doctrine - In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system."

In all two of his writings this is largely correct, except for Patrick's mention of Catholic distinctives like confirmation, chrism, monks and nuns, purgatory, etc.

"Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord's Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist - From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance."

No, we don't, as this subject is not discussed in either surviving document. We do know from his Confession that Patrick had an altar and that communion tables are not mentioned.

"Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation - Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ's body and Christ's blood."

That's also false as neither the Eucharist nor transubstantiation are discussed in either of Patrick's two surviving documents. Also the elements of the Eucharist being only "pictures" is an unbiblical belief per Isaiah 55:11 and Genesis 1:3. That said, I will heartedly agree with any and all Baptists who wish to claim that their communion is a picture or symbol.

"Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities - St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches."

The Baptist sect didn't exist until around 1600. There were no Baptist churches in existence during Patrick's lifetime. No credible Baptist historian makes that claim. I recommend Baptist Successionism by James Edward McGoldrick. McGoldrick, a professor of history at Cedarville College, was swept up by "Trail of Blood" as an undergraduate but in his later investigations into Baptist history discovered them to be historically untenable.

"It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced.

I'm sure Dr. Landis was firmly convicted, but the author's evidence is not sufficient and does not bear up to scrutiny. Baptists have many things in their short history to be proud of, but Patrick of Ireland is not one of them.

I would encourage everyone to read Patricks surviving writings for themselves:

Confession

The Letter to Corotocus

Source: St. Patrick A Baptist!

Ordination Prayer for Women Deacons Differs

Finalmente! At long last, I have had the "Ah ha!" moment and can now explain and prove the difference in male and female deacons from the early Church. The answer lies within the two different prayers found within the existing Orthodox faith. God bless the poster on the troparion to Saint Phoebe the Deaconess on the Peter Akinola blog and for commenter 7 for pointing to anastasis.org.uk .

ORDER FOR THE ORDINATION OF A WOMAN DEACON

Holy and All-powerful God, through the birth in flesh of your Only-begotten Son and our God from a Virgin you sanctified woman, and granted not only to men but also to women the grace and visitation of the Holy Spirit. Now, Master, look upon this servant of yours also, call her to the work of your service and send down upon her the rich gift of your Holy Spirit. Guard her in your Orthodox faith in a blameless way of life in accordance with what is well pleasing to you, as she fulfils her ministry at every moment.

ORDER FOR THE ORDINATION OF A DEACON

Lord, our God, by your foreknowledge you send down the gift of your Holy Spirit upon those who are appointed by your inscrutable power to become ministers and to assist in the service of your most pure Mysteries.

Did you spot the difference? Only the male deacon is ordained to minister and to assist in the Eucharist (pure Mysteries). Female deacons are ordained to the work of service, which does NOT include the Eucharist. This difference in ordination prayers aligns the two groups of deacons perfectly with the historic position of deacons within the Church. The work of service for female deacons consisted largely of assisting female converts during baptism. (Early Christians were naked during baptism, just like modern day Copts are naked during baptism.)

The Roman Catholic Womenpriests have devoted considerable space to providing the ordination rite for Deaconesses and to their comparison to the ordination of male deacons. On first glance, the presence of an ordination rite for women deacons and a comparison chart showing "identical" rites seems to be prima facia evidence for the sacramental ordination of women deacons. Except, the writer of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests text omitted mentioning that the ordination prayers are distinctly and sacramentally different between male and female deacons. This omission may be either accidental or deliberate. We'll have to take the more charitable stance and assume that this was accidental. If accidental, then the comparison table will eventually be corrected to mention the difference in ordination prayeer.

So, it doesn't matter one iota that an ordination rite exists or how similar the two ordinations rites are or even how many icons of Phoebe depict her wearing a deacons stole, there was and still is a major difference in the ordination rites of male and female deacons.

Source: ORDER FOR THE ORDINATION OF A WOMAN DEACON

Flowcharting the Apostles

Every now and then, one runs across a very clever idea amongst the millions of blogs. Bob Stanley, who seems to have a programming background, has cleverly applied flowcharting software to evangelization. Bob has created a series of flowcharts that aid in teaching the many truths of our Lord's Church.

One such flowchart is Bob's flowchart showing what happened to all of the Apostles and where their remains are located today. Earlier in the year, I had visited a pizza lunch at our local Baptist Studuent Union. One of the young men was very versed in soterology, but was lacking in church history. When I was telling him about Andrew planting the Church at Byzantium and how the Church at Antioch is still present today as the Melkite Catholic Church, he was enthralled. If I had Bob's flowchart of the Apostles, my explanation might have been clearer and I would have been able to leave something with the young man to guide him in his studies.

I am a big fan of mind mapping and Bob has inspired me to create some evangelization mind maps. I'll probably recreate Bob's flowchart as a mind map and include where the Apostles evangelized and which Churchs the Apostles each planted. Did you know Thomas made his way east and into southern India? That's why we need tools like Bob's evangelization flowcharts.

Source: Evangelization Flowcharts

Bad Apologetics - False Traditions Quiz

While surfing Google's Blogsearch, I ran across a Christian Apologetics site that has a goodly number of online quizes. I decided to take the False Traditions Quiz and see what that was all about. The quiz itself is an overly long series of true-false questions with a single scripture verse cited to back up the quiz's 'correct' answer.

Question 1 asked about the road being wide and including a billion people. Well, we already know that because the road is narrow, it doesn't matter about the billion people. The answer is false. However, the answer is false because of the statement before the 'and' about the road. Jesus died for all men, so there could quite easily be a billion or more people saved, especially when the current world population of Christians is about 2 billion. Matthew 7:13-14 is a good verse.

Question 2 asked if the head bishop is infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals. First, why not be direct and ask about the Pope as that is the only bishop in the world with a claim of infallibility. The head bishop of a Baptist church does not claim the charisma of infallibility and will quickly say so. So after answering true, the quiz says 'false' and quotes Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one". Well, amen brother! I agree 100%. There is none righteous. But, what has this to do with the charisma of infallibility? Our quiz writer seems to have confused impeccability with infallibility. A common error, even among Catholics. The correct verse to cite would be John 16:12 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth". Anyone being guided by the Spirit into all truth is by definition infallible, be they a pope, bishop, deacon, elder, or child. No other outcome is possible.

Question 3 asked if a church can forgive sins. The answer is clearly false because at no time did Christ ever delegate His authority to forgive sins to a Church, but to select men. The answer was false and cites Mark 2:7 "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" That's a better match than the previous Romans 3:10, but a better verse would have been John 20:22-23 "And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"

Question 4 asked if we must confess our sins to a priest or pastor. As this is an "or" question only one half need be true. The correct answer is true because a priest has Christ's authority to forgive sins per John 20:22-23, while most pastors do not. The quiz says false and cites Psalm 32:5 " will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah." That's interesting that the quiz writer selected from the Jewish old covenant scriptures and not the Christian new covenant scriptures. While John 20:22-23 would be a better verse, I'd likely go with James 5:15 "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." Amen, brother James. Amen! We so need to confess our sins to a fellow Christian and be prayed for by a righteous man.

Question 5 asks if celibacy is a requirement for church leadership. The quiz says false and cites 1 Timothy 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" The quiz writer seems to equate 1 Timothy 3:2 with a requirement for church leadership to be married versus Paul intent of not having bishops engage in polygamy. A better verse is Matt. 19:11–12 where Jesus teaches "...they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it".

Question 6 asked if Peter was married. Well, he had a mother-in-law and that's hard to do without first being married. This questions begs the question "What tradition teaches that Peter was never married?" I'm not aware of any Christian sect that holds that teaching. If this is some sort of attempt at disproving Peter was never Pope then its a poor one. Any baptized Catholic male may be elected Pope, marriage is no barrier. Peter more than qualified.

Question 7 asks if a priest can turn bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Well that's an outright false. Of course a priest can't; that's the work of God in the person of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who has ever attended a Catholic mass knows well that the priests says "And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist." Its also interesting the quiz cited Luke 22:19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." (Its that whole Isaiah 55:11, Genesis 1:3, Luke 22:19 thing. God holds a piece of bread and God's words "This is my body" bounces of the bread and returns to Gods ears.) Apparently, the quiz writer seems to feel that Luke 22:19 makes something impossible for God and we know that ain't so.

I could go on with every question, but it gets tedious and makes for a very long post. Some questions and verses a good, some are clearly erroneous. The series of questions on Mary at the end are allegedly false, but the answers seem based more on the quiz writers perception of truth versus what actually is true. Most of the cited versus are poor responses. Unfortunately, if you'd like to see this part of the quiz, you have to slog through everything before.

Bottom line, the quiz is too long and a poor apologetic tool for its intended audience. At the conclusion of the quiz, the reader is not taken back for additional quizes or directed to any apologetics material, but strangely directed to links for commercial products. The site seems to be using the Scriptures and our Lord's Church for making a quick buck, much like the reknown temple money changers. Apparently, by including Christian apologetics materials that makes everything A-OK. What say you?

Source: False Traditions Quiz

Rick Perry Misquotes Jesus?

Being the current host of a very nasty "cold" virus, I've had the opportunity to take life much slower. While channel surfing, I came across Rick Perry doing a very good job of explaining the Exodus. Rick was explaining the use of hyssop to mark the door posts and noted the correlation to the hyssop used when Jesus was crucified. Rick has clearly done his homework. Imagine my surprise when, just moments later, Rick says that Jesus said the bread "represents" my body. That was the exact verb used. Represents.

Well, I was dumb founded. How could this man who has done all this careful research make such a glaring mistake? The verb that the gospel writers used and which appears in the Greek, Latin, and English language translations is the verb "to be" (is). Also, the words of Christ at the Last Supper are not some obscure, easily overlooked passage. The words of Christ during the Last Supper are recorded in three of four Gospels:

Matthew 26:26
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this IS my body."

Mark 14:22
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this IS my body.

Luke 22:19
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This IS my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

The only Bible translation I know of that differs in these passages is the New World Translation published by the Jehovah Witnesses which say "means". Rick doesn't strike me as a NWT kind of guy.

No. I'm going to have to assume that in the heat of the moment, Rick made a Freudian slip and accidentally recited his personal interpretation of scripture instead of the actual recorded words of Jesus in the Gospel. Its easy to do. Long presentation. Lots of facts. Hot lights. Fatigue. Yeah, that's probably what happened.

So, if you happen to catch Rick's engaging program on the Exodus and you see him striking a door post with hyssop, get ready and listen closely...

Protestants Joining Catholics in Confession Comeback

Who knew that the ancient Christian practice of confession was making a comeback in a big way? While running a routine bookmarked Google Blogsearch, I discovered this short post, which led to this larger post by a Lutheran pastor, which led to this WSJ article. That's how blogs should work. One should be led from a statement of fact, to a source, and then to other sources.

What originally, caught my attention was the fact that earlier this past summer, 2.5 million Lutherans decided to revive the ancient Christian practice of confession. It seems that, for the last 100 years, no one in this particular denomination of Lutherans had been practicing confession to a priest. In the cited Lutheran example, the pastor wears vestments, stands near the altar, and penitents kneel and confess their sins.

Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.
James 5:15

Now, while the Lutheran revival of confession may be mind blowing to me and some of you good folks, what really toasted my grey matter was the Wall Street Journal article that the good Father Eckardt cited at the bottom of his post. The revival of confession wasn't limited to the 2.5 million Lutherans. Oh, no. God seems to have initiated a confessional renaissance of the entire Christian church. Even evangelicals are practicing confession! Who knew?

Some evangelicals don't need any prompting. Joshua Wilshusen, 29, a respiratory care student from Lomita, Calif., started meeting two other Christian men for a weekly group confession two years ago. They gather at a park or coffee shop to ask questions such as "Have you coveted this week?" "Have you been sexually pure?" "Have you just lied to me?" Confessing helps him resist temptations. "There've been times when a sin has hurt me all week, when I've lusted after a woman or lost my temper at work, and then I confess it and the peace is restored."

Confession is one of the oldest Christian practices and historical documentation of the practice dates back to about 70AD where it is mentioned in the Didache:

"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure"
Didache 4:14, 14:1

Around the same time, we find the ancient Christian practice of confessing confirmed in the Acts of the Apostles:

Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.
Acts 19:18

The early fathers of the Christian church were not silent regarding confession. Origen in his homilies on Leviticus states:

"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity"
Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 2:4

I am particularly fond of this quote by Basil the Great from around 288AD:

It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles"
Basil the Great, Rules Briefly Treated

About a decade later John Chrysostom would write:

"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven"
John Chrysostom, The Priesthood 3:5

Remember...

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness"
1 John 1:9

However, if I am to confess my sins to another, I want it to be to another who has this authority from Jesus:

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
John 20:21-23

Source: WSJ - Confession Makes a Comeback

Comparing Islam and Christianity

A few evenings back, while surfing through some bookmarked blog searches, I chanced upon a post by an Islamic apologist that compared the similarities and differences between Islam and Christianity in tabular form. I have long wanted to do something like this, but since it now exists, I am content to reference the information on the other site.

I complimented the Islamic apologist on their effort as there are often differing, even opposing, doctrines held by various Christian denominations. All in all I thought our Islamic friend came closest. I did point out few errors on the Christian side, particularly some of those regarding the Catholic doctrine of purgatory (final purification) which were cited.

I also pointed out that early Christians regarded Islam as a Christian heresy, which would explain both the similarities and the diferences. I also provided a link to John of Damascus' treatise On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites in case they were unfamiliar with it.

And there is also the up until now strong and people-deceiving superstition of the Ishmaelites, being the forerunner of Antichrist. And it is born from Ishmael, who was born from Hagar to Abraham, from which they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, as from Σαρρας κενοι (those empty of Sarah), because of what was said by Hagar to the angel: “Sarah has sent me away empty.” So then, these were idolaters and reverenced the morning star and Aphrodite, who they indeed named Khabar in their own language, which means great. Therefore, until the time of Heraclius, they were plainly idolaters. From that time and until now came up among them a false prophet called Mamed, who, having encountered the Old and New Testament, as it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, he put together his own heresy. And under the pretext of seeming pious, attracting (?) people, he reported that a book was sent down to him from heaven by God. Therefore some of the compositions written by him in a book, worthy of laughter, which he handed down to them as an object of reverence.

One aspect of Islam I had never heard is that OT prophets are considered infallible in Islam. In light of that, I asked "how does Islam fulfill the infallible prophecy of Malachi in Malachi 1:11?" This is a difficult enough prophecy for those Christian groups which do not use incense in their worship.

For those of you clicking through, please be charitable. Don't forget to remember the truths that Islam got right. All truth is of God, even truth found in sources we may personally dislike.

Source: CHRISTIANITY & ISLAM - Similarities And Diffrences

Jehovah's Witnesses Update

Well, as of today, there has been no further contact with our local JW missionaries. Their materials are by the kitchen door, so that I may return them and save the missionaries some expense. Charity in all things.

All in all, it has been a good exercise in apologetics. I learned more about a denomination I may have further opportunity to interact with and am in a better position to answer questions by fellow Christians, including the college students I see weekly at the campus ministry.

I will have to watch for a NWT Bible when I'm about thrift store and library book sales. If I can find a Greek interlinear NWT for my library, that would be awesome.

God bless all of you who have been visting and commenting, including the JW visitors.

Experiences with the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

In preparation for our upcoming visit with one or more Jehovah Witnesses this next week, I spent some time this morning doing research. I discovered that the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the only JW authorized version of the Bible is available online. While lacking a keyword search feature, there is a nice interface that allows one to select the book, chapter, and verse to aid browsing. I set about verifying several favorite passages that I find useful in evangelical and apologetic moments.

Isaiah 55:11 - The NWT says essentially the same thing as most versions of Isaiah.

Malachi 1:11 - Again, the NWT is essentially the same, except "smoke" is used instead of "incense". This is a good finding as this prophecy of Jehovah through Malachi should prove troublesome when our JWs claim that their church is the true church. I'd like to hear their explanation regarding the daily offerings of smoke and a pure offering in all nations. To date, few Christian denominations match the prophecy of Malachi.

Matthew 16:18-19 - "Rock-mass" instead of just "rock". Jesus' quote from Isaiah 22:22 is unchanged. Ok. How do the JWs interpret Jesus re-establishing the Davidic office of Eliakim and giving Peter the keys of Jesus' authority?

Matthew 24:23-28 - Oddly, this reads fairly normally which is a surprise as JWs teach or taught about an invisible second coming of Jesus in 1914. I'll be curious to hear their explanation in light of this prophecy of a very visible second coming of Jesus.

Matthew 26:26 - "TAKE, eat. This means my body." Ah, quite of bit of difference between "is" and "means", especially when the underlying Greek verb is a form of "to be" (is). In fact, the verb here is used throughout the Bread of Life discourse above and always translated "is". Looking forward to discussing this passage.

Matthew 26:28 - "...for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’..." Same error. "Means" instead of "is".

Luke 1:28 - Well... "Good day, highly favored one, Jehovah is with you." sounds a bit Aussie. At least it wasn't deleted. Te use of "highly favored one" should allow for discussion of the underlying Greek word and Jerome's "gratia plena" in the Vulgate.

Luke 1:42-43 - Luke 1:42 is unchanged and I was glad to find "the mother of my Lord" in Luke 1:43. JWs reject the ancient doctrine of Theotokos (mother of God) due to rejecting the divinity of Jesus. If we can prove the divinity of Jesus, Luke 1:43 should help with proving the doctrine of the Theotokos.

Luke 1:48 - "...all generations will pronounce me happy;" "Happy" instead of "blessed". Even the most rabid anti-Catholics and their Bibles translate the underlying Greek as "blessed". I'll be curious to hear why the JWs and the NWT went with "happy" considering Jerome used beatum (blessed) at this point.

John 6:35ff - The Bread of Life discourse is a fairly true translation. I suppose that since JWs reject the divinity of Jesus, this passage was not seen as against JW doctrine. I discovered minutes later that this will be an important section when discussing the Lord's Supper as the underlying Greek is also found in this section as well.

Acts 20:7 - "... On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal." Normally, this verse describes the Apostles meeting weekly on Sunday for the "breaking of the bread" or Lord's Supper, as opposed to the JWs annual memorial. The underlying Greek clearly includes a verb meaning "to break" and the noun for "bread". I understand that the JWs have a Greek-English Interlinear, so I would be interested to see what they have for the underlying Greek here. Unfortunately, their interlinear is not online.

1 Timothy 3:15 - "... a pillar and support of the truth." The Greek article tho is translated as "a" and not "the". Again why?

James 5:16 - "Therefore openly confess YOUR sins to one another..." No where in my reading the JW literature did I come across a doctrine on confession. Would like to hear an explanation of this verse and how this instruction is kept.

Revelation 12:1 - Curious as to who JWs think this woman is. As a follow-up, I also like to hear abut the crown she is wearing.

I actually looked up several more passages, but you get the idea by now. The NWT has numerous significant errors in translation which change meanings of several passages entirely. I'll have some questions for our missionaries in regards to who translated what, by what authority, and with what credentials or academic background. You might also do a little cross checking yourself using the NWT against your favorite translation. Please share your findings an comments.

Source: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Jehovah's Witnesses Visit

Well, it seems that, while I was napping this weekend, some Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) came by. The last time we had a visit by JWs was about 20 years ago in Northern Italy. Two sweet little old Italian ladies, holding Italian translations of The Watch Tower, were very surprised to have the door of an apartment in a little rural Italian town answered by English-only Americans. A week or so later we came home to find some materials in English at our door.

The wife was busy so the JWs left a copy of Awake!, The Watch Tower, and a small booklet, What does the Bible Really Teach?. Someone is supposed to return mid-week to meet with us. I really am wanting to meet these folks. What Christian evangelist wouldn't?

Looking over Awake!, the issue focused on families and had nothing really objectionable in it. It appeared to be like any other magazine by any of hundreds of Christian denominations. I even did well on the Bible quiz at the end.

The edition of Watch Tower was fairly mundane and a bit of a disapointment for me as this publication usually includes JW polemics against one or more Christian and/or Catholic doctrines. This issue focused mostly on earthquakes and the end times spoken of in Daniel and Revelation. The only thing remarkable was a brief item noting that for Pope Benedict's visit to Germany the Catholic Church licensed a vendor for official memorabilia (rosaries, t-shirts, etc.) There was a brief mention of Jesus clearing the Temple with the insinuation that the souvenier sales by secular entities was somewhat equivalent. For those not familiar with the JW faith, JWs oppose any religious item, including plain crosses.

What interested me most was the booklet. Having recently read The Methodist Primer and learning much about Methodism, I was very much interested to get my hands on an official JW source for JW doctrine. The booklet is copyright 2005 and this copy was printed in 2006. All quotes are from the New World Translation of the Bible, although which version is not stated. I assume 1961.

The booklet is cleverly writen to appeal to Reformation Christians. It carefully avoids revealing basic JW doctrines like the non-divinity of Christ, disbeleief in the Trinity, annihilation of the soul, or that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Apologetics for some of the more well known JW traditions, such as refusal of blood transfusions appear in the final chapters.

I dunno, but it seems to me, that with a belief in one God and a denial of the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity, JWs have much in common with Islam, the Heresy of the Ishmaelites.

I put together a briefing folder with some apologetics tracts on JWs for my wife to read and prepare for our meeting. I may also print up a few tracts to hand to our visitors. Being a member of the PJPII Society of Evangelists, there is a wealth of free apologetics pamphlets available for download and printing on the society web site.

Watch for a follow up post on how things went.

Apology for the Early Church Fathers

Every now and then one stumbles across a pearl among the blogosphere. A rare moment of serendipity. Such was a moment last last night. While performing a search for "Didache" I found "Apologia for the Fathers" by the blogger Seraphim.

Apologia for the Fathers makes the case that the Fathers of the early Christian Church were not early apostates, as is a popular depiction among many scripture alone Christians, but were instead recipients and faithful transmittters of Apostolic teaching and practices. In at least one case, one of the Church fathers was in actuality a disciple of Christ, the Lord God Himself.

Those seeking a concise and well written defense of the Fathers, or are open minded enough to consider the possibility that the Fathers were not apostates, should click through and read what Seraphim has written for us. Here's a taste:

... Who, then, will presume to discredit the witness for which they paid so dearly in blood, and to contend contemptuously against their teaching? When Ignatius tells us that the Eucharist is in truth the Body and Blood of our Lord, and that this is the true apostolic teaching, can you testify against him with any authority? When Clement describes a monarchic episcopal ecclesiology in his Epistle to the Romans, how can you propound your doctrine against his without calling him either a liar or a fool, by extension maligning his teachers, who are the very Apostles who wrote the Scripture which you twist to be in harmony with your own preconceptions? ...

So, while Ignatius of Antioch's words on the Eucharist and Christ's Real Presence in the consecrated bread and wine is a tough doctrine for many Christians, we have the testimony of a man who was a disciple of Jesus, during our Lord's walk upon the Earth, and who was martyred for his faith. We would do well to head Seraphim's words:

... For the truly faithful, for those who truly believe in His promises, there must be a reckoning, must be a comparison of doctrine, not measuring the Fathers against one’s own standard, but measuring one’s own self against the Spirit-fortified testimony of the Church. ...

Source: Apologia for the Fathers

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

Who wrote this? Pope Benedict? Hardly. While long thought to be a Catholic doctrine due to its repetition throught out the ages by 4th Latern Council, the Papal Bull Unum Sanctum and most recently by Pope Benedict XVI, the origins of this doctrine are much, much earlier and are surprisingly Christian.

Scripturally, this ancient Christian doctrine is based on John 15 and the metaphor of the vine and the branches. Recall that from the earliest days the Church was beset with imitators trying to cash in on the Christian movement in an attempt to make a fast shekel. The first centuries of the Church would see the introduction of dozens of attractive heresies which lured many Christians far from the faith of the Apostles. The early Church wrote often on the unity of the Church and the need to remain in the one true Church handed on from the Apostles.

Today, few Christians outside the ancient Churches have bothered to read the early Church fathers. For if they had, they would have found among them these doctrinal statements:

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons"

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians [A.D. 110]

"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace".

Irenaeus, Against Heresies [A.D. 189]

"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved"; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death".

Origen, Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church"

Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 61 [A.D. 253]

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church"

Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 61 [A.D. 253]

"[O]utside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism".

Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise on Rebaptism [A.D. 256]

So, if your church does not hold and teach this ancient Christian doctrine, why not?


Source: Salvation Outside the Church